|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:13 am
 |
|
|
|
Quote: From this standpoint, the struggle against opportunism-the political and ideological retreat in the fight to extinguish every form of private or group ownership of the means of production- acquires decisive significance as well as the abolition of other social divisions (intellectual-manual labour etc).
I take it they are not fond of the NEP then, which served to strengthen 'private or group ownership of the means of production'?
If so... adventurists.
Quote: History confirms that the ideological justification of certain necessary for a period differentiations e.g. extra benefits for managerial work, leads to the political strengthening of these differences. It makes possible the acquisition of a larger share of the social product, violation of the relation “to each according to work”, which, even if it is not immediately transformed into capital, leads to the detaching of the managerial layer from the general social interest, it develops into a social force alien towards socialist construction and development.
This is ok in as far as it goes, but could go either to the perspective of 'state capitalism' or some other 'bureaucratic collectivist' nonsense or could go toward a decent understanding of the bureaucracy.
Quote: We can see then that the position concerning the role of opportunism and the assessment of its dominance in the CPSU with the turning point being the 20th congress (1956) is not an idealistic interpretation of developments, because the rise of opportunism is understood as a reflection of social trends, internal and international.
I find it interesting that this is all they say on the subject, that they don't say WHY this was a turning point or anything like that. Just that it was...
However, I would like to know what they mean by 'opportunism' and ''turning point.' do they mean that there was massive opportunism prior to this under Stalin, but that it was only then that the line of no return was crossed? If this is the correct interpretation of their position, do they then think that the SU was 'social imperialist' after this, or 'state capitalist' or even something akin to the Trotskyist conception of a degenerated workers' state?
Quote: We consider that these conclusions, from our analysis of the society of the USSR, based on the relationship between the economy and politics, form the necessary basis for further specialised research into the superstructure, such as the party, legislation, the institutions of the organisation of working class state power and the alliance with the self-employed and peasantry.
'alliance with the self-employed'? What the ******** class="quote">Quote: The recognition of the theoretical principles of the works of Lenin, and even of Stalin, should not be confused with political positions which were put forward in a certain period, which concerned political questions of that specific period.
So does this mean they reject socialism in one country as having any validity in Leninism, and being a purely Stalinist invention in late 1924?
Quote: This assessment concludes that in the USSR the transitional phase had not been completed, that socialism was still at a very early stage. On this basis the possibility for the restoration of capitalist relations is explained. In the CC’s opinion, this approach underestimates the role of the subjective factor in socialist construction and development, it tends to support the spontaneous withering away of forms of private-cooperative ownership, finance-commodity relations, and it downplays the character of social-ownership on the basis of existing problems in the “mediation” between producers.
The CC's opinion is hella wrong.
Quote: In this phase, the lack of enough “civilisation” for the immediate passage to socialism was mentioned, even if the political conditions existed.
The lack of civilization had nothing to do with their reasons, but to do with the low level of development prior to the war and the cfact that, quiet simply, Russia was not civilized and did not have a strong modern culture.
Quote: Lenin mainly had to face the problems of the political struggle for power, i.e. the transitional period for the establishment of revolutionary state power and the creation of the socialist base. In practice, he did not have to face social phenomena and contradictions between socialist ownership and forms of private-group ownership.
HOHOHOHOHO!
That was funnay.
These friends of yours are teh funnayz, Gal.
lrn2LeninCollectedWorks
Quote: Thirdly: the doubting of the existence of the socialist base, in certain instances, attempts to distinguish between the nationalisation of the concentrated means of production on the one hand, and socialisation on the other, by claiming that, socialization requires the full development of workers’ control and the abolition of the distinction between managerial and non-managerial labour. Of course, we take into consideration the time lag between legislated and real socialisation. We consider, however, that real socialisation occurs when the concentrated means of production are no longer privately-owned, and have been incorporated into the central plan and workers’ control, even if this is not fully developed.
lrn2MarxEngelsCollectedWorks
I really can't be ******** going through this thing to make silly snipes at it. suffice to say that, yes, it is thoroughly stalinoid and yes, disregards the basics of marxism on numerous occasions so far.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
