babyhueypnewton posted:

that was pretty good, very professionally done and easy to listen to. im not a huge fan of the political line taken though. it's fascinating to see how Mao's criticism of Khrushchev's very real capitulations to the west ended up full circle with Mao becoming the thing he hated, and it's clear the mistaken analysis of the CCP about "social-imperialism" (which fits no definition Lenin ever gave) helped the restoration of capitalism.

but the speaker is very careful to avoid actually talking about ideology of revisionism since the PSL's position is that broad anti-imperialism is the paramount need of all communists and the Sino-Soviet ideological split, in its ends, destroyed both countries. this is the correct position to take today, particularly in the first world. but it wasn't the correct position in Albania, where Tito's revisionism threatened the survival of the last Marxist-Leninist state in Warsaw Pact, and it wasn't the correct position in cultural revolution era China, where the desire to build a new, higher stage of socialism took revisionism as its primary target. if we don't differentiate between revisionist states and reactionary states, and defend Maoism as the legacy of the cultural revolution beyond Mao, we're making the opposite mistake of trots who assume all socialism is Stalinism=bad and instead saying all socialism is Stalinism=good.

babyhueypnewton posted:

im not sure what's being argued anymore but im not sure I agree. what's wrong with maoism other than the people who are attracted to it?

the problem with 'maoism' is its essentially a formation tied to western anti-revisionist groups (read the US section here: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/erol.htm) which tried to explain the sinosoviet split in terms of 'a new stage of marxism' even though the CCP is a Marxist-Leninist Party and Mao has always actually called himself a Marxist-Leninist, and not a "Maoist" (though there were of course attempts at some separate new 'Mao Tse-Tung Thought' which centered around a Three Worlds Theory which was ill-advised and has been completely dropped, sharing only faint similarity with the modern conception of a 'first and third world'). now, there are attempts at creating a MLM in the west to raise the specific conditions of People's War to a universal, generalized claim.

this goes partially toward explaining why it also attracts ridiculous weirdos (who don't seem to do much reading outside blogs) in the west, who are usually at home in ultraleft tailing imperialism and rehashing Trotskyite arguments. 'maoism' in China is not the same, in fact I'd just call it left marxist-leninist in form, Chinese in content

deadken posted:

Crow posted:

deadken posted:

MAO TSE-TUNG: since 1953, the soviet union is no longer a friend of the working peoples of the world. it practices social imperialism abroad, and at home it has abandoned class analysis in favour of a bourgeois, petty fascist 'state of the whole people.'
ALEKSEY (russian national chauvinist): a blurr bleer what does this guy know lol

except socialism is not a voluntarist "march towards or away from communism" but a concrete mode of production, you ignorant idiot

hrm. hrrrm. hrm. and when the soviet union officially dismantled the dictatorship of the proletariat and attempted to conceal the ineluctable class character of the state behind bourgeois formulations of 'the whole people' while simultaneously moving towards a model in which state-owned firms attempted to make profits from the sale of their commodities, commodities which did not belong to the labourer but were reinvested and redistributed by an explicitly non-proletarian state, even if this social formation made the Very Good Trains and allowed some level of workplace democracy, in terms of its concrete mode of production it was no longer socialist. you asshat. you cockwomble thundercunt. in conclusion, you petty national chauvinist neo-tsarist sub-menshevik enemy of the correct line of marxism-leninism and all the working peoples of the world, who wants to make a little nest in the scraggly tangled beard of an orthodox patriarch and caw away revisionist nonsense in throaty tones soon muffled by the immense concentration of hair and grease

the reason why I told you to cite Lenin is because I knew you haven't read much by him, as he does not support your stupid claims at all

The point at issue is neither opposition nor political struggle in general, but revolution. Revolution consists in the proletariat destroying the “administrative apparatus” and the whole state machine, replacing it by a new one, made up of the armed workers. Kautsky displays a “superstitious reverence” for “ministries”; but why can they not be replaced, say, by committees of specialists working under sovereign, all-powerful Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies?

The point is not at all whether the “ministries” will remain, or whether “committees of specialists” or some other bodies will be set up; that is quite immaterial. The point is whether the old state machine (bound by thousands of threads to the bourgeoisie and permeated through and through with routine and inertia) shall remain, or be destroyed and replaced by a new one. Revolution consists not in the new class commanding, governing with the aid of the old state machine, but in this class smashing this machine and commanding, governing with the aid of a new machine. Kautsky slurs over this basic idea of Marxism, or he does not understand it at all.

