Ferrinus posted:

But first, we need to clear something up, because every time I post theory for liberating a country in a half-revolution, I get the same comments asking over and over what it means, even though I have a whole paragraph in the introduction explaining it, which even starts with "if you're wondering what a half-revolution is, read this before commentating to ask". But maybe what you guys need isn't a paragraph. Maybe you guys need an EXAMPLE.

So, consider Lichtenstein--not even the whole county; just consider getting to that spot away from Switzerland's banking system, which is a necessary part of getting communism in Lichtenstein. So, how many revolutions does it take to get there? Well, if you say zero...that's wrong, because then the working class can't go far enough. If you say one, well, it's true that the working class can get there with one, but we can do a little better. We can do it in half a revolution. To do that, we enter Lichtenstein with the means of production already seized, and then we use that revolution to reach the platform.

Now, hold on. I know what you're thinking: A revolution is a revolution, permanently. You can't say it's only a half. Well, Leon """""Icepick""""" Trotsky, hear me out.

A revolution actually has three parts to it: When the means of production are seized, when the means of production are held (in either a dictatorship of the proletariat or an anarchist commune), and when the state dissolves. And together, this forms one complete revolution. Now, usually, it's the seizing that's useful, because that's the only part that makes the borgiousie react. However, sometimes it's sufficient to just use the holding part, which allows the working class to do little kicks, to swim in liberal tears, to move outside of a market, and to spend labor vouchers instead of money. And as for the dissolution of the state, well, there's currently no cases where that's useful or important, so don't worry bout that part (since it hasn't happened historically yet).

Now, if we map out the required revolutions for Lichtenstein, it would look like this: we merely need to have our own means of production to not be dependent on the Swiss banking system, we need a revolution to provide a counternarrative against Lichtenstein's "princely" history, and we need a revolution again to achieve communism. So, how many revolutions is that total? Well, it appears to be three, and if we we're liberating this country in isolation, then yeah; it would be three. But in a worldwide spread of communism, there are other revolutions that occur earlier in history, such as /this/ revolution needed to offically dissolve the Switzerland-Lichtenstein border. So, if we take that revolution into consideration as well, then how many revolutions would it take? The left-com answer would be three: one to enter Lichtenstein, and the three within the country that we established earlier. However, we can do better! We can actually do it in two and a half, by simply holding the means of production seized during the border dissolution to be used for independence from the banking system, because the half-revolution only required the means of production to be held, not actually seized. So in this fashion, Lichtenstein only adds on an additional two revolutions to the worldwide spread of communism, since the first revolution only leeches off a previous revolution. So to capture this dialectic, we call it 2.5 revolutions. In a single country, you'd round that up to three, but in a worldwide spread, you'd round it down to two. So, in conclusion, since that first revolution counts in some contexts, but adds no additional revolutions in other contexts, we refer to it as a "half revolution".

Ferrinus posted:

GunnerJ posted:

what

apropos to nothing posted:

socialism in one country is not a problem because of the development of the productive forces of the soviet union, something that the left opposition argued for. the problem is a political one of the approach of the comintern to the labor and communist parties of the rest of the world. the politics became focused on using the other parties of the comintern as extensions of the russian communist party and therefore to exist to spread and promote the interests of the USSR over those of the national labor movements where they were based. if you read the history of the factional struggles in the CPUSA during the period from 1923-1930 you see the comintern stepping in and basically overriding leadership and decision making by the US sections and forcing the section to remove its leadership. it completely destroyed the democracy within the party and cut it off from many of the workers struggles of the time.

Ferrinus posted:

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://twitter.com/libcomorg/status/1252944030448734208

Ferrinus posted:

didn't they step in and censure or remove the cpusa leadership because of how racist that leadership was?

apropos to nothing posted:

first youd have to clarify which time specifically, and second no in any of the times. at least not around the faction fights of the 20s

Ferrinus posted:

i don't know the history well, what i mostly heard of clashes between the comintern and local cpusa leadership came from a description of Black Bolshevik and later opposition to harry haywood and the black belt thesis. it seems to me that the cpusa ceased to be a revolutionary organization not because the ussr started telling them to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing, but because they gave up black liberation as a central struggle for the us socialist movement to organize itself around

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://twitter.com/libcomorg/status/1252944030448734208

Chuka Umana posted:

Never forget the workers of Kronstadt.

