Lenin 'On Co-operation' : notes of a liquidator.

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Mon Sep 30 05:43:39 MDT 1996


>A few cents on this subject. I found the exchange here between Adolpho
>and Plant interesting. Both of them, however, get into one of these
>"Lenin's position" on this or that question. I also do this on occasion
>but this is almost always missing the "forrest for the trees" situations.
>
>The question is posed wrong, I believe. The method of what "Leninism"
>means is important but it is FAR MORE than what Lenin wrote on this or
>that question. One should examine what "Leninsim" as a whole stood on
>various question...that is the position of the Bolshevik Party and the
>Comintern. Both the Party and the Comintern reflected what "Leninism"
>stood for. Lenin voted in favor of all the Thesis of the Comintern of
>its first four congresses (as did Trotsky and Stalin).
>
>The positions of the Comintern on this question, I find, fall with that
>of Lenin and Trosky (and Stalin (!) at the time) against what Stalin
>later revised into the "Socialism in One Country" thesis, which he
>falsy claimed was the position of Lenin and Communists and the Comintern.
>
>In fact, posted previously here was the quote by Stalin on this subject
>which was consitant with that of the Comintern (and Lenin and Trotsky)
>that Stalin published prior to the death of Lenin in 1924. This same
>quote was "corrected" after Lenins death to aid in Stalin's polemical
>battle with others in the Party at the time.
>
>Even a brief reading of COMINTERN magazine published from 1919 onward
>will read like any Trostkyist journal today over the question of the
>need for world socialist revolution. Noticibly absent are ANY referrals
>to the "building of socialism" in Russia or any other country. This of
>course, gets to the crux of part of this debate: What did the Left
>Opposition stand for in contridiction to the "..Socialism in One
>Country" theory? Their program argues for the rabid development of heavy
>AND light industry in workers' Russia!...they understood the need to
>develop industry to satisfy the consumer demands of the workers and
>peasants as well as increasing the need to strengthen the state as a
>whole through industrialization. Wow! So...in Adolphos method they were
>for "Building Socialism in One Country!"
>
>Well, of course this is not the case, this is the polemical slight of
>hand that Stalinism has passed off as "Bolshevism" to most of the world
>since the Stalinist faction took over the Party. Since the question,
>therefor was NOT the qustion of industrialing the country, per se, but
>over what the CONSEQUENCES of this theory was, one sees the rise of the
>Menshivik style class colaborationism we saw in China in 1925-1927, the
>Popular Front, the betrayal of the Spanish Revoution, etc. by the
>Comintern as everything the Comintern and the Russian State did after
>1924 was used to manipulate the class stuggle in the direction of
>"Building Socialism in One Country" but NOT for socialist revolutions
>in other countries.
>
>David Walters

David is dead right on this one.

Bob Malecki




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list