Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Communism collapsed in USSR

This is a discussion that took place on the orkut community of CMKP.

I asked, "Don't dare to think that it is me who thinks communism collapsed in USSR."Communism collapsed in USSR", is usually the first statement that you would listen from a non-communist. Almost all of us know the frequency of this statement in the non-communist circles. I would like to know how comrades, on this community, answer this ignorant statement.I will also give my reply soon."

Asad said, "Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.As China is making probleems for USA and just look at North Korea.Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan.Communism was not a factor in tht breakup. "

My reply to Asad, "Well, this was not an answer I was expecting. Please allow me to ask you few further questions to continue the discussion. In the mean time, other comrades should come forward to give their views on the topic.

Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.

So, do you mean to say that collapse of Soviet Union was the collapse of Soviet socialist model, which was presented by Lenin and stregthened by Stalin?

Is Maoism different from marxism-leninism?

Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan

How? USSR defeated fascist/nazi super powers during the WW2. How could it not bear the Afghan war? USSR emerged as a military super power after WW2, thanks to the leadership of Stalin and CPSU, and was in a position to easily bear any military pressure from anyside.

Clearly, Afghan war was not a major factor in Soviet Union disintegration at a time when USSR.

Communism was not a factor in tht breakup.

Alright. But what was the major factor? Where is Revisionism?

After the death of great communist leader, Stalin, in 1953, revisionist powers took control of the USSR, under a imperialist conspiracy. So, the collapse of USSR was not of communism, but a collapse of this revisionist philosophy.

The last leader of USSR, Gorbachev, said in an interview in 2001 that "my aim was to bring an end to communism in USSR".

So, the phenomenon that caused disintegration of USSR was not socialism but revisionism. Had the USSR followed the soclist legacy of Stalin, USSR would have been a super-power. The propect of a disintegration under Stalin was out of question because of his strategy of dealing with nationalities, approved by Lenin in 1913.

So, the moral of the story is Down with Revisionism"

Bhagat Singh said, "The process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Khrushev and his gang of revisionists started this counter revolutionary process in the name of "De-Stalinization". In the name de-stalinization he and the group of revisionist leaders after him(Brezhnev and Gorbachev) succesfully purged the Soviet Union from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism. Mao said in 1963:

"I believe there are two swords. One is the sword of Lenin, and the other is the sword of Stalin. The Soviet Union has thrown away the sword of Stalin, and has thus also thrown away the sword of Lenin. We Chinese, have not thrown these swords away, and are continuing to build Socialism on the principles of Marxism-Leninism."

A series of Economic, and political reforms, coupled with a radical change in the foreign policy of the CPSU led to a gradual process of degeneration in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the process of capitalist restoration was completed in 1991, when capitalism was firmly established in the Soviet Union, and replaced the remnants of Socialism in that country. This transition pushed over 20 million people into the poverty trap, and today Russia has been transformed from a Super power, into a third world country.

However, all is not lost. The Communist movement is gaining strength each day in the former Soviet Union. The Communist party is once again the largest party of Russia. It got the most votes in the 2000 local elections. In a recent protest it managed to bring millions of people to the streets, with the Red Flag raised over their heads, and pictures of Lenin and Stalin hailed with pride.

Marxist-Leninists the world over are waiting patiently for the revival of worker's power in the Soviet Union.

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!
Long Live the Workers Struggle!
Death to Imperialism!
Death to America!"

I agree with Bhagat Singh's reply.

Raza said, "In the 1940s and 1950s within the international Communist movement, revisionism was used to describe Communists who focused on consumer goods production instead of heavy industry, accepted national differences and encouraged capital reforms.

USSR was under authoritarian rule. Isnt that revisionism enough? And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down? Communism never collapsed and never will. USSR did not have the flesh to bring communism down with it."

Bhagat Singh reply to Raza,
I seriously disagree with you, over various points. Firstly, I disagree with your definition of Revisionism. Modern revisionism refers to a tendency which arose within the Communist movement. It was a regressive movement, which began a process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union under Khrushchv, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
However, to say that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state(and hence revisionist) is doubly incorrect in my opinion.
Firstly, I disagree with the statement that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state, on the grounds that the U.S.S.R(despite its revisionist tendencies) continued to be a Socialist state albeit in a revisionist form. The political and socio-economic framework of the U.S.S.R continued to adhere to the principles of socialism in one way or the other, and hence, to suggest that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state is to give in to the propaganda of the imperialists.
Secondly, authoritarianism is not equal to revisionism. Revisionism(derived from the root word revision), when appllied to the Communist movement, refers to the tendency of "revising" the political and historic program of the party leading to a deviation from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
I would agree with your last statement.. the disintegration of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of Communism. However, the CMKP own's the heritage of the U.S.S.R, and considers it one of the greatest victories of the workers and peasants in the 20th century.