Atrocious Joe posted:

After Nazi Germany surrendered, Stalin should have ordered the Red Army to keep going until it got to Gibraltar. Europe probably would have seen some atomic warfare from the US, but it would have been worth it.

T-man posted:

Stalin was a tsar, and much like all czars, did nothing to actually fight his many wars

If you are remembered in mainstream history you were never a member of the proletariat

Chuka Umana posted:

Never forget the workers of Kronstadt.

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

https://twitter.com/libcomorg/status/1252944030448734208

Chuka Umana posted:

Never forget the workers of Kronstadt.

Ferrinus posted:

T-man posted:

If you are remembered in mainstream history you were never a member of the proletariat

Lightning Knight posted:

my wife, looking over my shoulder: is this tweet serious?

me: ...I'm not sure

apropos to nothing posted:

the issue with the comintern inserting itself so forcefully into the early days of the CPUSA arent a problem because they were wrong about this specific issue or that, it was bad because it completely destroyed any kind of actual democratic organization the party could have. there were so many factions forces coming together in the first days of the CPUSA and by the end of it all there was a completely undemocratic regime in the party due to the expulsions that had taken place. lovestone is the best example because he led the expulsions through most of the period and had moscows approval because he aligned with bukharin who was the secretary of the comintern at the time. however, once bukharin and stalin split he was immediately purged himself.

it created a situation where actual debate and discussion to arrive at a program was impossible. the same can be seen when you read about the discussions around the chinese communist party of the 20s. the comintern guided them into alliance with the kuomintang, its debateable whether it was a good idea or not, though I'd say it was a mistake given what happened next. there was a lot of debate and interest around this issue at the time, but in many places to even bring up the question of the chinese communists for discussion and what the position should be would get you labeled a trotskyist and possibly expelled. the party is only as good as its program and once the program cant be open to debate or discussion, then the program wont match reality or peoples consciousness.

theres a certain amount of understanding to be had that the russian party wanted to run things. they had been successful after all and others should learn from them. but the problem was this took on a dangerous characteristic which essentially dismissed the complexities of national labor struggles elsewhere in service to the USSR specifically. this created very opportunistic and unprincipled blocs then during the faction struggles, like what existed between the bukharin and stalin factions in the us. they were all more worried about winning control of the party and their allies in the comintern were more worried about their supporting faction winning than what would be best for the party.

T-man posted:

Stalin was a tsar, and much like all czars, did nothing to actually fight his many wars

If you are remembered in mainstream history you were never a member of the proletariat

gradenko_2000 posted:

libcops.org

apropos to nothing posted:

the best example is specifically china, where it was the insistence of the russian party that led the chinese communists into the first united front. the russians gave material assistance to the kuomintang and insisted the chinese communists join them and it led to the very near destruction of the chinese communist party

Ferrinus posted:

it's not like stalin was requisitioning grain and ore from communist organizers in alabama and vietnam. indeed i'm pretty sure the flow of actual resources went outward from the ussr to communist parties in both the developed and developing world.

Ardennes posted:

I mean why do you think the Soviet Union would do such a thing, because they were secret right-wingers?

Or maybe the Soviets were absolutely desperate to try to get literally anyone on their side (including Ataturk at one point) to trade/ally with and sometimes failure was the result. The Soviets signed a trade agreement with the UK in the middle of the Civil War aswell.

Most of the evidence is freely accessible btw.

apropos to nothing posted:

did I ever say I thought they were secret right wingers? im pointing to it as an example of how the strategy pursued by the Comintern at that time led to mistakes. it’s not as if the leadership of the USSR didn’t experience many of the same opportunistic pressures once they came to power that labor leaders today fall to when they come to power as well. you can defend the Soviet Union and the Bolsheviks specifically and still try to draw lessons on where they made mistakes and in fact I’d say it’s pretty in keeping with the genuine tradition of bolshevism to do exactly that