A disturbing statement from Stalin and the tainting of the name "Communism".

[Caid Ivik]

Agriculture is needed, but a Communist revolution requires a society to be 'fully' industrialized (not to the extent that there is no agriculture, but to the extent at which the proletarians are a majority). To my understanding, this is a fundamental element of Marxism. For a time, Slovakia was under the control of the Soviet Union which, as has been conclusively demonstrated, was not a Communist state.

Slovakia was under control of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. It was a fully industrialized country, at least in Marx-time scale. And already in 1960 our science academy proclaimed we are on true socialist way. All what Russians wanted from us was to isolate ourselves from West.

[danielsh]

Slovakia was under control of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. It was a fully industrialized country, at least in Marx-time scale. And already in 1960 our science academy proclaimed we are on true socialist way. All what Russians wanted from us was to isolate ourselves from West.

Hm... I guess I've got my history wrong. I was under the impression that Czechoslovakia was effectively under Russia's control as a part of the Warsaw Pact following World War II, and did not declare its independence until the Velvet Revolution of 1989. It was technically independent, I thought, but more or less a satellite state of the Soviet Union.

[Caid Ivik]

Satellite as in everything what was strategically important for Russians. Military production it was strongly oversaw by them, especially after 1968. What was done that year you know most possibly. Some foreign relations were de facto commanded, altough there are many separate actions of our diplomacy and secret services. Politically useless areas were fully under national control.

[danielsh]

Right. And I would contend that Czechoslovakia's status as a Soviet-Union-style communist state was strategically important, and that you were not seeing true communism as it was intended to exist, but a twisted communism as practiced by the Russians. Unless Czechoslovakia underwent a bourgeois socialist revolution followed by a proletarian communist revolution, proceeding through the stages of economic evolution in accordance, to a fair degree, with Marxist theory.

[Caid Ivik]

Communism, and socialism even more, is an sich twisted theory. Proletarian dictature theory, as described by Lenin, has no counterpoints against original of Marx. We can say, Marx created the theory, Lenin the practice. Soviet Union wanted from us loyalty and readiness for "imperialist aggression". That was all. In 1968, when Dubcek took the lead of KSC, he tried to preserve socialist economy, but also to partially open borders - physical, as well as ie medial. Masses could for first time since war see how far they fell when compared to West. If Russians didn't intervene, velvet revolution could be twenty years sooner.

[danielsh]

That post is a complete non sequitur. You argued that communism and socialism as philosophies were twisted because they didn't work in Russia, and should not have been expected to. Your assumption was not verified by your evidence, and you still have not demonstrated why communism wouldn't work in a state that went through the proper changes of economic evolution.

[Edric O]

I apologise for bumping up such an old topic, but there are certain things I wish to reply to...

EdricO, difference between fact and fiction should be known. Between truth and speculation.

Stalin and many other communists were robbers and terrorists. Even Bakunin, when he was young, agreed that anarchistic way, which was most popular between young communists in Russia, was destructive. Emperor put them to jail or Sibir for crimes, not political unfitting. Of course, we can't say it about everyone, ie Trockij was an educated and intelligent man. For you it is a "freedom fight" when you rob bank to fund your secret political party...but I see only that robbery.

Speaking of the difference between fact and fiction, why don't you show us even a tiny bit of evidence for these absurd claims? Robbers and terrorists? Robbing banks? Just what the HELL are you talking about?

Lenin was imprisoned (and exiled) several times for "subversive activity", "conspiring against the Throne", "undermining the authority of the state", etc. And the same happened to other communist leaders (the rank-and-file communists were usually just shot). I find it highly ironic (and hypocritical) that you weep and cry for the poor victims of stalinist political police, but don't see anything wrong with communists being jailed or murdered by tsarist political police.

Lenin died in 1924, he had three years to make an order.

Oh, shame on him for not properly establishing an entirely new political and economic system in a huge and backwards country in 3 years or less! ::)

Saying that Lenin wasn't follower of Marx is like saying Jesus was no Jew.

For once you are right. And I will explain it to Dan in a moment...

You're joking. Full industrialization, not saying it is a nonsense as agriculture is needed even nowadays (even it is considered as priority!), wasn't attained even in Germany or Britain of Marx' times. While Russia of 1918 was maybe on same level of technological application as Germany of 1860.

You've just demolished your own point. By admitting that the Russia of 1918 was on the same technological level as the Germany of 1860, you've clearly demonstrated that Russia was not capable of making the transition to socialism in 1918 (just as Germany wouldn't have been capable of making that transition in 1860), so Lenin had to face nearly impossible odds. With Lenin's death and Stalin's rise to power, the infant socialism was killed in the cradle (not that it had many chances to survive in Russia anyway), and stalinism replaced it.