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!"

My reply to Raza, " I would first chanllenge the premises that you used to legitimize revisionism.

Was USSR government auhtoritarian in 40s and 50s (under Stalin’s rule)?

The USSR government was not authoritarian both in theory and substance of the Stalin Constitution of 1936.

"If democracy lies in the participation of people in the affairs of government and freedom from material worries and cares, then one shall have to admit that Soviet Union is the most democratic country in the World [under the Stalin Constitution of 1936(pg 278)... While defending the monopolistic position of the Communist party, Stalin said, "As to freedom for various political parties, we adhere to somewhat different view. A party is a part of class, its most advanced part. Several parties can exist only in a society in which there are antagonistic classes whose interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable... But in Soviet Union there are no longer such classes. In USSR, there are only two different classes, workers and peasants, whose interests, far from being hostile, are on the contrary, friendly. Hence there is no ground in the USSR far existence of several parties and consequently for the freedom of these parties"" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley

There were direct elections in USSR, and they continued even during the WW2, while there were no elections elsewhere in the world during that time.

"The Communist leadership of the SU is very proud of the fact that voters in the SU take and living interest in public affairs since almost 100% votes were recorded whereas in democratic countries like England and the USA only 50 to 76% voters record their votes" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley pg 282

Furthermore, there was also a Right of Recall available to the citizens. By employing this right the citizens were allowed to "pull-back" their representatives from the representative bodies.

The second part of the question is: did Stalin play an authoritarian role in the Communist Party of Soviet Union?

The evidence points out that in the start there was active opposition to the programs of Stalin. The Party often restrained his proposals.

This is what Comrade Klo pointed out in the CMKP email list on Yahoo groups.

"In 1932 events seem to be coming to a climax, with Stalin's most loyal
supporters at their wits' ends. There was a dramatic meeting in the
Politburo that must have taken place about the end of 1932. The actual
date is not known, but there's no question that at that meeting Stalin
suffered a painful reverse. The most credible account of the meeting is
as follows:
The situation at the moment was under discussion. A dramatic speech
was made by Voroshilov, who was then Commander-in-Chief in the army....
Voroshilov is said to have given, in the utmost agitation, a report of a
disastrous state of feeling in the Army; he is said to have thrown whole
packets of soldiers letters on the table and demanded that something
should at once be done. Stalin's proposals-- their nature is not
known--were rejected,...."
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 188

To read complete Klo's post on the issue, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3404.

Many of the Stalin's proposals were not opposed later on because all his bona fide opposers later found that Stalin was correct on the issue that they opposed.

Therefore, having attempted to establish that USSR was not authoritarian state under Stalin (1924-1953) in the first place, it is a contradiction, for me, to accept revisionism on that perticular reason.

And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down?

According to Marxist principles, it’s not possible to move from an advanced stage of Production and Production relations to a backward one. The principle does not mean that this movement is not possible but that this backward movement will result in a disaster. Substantially, revisionism is incompetent to fight capitalism and imperialism as it is bound to fail.

Now that the Russian economy is even smaller from that of Norway, the theory presented above holds true.

Communism never collapsed and never will.

Long Live the Revolution!

P.S. Read the article about Gorbachev. According to Clinton, Gorbacev "will go down in history as a person who changed the world for the better."

I would suggest you to read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. An online copy of the book is available free at http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html."

1 comment:

Renegade Eye said...

I noticed the link to the Stalin book, is to the Progressive Labor Party. I used to be a sympathizer.

Revolutions don't happen overnight. Just as you can't overthrow capitalism and corruption in Pakistan overnight, you can't turn back all the gains of the Russian revolution overnight. US imperialism has always wanted to control and overthrow the Soviet government. I wouldn't really call the Soviet state capitalist. It is to me a deformed state, not really capitalist or socialist.

See: http://www.laborpakistan.org/ The Trotskyist group in Pakistan. To me Maoism is slogans. In practice in the USA, Maoists act like liberals, only with more rhetoric. They believe in support for progressive bourgeousie against fascists. Trotskyists believe in an independant working class.

I'm not expecting you to become Trotskyist, but to read more about it.


Add word verification to your blog, to get rid of spam.