(Lenin, V.I. The State and Revolution. 1917. Collected Works. Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 25, p.491. 1974)

What, then, are the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat? The main flaw, the main error, in all the socialists’ arguments is that this question is put in too general a form, as the question of the transition to socialism. What we should talk about, however, are concrete steps and measures. Some of them are ripe, and some are not. We are now at a transition stage. Clearly, we have brought to the fore new forms, unlike those in bourgeois states. The Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies are a form of state which does not exist and never did exist in any country. This form represents the first steps towards socialism and is inevitable at the beginning of a socialist society. This is a fact of decisive importance. The Russian revolution has created the Soviets. No bourgeois country in the world has or can have such state institutions. No socialist revolution can be operative with any other state power than this. The Soviets must take power not for the purpose of building an ordinary bourgeois republic, nor for the purpose of making a direct transition to socialism. This cannot be. What, then, is the purpose? The Soviets must take power in order to make the first concrete steps towards this transition, steps that can and should be made . In this respect fear is the worst enemy. The masses must be urged to take these steps immediately, otherwise the power of the Soviets will have no meaning and will give the people nothing.

Some may ask: Have we not gone back on our own principles? We were advocating the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war, and now we are contradicting ourselves. But the first civil war in Russia has come to an end; we are now advancing towards the second war—the war between imperialism and the armed people. In this transitional period, as long as the armed force is in the hands of the soldiers, as long as Milyukov and Guchkov have not yet resorted to violence, this civil war, so far as we are concerned, turns into peaceful, prolonged, and patient class propaganda. To speak of civil war before people have come to realise the need for it is undoubtedly to lapse into Blanquism. We are for civil war, but only for civil war waged by a politically conscious class. He can be overthrown who is known to the people as an oppressor. There are no oppressors in Russia at present; it is the soldiers and not the capitalists who now have the guns and rifles; the capitalists are getting what they want now not by force but by deception, and to shout about violence now is senseless. One must be able to uphold the Marxist point of view, which says that this conversion of imperialist war into a civil war should be based on objective, and not subjective, conditions. For the time being we withdraw that slogan, but only for the time being. It is the soldiers and the workers who possess the arms now, not the capitalists. So long as the government has not started war, our propaganda remains peaceful."

V. I. Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that during every transition from capitalism to socialism, dictatorship is necessary for two main reasons, or along two main channels. Firstly, capitalism cannot be defeated and eradicated without the ruthless suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, who cannot at once be deprived of their wealth, of their advantages of organisation and knowledge, and consequently for a fairly long period will inevitably try to overthrow the hated rule of the poor; secondly, every great revolution, and a socialist revolution in particular, even if there is no external war, is inconceivable without internal war, i.e., civil war, which is even more devastating than external war, and involves thousands and millions of cases of wavering and desertion from one side to another, implies a state of extreme indefiniteness, lack of equilibrium and chaos. And of course, all the elements of disintegration of the old society, which are inevitably very numerous and connected mainly with the petty bourgeoisie (because it is the petty bourgeoisie that every war and every crisis ruins and destroys first), are bound to "reveal themselves" during such a profound revolution. And these elements of disintegration cannot "reveal themselves" otherwise than in an increase of crime, hooliganism, corruption, profiteering and outrages of every kind. To put these down requires time and requires an iron hand.

The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (in Marx, Engels, and Lenin on Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism)

So, since the disbanding of one dictatorship of a class and the institution of another is necessarily violent , and this applies to revolution and counterrevolution, what proletariat institutions were overthrown by the "social imperialist" revisionists? what civil war erupted? what mass counterrevolutionary violence took place? any ideas?

oh and this civil war and dismantling of proletariat institutions happened alright. it happened when the soviet union was dissolved and counterrevolutionaries seized power. in the fuckin 90s

Crow posted:

deadken posted:

Crow posted:

deadken posted:

