[Marxism] Soviet (dis?)continuity? - was, "Workers in military uniforms"?
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Mon May 3 16:32:53 MDT 2004
In a message dated 5/3/2004 3:39:27 PM Central Standard Time,
si at psychosisweb.com writes:
>As a matter of fact, Hayne's analysis is extremely historical. He
portrays Stalin's ascendancy not as the / cause/ but as a /consequence/ of
what he perceives as the revolution's degradation, which itself is understood
as a consequence of numerous exterior pressures in the years 1917-25: the
crusading Whites (and the consequent devastation of the already numerically weak
proletariat, leading to dramatic centralisation as democracy stumbled), the
failure of the other Revolutions (esp. in Germany) and the death of Lenin, to
name those I remember.
So far as I understand it at present, the key difference between
revolutionary Russia and Stalinist Russia was the dynamism of the democracy
and attendant culture in the former versus the overbearing subjugation of the
and centralisation of the latter. I suppose my concern is the almost
universal conceit in my peers that revolutionary socialism has been 'tried and
failed'. If one can draw a line in the
sand and say, from here there was no socialism: socialism failed, but its
failure was not Stalinism itself but the process leading to Stalinism, and that
that process is not
a neccessary consequence of revolution (that is, point out historical
specialities such as those above) then it is possible to win these people (humanists
all) to the revolutionary cause. If there is an argument to be made for
Stalinism's humanism, then I will hear it - or read it (references please!) - but
at the moment (am I slave of bourgeois ideology?) the era from 1928 onwards
seems to me one for the left to disown, even if it was the only form of social
organisation that could feed the people of the second world. Lenin's
motivation may have been to feed the people, but it doesn't seem to me that Stalin's
was. He certainly did on the whole, but it was in my view only to retain the
empire (there is of course evidence that he starved the 'kulaks' (eg the
peasantry) to subdue them) rather than to enable the expression of humanity's
greater side, as I had thought it was socialism's function and purpose.<
Your honesty is noted and a breath of fresh air.
However your last sentence is a tad bit to long.
Any communist worth their salt rejects the concept of "humanism" because it
arose as an ideological construct for all of us in the modern era as the result
of the social revolution crowned by Lenin's Bolsheviks.
The dispute is the concept of "workers in uniforms" or "workers in military
uniform" and you chose to change the tread to "Soviet continuity."
Your questions are valid but we need to stay grounded in Marxism.
Comrade, a slave that does not get a weapon and lean to fight - and starve,
deserves to be a slave.
Do you disagree with how I personally described continuity?
If so this is all right but what was described wrong?
After all our task is to train the workers and win the vanguard to the cause
More information about the Marxism