Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:02:18 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: M-G: ERROR: (Conf)using term "Stalinism/ist/ists" again - Rob L.


On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Rolf Martens wrote:

> ERROR: (Conf)using term "Stalinism/ist/ists" again 
> [Automatic posting form, from 18.07.97 to eternity
> - or, if we're lucky, not quite that longlasting]
> 
> [I hope you others won't mind my posting this again to
> referesh Rob L.'s memory - we're having a small
> discussion on this, "small" on my part at least so far]
> 
> ESTEEMED CITIZEN (SURNAME, FIRST NAME)
> Lyon, Rob
> 
> IN YOUR POSTING ON (DATE)
> 19.09.97
> 
> WITH SUBJECT LINE
> Re: Reply to Rob L....
> 
> YOU DESPITE FAIR WARNING (AGAIN) HAVE BEEN EMPLOYING 
> THE SYSTEMATICALLY CONFUSING TERM "STALINISM/IST/ISTS"
> 1
> 
> TIME(S).
> 
> THIS WILL EARN YOU THE CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF EXTRA
> DAYS IN PURGATORY. HOWEVER, IF YOU SHOULD, IN YOUR
> REMAINING BRIEF TIME HERE IN THE VALLEY OF TEARS, COME
> TO REALIZE THE ERROR OF YOUR WAYS, REPENT, MAKE AMENDS
> AND WHAT-NOT, THOSE DAYS WILL BE DELETED AGAIN (ACCOR-
> DING TO IFORMATION RECEIVED). HERE, AS A SPECIAL SER-
> VICE FROM OUR BUREAU, FOLLOWS A TEXT WHICH WE HOPE 
> MAY HELP YOU DO THIS. (READ SLOWLY 10 TO 20 TIMES):
> 
> 
> *The Trotskyite and openly-bourgeois "theory" of "Stalinism"*
> 
> In 1917, there was the great Russian revolution, and in the 
> years immediately following this, the socialist Soviet Union was
> formed. From the late 1950:s on, capitalism was completely re-
> stored in the Soviet Union and that former socialist state 
> turned into a pillar of reaction, from which in the mid-1970:s 
> even the main danger of large-scale imperialist war emanated.
> 
> These are the most basic facts about the Soviet Union, although
> things are not quite as simple as stated here in this fashion. 
> >From the very beginning, there were certain deformations in this 
> socialist state. And a number of reactionary, revisionist and 
> social-imperialist, actions were undertaken by the Soviet 
> leadership long before the end of the 1950:s too. There are 
> several questions of history concering the first socialist state 
> which still remain open. They need to be investigated.
> 
> These problems of course have facilitated the continued advocacy
> of a reactionary "theory" which attacks what it calls "Stalin-
> ism". In the above-mentioned discussion on the Jefferson Village
> Virginia Marxism list, some people rightly condemned the aggres-
> sion against Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, but they said that
> this aggression was an expression of "Stalinism". Openly bour-
> geois media have presented things in a similar manner too.
> 
> But the essentially upside-down character of this description
> of things is obvious. What was the standpoint of the Soviet
> revisionists, who perpetrated the aggression in Afghanistan,
> concerning Stalin? As is well-known, one of the most important
> turning-points in the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet 
> Union was the 20th party congress of the CPSU in 1956 and the 
> "secret speech" held by Khrushchev, the first openly revisionist
> Soviet leader, at that congress, in which he totally *repudia-
> ted* Stalin and tried to blacken him as "completely reactiona-
> ry". The later revisionist regime under Brezhnev, which was the 
> one mainly responsible for the genocidal aggression against Af-
> ghanistan, had made some small modifications in their standpoint
> concerning Stalin but had by no means stopped supporting their 
> forerunner's condemnation of him.
> 
> On the other hand, the genuine Marxist-Leninists, i.e. those who
> adhered to Mao Zedong's correct repudiation of modern revision-
> ism and of Soviet social-imperialism and who of course condemned
> the aggression of that power in Afghanistan, in the main *sup-
> ported* Stalin, while also criticizing his faults.
> 
> So what people might, with the least justification, be called
> "Stalinists" in connection with Afghanistan - those who repudia-
> ted Stalin and perpetrated the aggression against that country 
> or those who defended him in the main and condemned that aggres-
> sion? Obviously, only the latter, if the term "Stalinist" is to 
> have any meaning at all. But it's in precisely the *contrary* 
> way that the Trotskyites and some openly bourgeois media have 
> used that term in this connection. Clearly, their "theory" is an
> utterly confused one.
