|
Post by StalinRevolution on Dec 11, 2003 3:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eat da void on Dec 11, 2003 16:09:23 GMT -5
Things in this universe rarely "speak for themselves." I am not sure what point you are making by posting the 1918 constitution of the soviet union. I think there is a very intersting discussion of "socialist legality" happening on rwor.org -- and so it was interesting for me to study this early constitution. What about this constitution should we uphold? What should we not uphold? What was the experience of that constitution? Why did stalin pass a new constitution, and what did that represent? Given that there is a lot of fetishized worship of the current U.S. constitution -- how would we develop a new socialist constitution without continuing the kinds of illusions and reactionary assumptions embedded in the capitalist one?
|
|
|
Post by StalinRevolution on Dec 14, 2003 0:41:03 GMT -5
Well I think it is something that is important to understand.It is an important doctrine in socialism.Can someone post the 1936 constitution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2003 15:09:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Dec 22, 2003 11:45:06 GMT -5
My impression of the late 30s constitution is that it mimicks bourgeois democracy -- in an attempt to make domestic Soviet life more palatable for the Western governments that the USSR was seeking alliance with.
I don't think it really "applied" in any real-world way. It was more a PR job, than an expression of how socialism generally (or the USSR specifically) works.
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Dec 22, 2003 11:49:07 GMT -5
In particular, that constitution was rooted in a deeply mistaken view (that had come to dominate the CPSUB) -- which was that with the completion of land collectivization there were (supposedly) no longer antagonistic classes within the USSR.
In fact, there were -- including powerful capitalist restorationist forces concentrated within the party and the state itself.
|
|
|
Post by StalinRevolution on Dec 22, 2003 19:49:55 GMT -5
Eat the world,your posts in this subject have been violently anti-communist.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Dec 22, 2003 20:07:00 GMT -5
How is it "violently anti-communist" to point out the mistakes and shortcomings of prior experiences?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2003 0:37:56 GMT -5
How can criticism of the USSR be anti-communist?
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Dec 23, 2003 10:23:55 GMT -5
Stalin in the 1930s made a number of serious errors, that need to be summed up. (Not in an anti-communist way, but in a communist way.)
First, he subordingated important revolutionary principles to his need to form an alliance against hitler. So, for example, the Communist international (after 1935) started talking about having communists in imperialists countries take up patriotic positions, if their government swere willing to ally with the USSR. (That is why the American communist effort in spain was named after fucking presidents, like Lincoln and Washington Brigades. And washington was even a slaveowner!!)
Second, Stalin announced (inthe late thirties) that antagonistic classes had been abolished in the USSR. Juridically (legally, on paper) the old exploiting classes (and class relations) HAD been abolished -- there were no longer privately owned factories or farms. However it was theoretically and practically mistaken to assume from that that everyone in the USSR was no part of a broad alliance of non-antagonistic classes -- and (particularly) that the only need for a dictoatorship of the proletariat was against *external* enemies.
In fact, as history has shown, there remained powerful capitalist-roader forces in the Soviet Union (and they were further strengthened after the 30s, during WW2). They eventually seized power.
We have learned from this soviet experience, and understand better the class analysis of socialism, and the political implications of that.
But to make such advanced new understandings we have to (as Mao did) also point out that Stalin did not (and perhaps could not have) understood these dynamics (the first time they were encountered by the communist movement).
None of what I am saying is "anti-communist" -- it is, in fact, the analysis of the world's communist movement today.
|
|
|
Post by StalinRevolution on Dec 23, 2003 12:14:06 GMT -5
It is not "pointing out mistakes".To me,the 1936 constitution was a very important and "good" so to speak document of socialism.To not uphold it,and its ideas,is extremly anti-communist.
I believe Stalin made errors,unintentionally in his time as general secretary.I think the most costly error he made was surrounding himself with oppurtunists like Beria,who proved to be a revisionist and a traitor to Stalin.
