Jon posted:

The only sources I can ever find to substantiate anything like that come from Grover Furr referencing documents produced at the height of Soviet propaganda- we can prove other documents have been similarly forged and at least some of the accusations referenced by Furr are demonstrably false. That said, I think that's all largely irrelevant to the questions of 1) was the political character of the USSR after Lenin qualitatively different than it was when the Old Bolsheviks were in power? 2) What accounts for this change? And 3) what should communists do with that information in 2023?

my bony fealty posted:

What were some of the major failures of Stalinism? In detail please.

quote:

In such a way, said Mao Zedong, if we look historically at the development of the Chinese revolution and at Stalin’s attitude to it, then it is possible to see that serious mistakes were made, which were especially widespread during the time of the Comintern’s work. After 1945, during the period of the struggle with Chiang Kai-shek, because of the overestimation of the forces of the Kuomintang and the underestimation of the forces of the Chinese revolution, Stalin undertook attempts at pacification, at restraining the development of the revolutionary events. And even after the victory of the revolution Stalin continued to express mistrust of the Chinese Communists. Despite all that, said Mao Zedong, we have stood firmly behind the revolutionary positions, for if we had permitted vacillations and indecisiveness, then, no doubt, long ago we would not have been among the living.

Then Mao Zedong moved on to a general evaluation of Stalin’s role. He noted that Stalin, without a doubt, is a great Marxist, a good and honest revolutionary. However, in his great work in the course of a long period of time he made a number of great and serious mistakes, the primary ones of which were listed in Khrushchev’s speech. These fundamental mistakes, said Mao Zedong, could be summed up in seven points:

1. Unlawful repressions;

2. Mistakes made in the course of the war, moreover, in particular in the beginning, rather than in the concluding period of the war;

3. Mistakes which dealt a serious blow to the union of the working class and the peasantry. Mao Zedong observed that this group of mistakes, in particular, the incorrect policy in relation to the peasantry, was discussed during Comrade Khrushchev’s conversation with [PRC military leader] Zhu De in Moscow;

4. Mistakes in the nationality question connected to the unlawful resettlement of certain nationalities and others. However, overall, said Mao Zedong, nationality policy was implemented correctly;

5. Rejection of the principle of collective leadership, conceit and surrounding himself with toadies;

6. Dictatorial methods and leadership style;

7. Serious mistakes in foreign policy (Yugoslavia, etc.).

Mao Zedong further stressed a thought to the effect that overall in the Communist movement great victories were won. The single fact of the growth of the Socialist camp from 200 million people to 900 million people speaks for itself. However, in the course of successful forward advance in some certain countries, in some certain parties these or other mistakes arose. Mistakes similar to these and others, he said, can arise in the future too. I observed that it would be better not to repeat mistakes like Stalin’s. To this, Mao Zedong answered that, evidently, there will be these types of mistakes again. The appearance of these mistakes are entirely explicable from the point of view of dialectical materialism, since it is well known that society develops through a struggle of contradictions, the fight of the old with the new, the new-born with the obsolete. In our consciousness, said Mao Zedong, there are still too many vestiges of the past. It lags behind the constantly developing material world, behind everyday life.

In our countries, continued Mao Zedong, much has come from the former, capitalist society. Take, for example, the issue of the application of corporal punishments to the accused. For China too, this is not a new issue. Even in 1930 in the Red Army during interrogations beatings were broadly applied. I, said Mao Zedong, at that time personally was a witness to how they beat up the accused. Already at that time a corresponding decision was made regarding a ban on corporal punishment. However, this decision was violated, and in Yan’an, it is true, we tried not to allow unlawful executions. With the creation of the PRC we undertook a further struggle with this ugly manifestation. It is entirely evident, continued Mao Zedong, that according to the logic of things during a beating the one who is being beaten begins to give false testimony, while the one who is conducting the interrogation accepts that testimony as truth. This and other vestiges which have come to us from the bourgeois past, will still for a long time be preserved in the consciousness of people. A striving for pomposity, for ostentatiousness, for broad anniversary celebrations, this is also a vestige of the psychology of bourgeois man, since such customs and such psychology objectively could not arise among the poorest peasantry and the working class. The presence of these and other circumstances, said Mao Zedong, creates the conditions for the arising of those or other mistakes with which the Communist parties will have to deal.

I observed that the main reason for Stalin’s mistakes was the cult of personality, bordering on deification.

Mao Zedong, having agreed with me, noted that Stalin’s mistakes accumulated gradually, from small ones growing to huge ones. To crown all this, he did not acknowledge his own mistakes, although it is well known that it is characteristic of a person to make mistakes. Mao Zedong told how, reviewing Lenin’s manuscripts, he had become convinced of the fact that even Lenin crossed out and re-wrote some phrases or other in his own works. In conclusion to his characterization of Stalin, Mao Zedong once again stressed that Stalin had made mistakes not in everything, but on some certain issues.

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/journal-ambassador-p-f-yudin-record-conversation-mao-zedong-31-march-1956

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

quote:

However, history reveals that, far from a force for revolution, Marxist-Leninists (aka Stalinists, “tankies,” and the like) have held back working-class revolutions and liberation struggles – including in the Global South. In truth, Marxism-Leninism is neither Marxist nor Leninist.