MAO TSE-TUNG: since 1953, the soviet union is no longer a friend of the working peoples of the world. it practices social imperialism abroad, and at home it has abandoned class analysis in favour of a bourgeois, petty fascist 'state of the whole people.'
ALEKSEY (russian national chauvinist): a blurr bleer what does this guy know lol

except socialism is not a voluntarist "march towards or away from communism" but a concrete mode of production, you ignorant idiot

hrm. hrrrm. hrm. and when the soviet union officially dismantled the dictatorship of the proletariat and attempted to conceal the ineluctable class character of the state behind bourgeois formulations of 'the whole people' while simultaneously moving towards a model in which state-owned firms attempted to make profits from the sale of their commodities, commodities which did not belong to the labourer but were reinvested and redistributed by an explicitly non-proletarian state, even if this social formation made the Very Good Trains and allowed some level of workplace democracy, in terms of its concrete mode of production it was no longer socialist. you asshat. you cockwomble thundercunt. in conclusion, you petty national chauvinist neo-tsarist sub-menshevik enemy of the correct line of marxism-leninism and all the working peoples of the world, who wants to make a little nest in the scraggly tangled beard of an orthodox patriarch and caw away revisionist nonsense in throaty tones soon muffled by the immense concentration of hair and grease

the reason why I told you to cite Lenin is because I knew you haven't read much by him, as he does not support your stupid claims at all

The point at issue is neither opposition nor political struggle in general, but revolution. Revolution consists in the proletariat destroying the “administrative apparatus” and the whole state machine, replacing it by a new one, made up of the armed workers. Kautsky displays a “superstitious reverence” for “ministries”; but why can they not be replaced, say, by committees of specialists working under sovereign, all-powerful Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies?

The point is not at all whether the “ministries” will remain, or whether “committees of specialists” or some other bodies will be set up; that is quite immaterial. The point is whether the old state machine (bound by thousands of threads to the bourgeoisie and permeated through and through with routine and inertia) shall remain, or be destroyed and replaced by a new one. Revolution consists not in the new class commanding, governing with the aid of the old state machine, but in this class smashing this machine and commanding, governing with the aid of a new machine. Kautsky slurs over this basic idea of Marxism, or he does not understand it at all.

(Lenin, V.I. The State and Revolution. 1917. Collected Works. Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 25, p.491. 1974)

What, then, are the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat? The main flaw, the main error, in all the socialists’ arguments is that this question is put in too general a form, as the question of the transition to socialism. What we should talk about, however, are concrete steps and measures. Some of them are ripe, and some are not. We are now at a transition stage. Clearly, we have brought to the fore new forms, unlike those in bourgeois states. The Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies are a form of state which does not exist and never did exist in any country. This form represents the first steps towards socialism and is inevitable at the beginning of a socialist society. This is a fact of decisive importance. The Russian revolution has created the Soviets. No bourgeois country in the world has or can have such state institutions. No socialist revolution can be operative with any other state power than this. The Soviets must take power not for the purpose of building an ordinary bourgeois republic, nor for the purpose of making a direct transition to socialism. This cannot be. What, then, is the purpose? The Soviets must take power in order to make the first concrete steps towards this transition, steps that can and should be made . In this respect fear is the worst enemy. The masses must be urged to take these steps immediately, otherwise the power of the Soviets will have no meaning and will give the people nothing.

Some may ask: Have we not gone back on our own principles? We were advocating the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war, and now we are contradicting ourselves. But the first civil war in Russia has come to an end; we are now advancing towards the second war—the war between imperialism and the armed people. In this transitional period, as long as the armed force is in the hands of the soldiers, as long as Milyukov and Guchkov have not yet resorted to violence, this civil war, so far as we are concerned, turns into peaceful, prolonged, and patient class propaganda. To speak of civil war before people have come to realise the need for it is undoubtedly to lapse into Blanquism. We are for civil war, but only for civil war waged by a politically conscious class. He can be overthrown who is known to the people as an oppressor. There are no oppressors in Russia at present; it is the soldiers and not the capitalists who now have the guns and rifles; the capitalists are getting what they want now not by force but by deception, and to shout about violence now is senseless. One must be able to uphold the Marxist point of view, which says that this conversion of imperialist war into a civil war should be based on objective, and not subjective, conditions. For the time being we withdraw that slogan, but only for the time being. It is the soldiers and the workers who possess the arms now, not the capitalists. So long as the government has not started war, our propaganda remains peaceful."