Slovakia was under control of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. It was a fully industrialized country, at least in Marx-time scale.

Yes, and socialism could have been established properly in Czechoslovakia in 1948, if the Russians hadn't interfered. By that time, Stalin's agents had already gone to considerable lengths to purge the international communist movement of real communists and put stalinist cronies in their place. Soon after it won the elections, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia went through one final purge, making sure it was dominated by stalinists loyal to Moscow, who would never allow real socialism to develop.

Communism, and socialism even more, is an sich twisted theory.

At least get the order of magnitude right! Communism is more radical, while socialism is more moderate. Therefore, you should be saying "Socialism, and communism even more..."

Yeesh. I have to teach you how to insult me! ::)

In 1968, when Dubcek took the lead of KSC, he tried to preserve socialist economy, but also to partially open borders - physical, as well as ie medial. Masses could for first time since war see how far they fell when compared to West. If Russians didn't intervene, velvet revolution could be twenty years sooner.

From what I understand, Dubcek tried to introduce democracy and real worker's power into the system, while keeping the socialist economy intact and working properly. In other words, he tried to move towards real, democratic, socialism. Naturally the stalinists in Moscow couldn't allow that to happen. Imagine what a real socialist state could have done to their reputation and influence!

[Edric O]

Lenin's philosophy, and that of the Bolsheviki in general, really harnessed only two main aspects of Marx's philosophy: that the socialist revolution was inevitable, and that the proletariat were the most important aspect of society. Aside from that, Lenin and other Soviets only called themselves Communists. They did not practice the philosophy as they should have.

I'm sorry, comrade, but you are dead wrong about that. I recently explained the relationship between Lenin and Marx in a discussion with TMA (via IM), so I will post here the relevant paragraphs:

Lenin's contribution to marxism lies in the fields of politics and economics. Marx explained how capitalism works inside a single country, in his famous work Das Kapital. Lenin expanded on Marx's work by taking things further and explaining how capitalism works on a global scale, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Marx concentrated his studies on analyzing capitalism and finding ways to overthrow it and put the power in the hands of the workers; he also wrote about communism, but he said very little about the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Lenin filled in that gap by laying down the basic principles of socialism (later, Leon Trotsky went into more detail about how those principles should be applied, and how a socialist system would work).

And so on... Basically, Lenin is an "update" or an "upgrade" to Marx.

One thing that Lenin and Marx would disagree on is the place where the revolution will begin:

Marx explained the development of economic systems throughout history, and pointed out that one system creates the necessary conditions for the next. A new system can only develop properly in a country where the old one has run its course. It's logical that the countries who were the first to adopt capitalism would keep their lead and so they would also be the first to adopt socialism. In other words, it's logical that the revolution would begin in the most advanced capitalist countries (like Germany or Britain were in Marx's time).

But 50 years later, Lenin observed the phenomenon of imperialism (the ancestor of modern globalization), and noticed that capitalism was going global. He pointed out that the advanced capitalist countries were lifting the pressure from their own workers and putting it on foreign workers in 3rd world countries. So the workers in the advanced countries were less exploited and miserable than before, so it was unlikely that they would revolt and start the revolution. On the other hand, it was much more likely that the workers in poor 3rd world countries would do it. And that's exactly what happened in Russia. But the problem is that a 3rd world country alone will find it very hard to establish proper socialism. Since capitalism hasn't run its full course there yet, and since the great powers will try to crush it at any cost, a single 3rd world country cannot build and sustain a working socialist system. There are two possible solutions to this problem: Either (a) the revolution in the poor country sparks off a revolution in a rich country (like Lenin hoped the Russian Revolution would spark a revolution in Germany), and then the rich country establishes socialism and helps the poor country do the same, OR (b) the revolution happens in a large number of poor countries at the same time or in quick succession; the poor countries then band together into a federal state capable of fighting off the great powers and establishing socialism.

Lenin's mistake did not lie in the fact that he tried to establish socialism in Russia. It would have been perfectly possible to establish socialism in Russia IF AND ONLY IF an advanced Western country also moved towards socialism, and helped Russia along. Lenin hoped that country would be Germany, since it had the most powerful communist movement in the world. And surely enough, a German revolution did start in 1918-1919... but it was eventually crushed. And that pretty much sealed the fate of Russia.

Well, I hope my explanations cleared up the confusion. :)

[danielsh]

Oops :-).

Thanks for keeping me in line; I'm starting to catch on, I think.