Proto-Socialism: an Autopsy of the USSR.

[4years]

Can a socialist or communist explain how the ideal capitalist phase before socialism should be? How does it work?

(It's always confused me.)

Marx explained that socialism could only arise once society had reached a certain level of development under capitalism; it is not simply a good idea that could have been implemented at any point in human history but a economic system that will come into being once society has reached a high enough level of development and the objective and subjective factors necessary for its implementation coincide.

Feudal society lacked the level of technological and economic development to leap straight to socialism; capitalism was necessary to develop the economic basis of society to the point were socialism could be brought into being onto being. Only once capitalism laid the material premises for socialism on a world scale could the establishment of socialism hope to succeed.

This stems from several reasons: First the establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a class, the proletariat, capable of attaining a socialist consciousness and whose material interests are in the direction of the abolition of classes rather than ascendency over the rest of society. Secondly it is impossible to build a classless and equal society on the basis of the extremely limited means of existence provided by feudalism, slave society, and so forth. If you have a shortage of bread, to choose an item at random in order to make the point, you need a bread line, a police man to keep order in the line and so forth. You will have inequalities in access to bread and a sort class society around that (obviously, this is a very simplified example). Capitalism does not suffer from the shortages of previous forms of society, its crisis are crisis of overproduction- where too much is produced rather than too little.

Of course the development of all portions of the globe do not proceed in lockstep but rather according to laws of combined and uneven development. This means that the capitalist stage may be abridged, or even almost completely leaped over, in some areas provided that capitalism has developed to the point where socialism is possible on a world scale- the theory of permanent revolution developed by Marx and refined by Trotsky deals with this question.

To sum up, capitalist development on a world scale is necessary before socialism can be achieved because socialism can only be built once a certain level of economic development is in place and a revolutionary class capable of carrying out socialist tasks- the proletariat- has developed to the point where it can take power.

[4years]

mm kinky

maybe it is..

So this is what the right-wing gives us instead of serious analysis, lovely.

[United Marxist Nations]

I mostly agree with that analysis (this is in reference to the part containing the criticism of the focus on the Post-War period); however, I think it also has to be remembered that they were already preparing for war with the capitalist powers (Stalin mentioned that "we must make good on this [technology] gap in ten years time, or they will crush us" in 1931), so a focus primarily on internal modernization and containing the fledgling fascist states instead of on spreading the revolution is (at least partially) understandable. However, after this threat had passed, and the USSR had rebuilt from the war (probably in the era of 1949-1951), there can absolutely be no excuse for continuing to follow such a trend.

Yet it was the bureaucracy and the so-called theories it produced that did the most to allow fascism to become as dangerous as it did. The theory of social fascism, for example, was nothing more than an invitation for Hitler to take power and the bureaucracy's bumbling did much to impede the German CP from successfully taking power when it had the chance in 1923. Similarly the ridiculous purges that the bureaucracy carried out against the Bolshevik party did much to disorganize and demoralize the country making fascism appear a greater threat then it otherwise would have been; Hitler, if memory serves, sited the military purge as one of the reasons he felt he could invade Russia and win ("they have no good generals"). Furthermore the bureaucracy was a cancer on the Soviet economy weakening it and engaging in absurd twists, turns, and adventures that did a lot to harm the economy.

But the USSR had to modernize first to be able to export revolution effectively, so as to be able to stand up to the backlash of the capitalist powers against it; this is evidenced by the failure in Poland.

The revolution exports itself, it does not need to be exported by force of arms. Germany for instance would have become socialist in 1918-1919 if not for the betrayal of the social democratic leaders. China in 1925-1927, if not for the false theory of two-stages that the bureaucracy in the USSR forced on the young CCP. The British general strike was in 1926 and could easily have led to revolution if it had a serious left-wing leadership. The Spanish civil war was began in 1936 and again it was the lunacy of the two-stage theory combined with the bureaucracy's determination to prevent a socialist revolution in Spain that led that into defeat.