V. I. Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that during every transition from capitalism to socialism, dictatorship is necessary for two main reasons, or along two main channels. Firstly, capitalism cannot be defeated and eradicated without the ruthless suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, who cannot at once be deprived of their wealth, of their advantages of organisation and knowledge, and consequently for a fairly long period will inevitably try to overthrow the hated rule of the poor; secondly, every great revolution, and a socialist revolution in particular, even if there is no external war, is inconceivable without internal war, i.e., civil war, which is even more devastating than external war, and involves thousands and millions of cases of wavering and desertion from one side to another, implies a state of extreme indefiniteness, lack of equilibrium and chaos. And of course, all the elements of disintegration of the old society, which are inevitably very numerous and connected mainly with the petty bourgeoisie (because it is the petty bourgeoisie that every war and every crisis ruins and destroys first), are bound to "reveal themselves" during such a profound revolution. And these elements of disintegration cannot "reveal themselves" otherwise than in an increase of crime, hooliganism, corruption, profiteering and outrages of every kind. To put these down requires time and requires an iron hand.

The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (in Marx, Engels, and Lenin on Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism)

So, since the disbanding of one dictatorship of a class and the institution of another is necessarily violent , and this applies to revolution and counterrevolution, what proletariat institutions were overthrown by the "social imperialist" revisionists? what civil war erupted? what mass counterrevolutionary violence took place? any ideas?

any trot wd immediately answer this question by claiming things like gulags and purges and so on were manifestations of stalin-flavored violence that overthrew all the proletarian institutions set up after 1917...they're still wrong but you leave your argument opent here

babyhueypnewton posted:

im not too interested in the past beyond learning the real facts of what happened without judgement

aw man

It is known that in 1964 China was willing to pay the same price as the Soviet Union, and events do not contradict the assumptions that this remained true after the political conflict of 1965.

Heinrich Brunner, Cuban Sugar Policy from 1963 to 1970, pg. 87

who woulda thunk it!

babyhueypnewton posted:

also im not sure what your position on revisionism is. what i believe is obviously biased by what i've read and can understand and im not nearly as well read as getfiscal.

i'm willing to grant that after Stalin the soviet union had a politically revisionist, technocratic version of socialism that relied heavily on oil rather than "state capitalism" or "a deformed workers state" and that the seeds of this were sown as early as 1934. this is based on reading "Is The Red Flag Still Flying" and "Farm to Factory" as well as Getty's work on the 1936 constitution. Plus we can see what capitalism actually looks like in the post-USSR region, it's more like genocide than moderate inefficiencies in production. I'll even grant that the USSR was always consistently anti-imperialist while the picture of mao shaking hands with nixon makes my stomach turn.

this is what modern capitalism looks like as well, its just that so much wealth has been accumulated in places like the US that the mass death needed to propagate this has largely been shifted to other countries or internal colonies instead of the working class as a whole.

babyhueypnewton posted:

but how does this translate into politics? china and albania were clearly correct to condemn Khruschev's slander of Stalin and there was a real change in the economy based on social harmony and a "state of the people" rather than dictatorship of the proletariat. its probably fair to say that a new bourgeoisie does rise within the ranks of the communist party. im not too interested in the past beyond learning the real facts of what happened without judgement, but for the future is revisionism a real thing and something that could happen in future communist states?

i have two separate but interrelated points, one of which will get my head on a pike but whatever. the first is that mao called deng a capitalist roader, but he called khrushchev a social imperialist. it seems to me that while dengs reforms hadnt happened by the time of the gpcr, mao knew what the dude and other top party leaders were about, that the masses needed to oppose them, and the lower cadre needed to organize them to do that. but mao never stopped calling deng a socialist. this is an inconsistency on mao's part (how you gonna say that about K-dog and not Deng?) and very important to remember in conversations about revisionism. this is where we get to my second point.

you mention reading farm to factory, which is probably my favorite book on the beginnings of soviet industrialization. in there he talks about the first five year plan and how the ussr was faced with the huge economic hurdle of needing to industrialize a country with little to go on but the tsarist rail infrastructure. the money and extreme social dislocation needed for industrialization in the soviet context came from the peasantry, most especially kulaks, and while it was alleviated in some ways (rural-urban black markets) it certainly had some marked impacts on society. im starting from this example because i think we're both on the same page up to this point, and probably feel that while there were strongly negative consequences to the lifestyle of huge sectors of the population for a while, things got better much faster than they would have otherwise and overall it was probably a good thing (or at least the book makes that argument that it was with its comparison to the bukharin projection).

so if we're cool with the resources needed to build socialism being extracted from sectors of the population inside the country in question(sectors that while not proletarian, we are ostensibly friendly to), why arent we cool with implementing policies that extract this wealth from foreign companies?

to be sure, im not saying its preferable. part of me does prefer the soviet first five year plan model. but i dont think it would have worked in china or yugoslavia for various but opposing demographic reasons. im also not saying i prefer tito + deng's similar but ultimately different economic policies (deng's are better imo, but wow what a contest) over stalin or mao's. but i think we do need to widen our view as to what socialism constitutes to include places like modern china, vietnam and possibly even venezuela.

final note: this is not a productive forces argument, im not saying countries need to be post-scarcity before socialism or communism.