Your "revolutionary" purism is illogical.I think it is unfortunate that Stalin had to make deals with the imperialists and encourage people to engage in such activities as you listed above.However,I believe as unfortunate as this was,it was certainly neccassery.If he had not done many of these things nothing good would have happend in terms of the war.
I think that the majority of those antagonistic classes in fact had been abolished.I believe that these statements,though they were eaggerations were not entirely a lie.Great advancements were made in terms of class struggle,and class realtations in the 1930's.It would be foolish to say otherwise.But by saying this,Stalin probobly meant to unite the people more for the war.
You are right here.^see above on Beria.The same applies to such revisionists as Khrushchev and Mikoyan.
I believe much has been learned from the soviet experience.To put it simply I think that most of the positives took place from 1917-1956,in the time I believe socialism was practised in the USSR.After that,there were small positives,but in general it was a slow descent back into capitalism.
Perhaps anti-communist was too strong of a term to use so generally against you,however your strong criticism of the 1936 constitution seems pretty anti-communist to me.Also, I believe you are just propagating the agenda and line of the RCP here.I am not saying this is good or bad,simply stating what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Dec 23, 2003 12:41:09 GMT -5
It IS a very important and good document, and in 1936 was the only Communist constitution in the world (unless you count the People's Republic of Mongolia, but I'm not sure...). The 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was an extremely powerful and liberating work laying out the foundations of proletarian democracy and socialist revolution. But that does not mean that there weren't mistakes and errors made in its creation that we can't learn from, because there indeed were some mistakes and errors made. We can't be dogmatic and say everything in it is right and correct! Communists need to learn from these mistakes, sum them up, and move forward while still maintaining the contributions of the great and revolutionary Comrade Stalin.
Yes, but he also made many more errors which also helped to unintentionally pave the way towards capitalist restoration, most of which were summed up by Mao after the death of Stalin. However, we gotta give Comrade Stalin some slack- the Soviet Union was the first time we had a Socialist country, and he had no prior experience to look at. What was he supposed to do, look into a crystal ball and see everything? Mistakes were gonna be made, and they were. But hey, you gotta learn to crawl and sometimes you're gonna fall when you're learning to walk.
Who's being the purist here?
Stalin proclaimed that class struggle in the USSR ended in 1936, 3 1/2 years before the war was to begin (and 2 years before the war was being thought of). Also, this was a point that Stalin criticized himself on later in his life, just before his death if I recall...
Oh ho ho, no it wasn't a slow descent back into Ccapitalism! When it fell in 1991, the Soviet Union had be a full-blown capitalist country since 1956. Khrushchev's reforms had rendered the Soviet economy into one where profit was the main motive behind all production within the nation. By 1964, Khruschev's reforms had been completed at an astonishing speed. Various bureaucrats, ministers, and Party cadre were given economic benefits and basically became the "CEO's" and "Chairmans" of the various state corporations with the Soviet government and Party. When competition amongst these various gainings of capital/profit began, it disunified the revisionist superstructure and slowly began to wear away at it. The Soviet-Afghan War, over-concentrating on militarization, and the overcompetition between the various state-capitalists sent the USSR into an economic depression. Eventually, the political base was so unstable that the disguise of "Socialism" (no matter how much Gorbachev tried to stretch it) had become basically impossible to keep up; the various bourgeoisie within each Soviet Socialist Republic (combined with various ethnic strifes) split as their facade crumbled, and social-imperialist, revisionist, state capitalism gave in to Western imperialist, openly-bourgeois, laissez-faire Capitalism.
What does the RCP have to do with this?
|
|
|
Post by StalinRevolution on Dec 23, 2003 12:57:41 GMT -5
I never said it was perfect.But "eat the world" said it was simply propaganda,and it was a public realations move to make the USSR look better to the west.
I agree.Mao was correct in that part of his analysis of Stalin.
I am not!I think its just absolutly ridiculous to say that Stalin shouldn't have made deals and did what he did with the imperialists.I will take them over Hitler anyday.Your insistnace on always being "revolutionary" is illogical.Try to put yourself in the place of the Soviets and see if you wouldn't make the same deals.