> 
> What's wrong with the term "Stalinism"? Basically, the fact that
> it doesn't distinguish between the dictatorship of the bourgeoi-
> sie and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
> 
> The openly bourgeois media of course never have recognized the 
> fact that the class character of the Soviet Union, at a certain 
> point in its history, changed. The question of more precisely 
> when the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union took 
> place is one on which some different theories might be argued - 
> because of those still unsolved questions of history. But the 
> fact that, in the 1960:s at the latest, the former dictatorship 
> of the proletariat in that state had been replaced with a dicta-
> torship of the bourgeoisie is incontrovertible. The "theory" of 
> "Stalinism", calling the actions of the revisionist regime in 
> the Soviet Union under Brezhnev etc "Stalinist", pretends that 
> that regime had the same basic character as the one under Sta-
> lin's leadership, which is untrue.
> 
> The Trotskyites are using the term "Stalinism" to denote - what?
> They themselves have always advanced that theory, on the Soviet 
> Union, that it's a "workers' state though with bureaucratic de-
> formations". They have been saying this about the Soviet Union 
> *after* capitalism in fact was restored in that state too. This 
> is extremely reactionary. It flagrantly goes against the clearly
> visible facts.
> 
> Do the Trotskyites with their term "Stalinism" want to denote
> suppression? So it seems. But there are two quite opposite kinds
> of suppression, just and unjust. One kind is by a socialist 
> state against counter-revolutionaries, which is just suppression.
> Another kind is suppression against the masses, which is unjust.
> Now it's the case that under Stalin's rule, there *was* a consi-
> derable amount of such unjust suppression too, and not only just
> suppression. Here there are some important questions of history 
> on which much more clarification is needed. But when describing 
> things, you must at least differentiate between the two kinds of
> suppression. That's what the adherents of Trotsky are *not* 
> doing. 
> 
> Do they want, by their use of the term "Stalinism", to denote
> unjustified military intervention? There *were* some such ac-
> tions undertaken by the Soviet Union under Stalin. One clear 
> case of it was the assault on Finland in 1939-40. That was in 
> fact a *social-imperialist* type of war on the part of the 
> Soviet Union, which, nevertheless, had *not* yet turned into
> a social-imperialist state. The second war of the Soviet Union
> against Finland, the one of 1941-44, was a *just* war on its 
> part, since Finland then was then supporting the Hitler fasc-
> ists' aggression - a support which of course the Soviet Union in
> part had provoked itself by its earlier unjust action against
> that country, but anyway. Typical for at least certain trends
> within Trotskyism too is a tendency to describe the entire
> World War II as an "imperialist" war, that is, an "unjust" war 
> on the part of "all" the warring parties, though in fact that 
> war of course was in the main an anti-fascist one, with certain
> imperialist elements involved as a secondary aspect.
> 
> To call the Soviet revisionists' aggression in Afghanistan a
> "Stalinist" war is unjustified and misleading too, since the
> main war actually led by Stalin was a *just* one, that against
> the invading Hitler fascists. The fact that the Stalin regime in
> the Soviet Union was also responsible for certain military
> actions which must be condemned as unjust is, despite every-
> thing, a *secondary* aspect of that regime. 
> 
> It may be true that this secondary aspect was a rather important
> one. Very murky do some things seem to be which were done by the
> Soviet government in 1939-1940 and early 1941 in relation to 
> Hitler fascism. And these things also have a certain prehistory 
> which likewise merits a closer investigation. But still, to call
> the Soviet revisionists' Afghan war a "Stalinist" one is basi-
> cally misleading. 
> 
> [An excerpt from part 4/4 of my posting on 09.10.1996 "UNITE!
> Info #19en: Social-imperialism's Afghan war", dealing with the
> Trotskyite/openly-bourgeois confusing term "Stalinism" (etc.)]	
> 
>THIS IS FUCKED UP.  IT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC DIALECTICAL BACKING.  NICE TRY
ROLF.  HOW ARE THINGS IN YOUR DILLUSIONAL WORLD?

ROB 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---