Edited by Urbandale (July 1, 2015 21:21:54)

Urbandale posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

also im not sure what your position on revisionism is. what i believe is obviously biased by what i've read and can understand and im not nearly as well read as getfiscal.

i'm willing to grant that after Stalin the soviet union had a politically revisionist, technocratic version of socialism that relied heavily on oil rather than "state capitalism" or "a deformed workers state" and that the seeds of this were sown as early as 1934. this is based on reading "Is The Red Flag Still Flying" and "Farm to Factory" as well as Getty's work on the 1936 constitution. Plus we can see what capitalism actually looks like in the post-USSR region, it's more like genocide than moderate inefficiencies in production. I'll even grant that the USSR was always consistently anti-imperialist while the picture of mao shaking hands with nixon makes my stomach turn.

this is what modern capitalism looks like as well, its just that so much wealth has been accumulated in places like the US that the mass death needed to propagate this has largely been shifted to other countries or internal colonies instead of the working class as a whole.

babyhueypnewton posted:

but how does this translate into politics? china and albania were clearly correct to condemn Khruschev's slander of Stalin and there was a real change in the economy based on social harmony and a "state of the people" rather than dictatorship of the proletariat. its probably fair to say that a new bourgeoisie does rise within the ranks of the communist party. im not too interested in the past beyond learning the real facts of what happened without judgement, but for the future is revisionism a real thing and something that could happen in future communist states?

i have two separate but interrelated points, one of which will get my head on a pike but whatever. the first is that mao called deng a capitalist roader, but he called khrushchev a social imperialist. it seems to me that while dengs reforms hadnt happened by the time of the gpcr, mao knew what the dude and other top party leaders were about, that the masses needed to oppose them, and the lower cadre needed to organize them to do that. but mao never stopped calling him a socialist, and i think thats very important to remember in conversations about revisionism. this is where we get to my second point.

you mention reading farm to factory, which is probably my favorite book on the beginnings of soviet industrialization. in there he talks about the first five year plan and how the ussr was faced with the huge economic hurdle of needing to industrialize a country with little to go on but the tsarist rail infrastructure. the money and extreme social dislocation needed for industrialization in the soviet context came from the peasantry, most especially kulaks, and while it was alleviated in some ways (rural-urban black markets) it certainly had some marked impacts on society. im starting from this example because i think we're both on the same page up to this point, and probably feel that while there were strongly negative consequences to the lifestyle of huge sectors of the population for a while, things got better much faster than they would have otherwise and overall it was probably a good thing (or at least the book makes that argument that it was with its comparison to the bukharin projection).

so if we're cool with the resources needed to build socialism being extracted from sectors of the population inside the country in question(sectors that while not proletarian, we are ostensibly friendly to), why arent we cool with implementing policies that extract this wealth from foreign companies?

to be sure, im not saying its preferable. part of me does prefer the soviet first five year plan model. but i dont think it would have worked in china or yugoslavia for various but opposing demographic reasons. im also not saying i prefer tito + deng's similar but ultimately different economic policies (deng's are better imo, but wow what a contest) over stalin or mao's. but i think we do need to widen our view as to what socialism constitutes to include places like modern china, vietnam and possibly even venezuela.

final note: this is not a productive forces argument, im not saying countries need to be post-scarcity before socialism or communism.

as im sure you're aware the idea is that capitalism is an entire network in which all aspects are really the same thing (or at least temporally differentiated moments within the same process). just as you cant build socialism within capitalism because the law of value will force workers to become their own bosses to remain competitive, you cant build (one aspect of) capitalism within socialism because it will eventually spread like a virus to all aspects of the production process.

but if you can build socialism in one country during the epoch of capitalism, even if only for a short period of time, why cant you use politics to delay the effects of the profit motive taking over the entire economy? even capitalism does this through super-exploitation and ground rent which delay the law of value geographically. north korea in particular is an interesting example of isolating SEZs from the regular economy and reversing the market effects they have on the whole economy if maintained for too long. i do think vietnam is different though, considering they're pushing for the TPP and exploit their workers for imperialism.