Jon posted:

it's a good article!

StashAugustine posted:

Look you're not all wrong but why do people think they can just come into a thread, flatly contradict what people are saying, and expect to win the argument

StashAugustine posted:

Look you're not all wrong but why do people think they can just come into a thread, flatly contradict what people are saying, and expect to win the argument

In Training posted:

There's an entire chap in vol2 that Engels leaves a footnote on that the math is wrong and none of Marx's conclusions make sense so rather than try to fix it, Engels just leave the raw manuscript and encourages the reader to ignore the previous section. Made me mad Lol

Punished Turtle posted:

this is going into the 30 percent pile

Ferrinus posted:

i don't think it's that harsh, i'd have to go look at it myself but iirc the comment is something like "i had to fix the math here but also marx is going to too much trouble to prove something pretty elementary, here's my own, simpler example"

Jon posted:

The only sources I can ever find to substantiate anything like that come from Grover Furr referencing documents produced at the height of Soviet propaganda- we can prove other documents have been similarly forged and at least some of the accusations referenced by Furr are demonstrably false. That said, I think that's all largely irrelevant to the questions of 1) was the political character of the USSR after Lenin qualitatively different than it was when the Old Bolsheviks were in power? 2) What accounts for this change? And 3) what should communists do with that information in 2023?

quote:

Hitler’s soldiers are German workers and peasants. After the betrayal of the social democracy and of the Comintern, these workers and peasants in large numbers succumbed to the fumes of chauvinism, thanks to the unprecedented military victories. But the reality of class relations is stronger than chauvinist intoxication.

The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter’s attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold.

On the other hand, the German military and bureaucratic caste, after a series of victories and robberies of Europe, will rise still higher above the people, will flaunt more and more its powers, its privileges, and become demoralized like every caste of upstarts.

The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of “pacifiers” and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit.

F Stop Fitzgerald posted:

when trying to convince an american about anything remember you are literally arguing with the stupidest most spoiled baby whoever existed in all of history

Jon posted:

I find it a convincing and well informed description of what went wrong with after Lenin and how we can differentiate the politics of the international under Stalin from communism and the communists it either failed, targeted or often both

uninterrupted posted:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/08/hitsarmies.htm here's your nazi friend publically being a nazi sympathizer😘

quote:

The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter’s attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold.

gradenko_2000 posted:

It's so quaint to still be on the Grover Furr hatetrain in tyool 2023 when that firmly places you in the company of people like Timothy Snyder

croup coughfield posted:

trotsky is right

Raskolnikov38 posted:

rank and file German soldiers did not have more, or indeed much at all, “sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste”

Raskolnikov38 posted:

rank and file German soldiers did not have more, or indeed much at all, “sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste”

gradenko_2000 posted:

It's so quaint to still be on the Grover Furr hatetrain in tyool 2023 when that firmly places you in the company of people like Timothy Snyder

gradenko_2000 posted:

Cuttlefush posted:

not even trotsky would troll with a statement like that. the us state department wouldn't pay people to write that kind of thing because, if anything, it'd unite all the leftist tendencies in a brief, wonderful moment of "get a load of this poo poo" before they went back to purging each other. still, i'm pretty surprised that's an original quote. it's pretty impressive and that format could be pretty versatile. check this out:

In truth, dialectical materialism is neither dialectical nor materialist.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

rank and file German soldiers did not have more, or indeed much at all, “sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste”

Jon posted:

Someone asked for news sites for Marxists that was like Jacobin but better so I posted one, I had no idea it was going to cause all the hubbub. Not really looking to win anything, I guess I got caught up when someone called me a nazi

BornAPoorBlkChild posted:

they were also literal crackheads hth

PhilippAchtel posted:

It reminds me of thar old canard about how the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman.

In that case it's a kind of clever turn of phrase about how the names states give themselves aren't always representative of their true nature. It's not supposed to be serious analysis, just a kind of smug wink-wink nudge-nudge moment that liberal academics love.

Cuttlefush posted:

yeah but it doesn even work because there's no definition of marxism-leninism that isn't based on marxism and leninism. makes it better and im starting to like it. surprised it wasnt already a common phrase. seems like it should be. gonna start using it maybe

Cuttlefush posted:

freebase cocaine hadn't been invented yet. you have a child's understanding of history

PhilippAchtel posted:

It reminds me of thar old canard about how the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman.

In that case it's a kind of clever turn of phrase about how the names states give themselves aren't always representative of their true nature. It's not supposed to be serious analysis, just a kind of smug wink-wink nudge-nudge moment that liberal academics love.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Neither United, nor States, nor American

PhilippAchtel posted:

It reminds me of thar old canard about how the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman.

In that case it's a kind of clever turn of phrase about how the names states give themselves aren't always representative of their true nature. It's not supposed to be serious analysis, just a kind of smug wink-wink nudge-nudge moment that liberal academics love.

Cuttlefush posted:

also death to anything that isn't in a written format. gently caress videos. 20 minutes of little guy in a corner talking is like a few minutes of reading. a fraction of that if you're gradenko