I think that Hitler was always a threat looming over the USSR and the world.I don't think that class struggle ended totally in 1936,but I think it slowed down because the majority of what was needed to be accomplished by it,was accomplished.
You are wrong here.The economy may have had strong capitalistic elements to it,but that does not make all of society capitalist or losing all elements of socialism.From what I have read,even under idiots like Khrushchev and Brehznev there was still a sense of community that was lost under Gorbachev.Also,many services were available for free.,Healthcare,education,housing(I think,correct me if I'm wrong!),there were hunting lodges for the people.Of course some of these are minor things,but we musn't ignore them and say that the society of the USSR was completly non-socialistic.
He talks about the world communist movement.The only thing he is holding up here is the line of the RCP.I am not saying this is bad or good,simply saying he is not speaking for all of the world communist movement by upholding the RCP line.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Dec 23, 2003 13:27:03 GMT -5
Stalin's intent in announcing that there were no antagonistic classes in the USSR was not a move to unite people more for the war. In fact, saying or doing something like that just because it is useful to say it 'right now' to unite people (or whatever) would not be communist at all. It would be very pragmatic and more in line with the approach that revisionist take.
However, Stalin saw and presented socialism as the elimination of classes, or at least antagonistic classes. Stalin was starting from the assumption that once public ownership had been replaced by private ownership you wouldn't have anything left to do but build up the economy and society would continue to advance toward communism. If you have public ownership, then do you have classes in society?
So this isn't some 'exaggeration' Stalin just came up with because it was 'useful' somehow as a propaganda point. In fact, Stalin's definition of socialism was the more or less accepted one at that time. Despite the fact that it is wrong, this was a view that was held (more or less) also by Lenin.
I want to say again, however, its never correct to put something out just because it is useful! And, I do not believe for one moment that either Stalin or Lenin were taking that approach on this question. In fact, if there is something that is highly anti-communist it is that sort of short sighted pragmatic view that says we just do (or say) whatever the hell is useful right now and forget about the truth, about reality and what is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Dec 23, 2003 13:47:20 GMT -5
We can't place ourselves where the Soviets where, mainly because we have the experience and knowledge of today that they didn't have- we have been able to sum many complex issues up. But I think it is important to always stay on the revolutionary road, otherwise we fall into pragmatism and thus end up just like Khrushchev and Deng (Deng said "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.")
Since when did Socialism mean an authoritarian welfare state? I certainly don't want an authoritarian welfare state! When Khrushchevs reforms happened, the basic drive in the USSR became profit instead of advancing into communism. Much of the managers and ministers in charge of the local regional economic councils known as the sovnarkhozi were given enormous amounts of power as well as various bureaucrats within the other economic bureaus and ministries. Thus, while it seemed like the land and factories belonged to the masses, and although "officially" the economy was Socialist, in reality (the key word here) most resources were in the hands of various individuals within the national government, Party, and governments within the various republics. Indeed, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had become a new ruling class and a new bourgeoisie. They may have said that they opposed privatization, but in reality the only thing they opposed was open privatization and privatization outside the Party and Government (and this didn't change really until Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost).
Because of the "birthmarks of Capitalism" still remaining in the Socialist system, and the constant reemergence of bourgeois ideals and individuals in Socialist society, there is the danger of a new bourgeoisie rising within the Communist Party. Khrushchev was just but one of these new bourgeoisie; many and entrenched themselves into the military and key places in the Party (even the great Marshal Zhukov followed Khrushchev). 3 years after Stalin's death, the Soviet Union was vulnerable enough for the restoration of capitalism to happen, and in a swift and bloodless military coup (don't believe me? read any Soviet history book- there was a coup within the CPSU and Soviet Government that didn't require firing a single shot) Khrushchev took over with his fellow ruling class clique below him.
The RCP line is the line upheld by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, an embryonic world organization of Communist parties (two of which are fighting People's Wars this very moment!!!), and thus is the line that I personally believe is closest to the International Communist Movement.
|
|