Remove the damaging influence of the bureaucratic caste and repulsive features of the Proletarian Bonapartist state and negate the harmful effects of the absurd theories promoted by the bureaucracy using its usurped authority from the revolution and control of the Comintern and you have the world revolution ripe for the taking. Stalin's theoretical helplessness hardly helped matters and did much to make them worse simply because he allowed himself- unknowingly, as he did most things- to become the mouthpiece of and arbitrator for the bureaucracy.

I agree with much of what you have said; however, I must contest a few things. Firstly, you may have to explain how the social fascism theory (i.e. the theory that refusal to oppose fascism indirectly supports it) helped lead to Hitler's rise, as I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion. As for the Purges, I can't contest that; even several of the most pro-Stalin politicians in the USSR's leadership were very against it (e.g. Kliment Voroshilov, Molotov, Khrushchev, etc.), because, as you said, it decreased the USSR's ability to defend itself, and hampered its ability to pre-emptively contain (or even destroy) Nazi Germany.

As for the part about Germany, I assume you refer to the betrayal by the social democratic leaders against the Spartacist uprisings? I agree that its success would have completely changed the balance of power (a socialist revolution being successful in Germany would certainly have led to more, as well as have removed the potential threat to the USSR, allowing them to develop in a less harmful way); however, the fledgling nomenklatura itself did little with regard to its failure. As for the War in Spain, I think you may be venturing into the examination with some hindsight bias (albeit, such is warranted, as it's an examination of history after the fact), and that, when the war was going on, the USSR had little faith in the strength of the socialist forces within Spain being able to be its own force withing, and, as a result, focused its efforts upon fighting Franco's forces first and foremost, as opposed to facing the Republicans as well. I am mostly in agreement with regard to Britain and China, though in the latter case, due to the lack of a phase of capitalist development, it is most likely that a Chinese revolution would have halted in much the same stage as its Russian counterpart (or perhaps behind it, in a state capitalist phase, such as it is in the present).

As for the part on Comintern, I think it needs to be pointed out that, in the period you're specifying, the USSR itself wasn't in a fantastic position to aid the revolution. Not until after industrialization would the USSR have been able to produce enough material aid to sufficiently help arm the proletariat for revolution against the reactionary forces within their countries.

[4years]

Firstly, you may have to explain how the social fascism theory (i.e. the theory that refusal to oppose fascism indirectly supports it) helped lead to Hitler's rise, as I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion.

"The Communist Party sent a courier to the headquarters of the Nazi Party with a request for cooperation in the blasting of a Trade Union Conference. Hitlerites agreed, as they always did in such cases...As soon as the conference of Social Democrats was well under way, I got up and launched a harangue from the gallery...We refused to budge. As soon as the first trade union delegate touched one of us, our followers rose and bedlam started. The furniture was smashed, the participants beaten, the hall turned into a shambles." (Jan Valtin, Out of the Night)

"In August 1931, to capitalise on their growing popularity, the Nazi Party launched a referendum to overthrow the Social Democratic government of Prussia. At first the KPD correctly attacked it. Then, three weeks before the vote, under orders from Stalin's Comintern, they joined forces with the fascists to bring down the main enemy, the Social Democrats. They changed the name of the plebiscite to a 'Red Referendum' and referred to the fascists and the members of the SA as 'working people's comrades'!.... ...the German Stalinists had organised a united front with the Nazis in the Berlin transport workers' strike! The tram workers took unofficial action over a proposed wage cut. To everyone's surprise, the Nazi Party supported the strike. They joined forces with the Communist Party attacking trams and ripping up tram lines. Street collections were organised for strike funds, and in Berlin appeared the alarming and confusing sight of a Communist and a Nazi standing together and shouting in unison, while they rattled their collecting tins: 'For the strike fund of the RGO' - 'for the strike fund of the NSBO'. The RGO was the Revolutionary Trade Union Opposition (communist), and the NSBO the (fascist) National Socialist Factory Cell Organisation." (Rob Sewell, Germany - from Revolution to Counter-Revolution)

As these two quotes illustrate what social fascism amounted to was a combined struggle with the Nazis against the social democrats. The Red Referendum and the transport workers' strike are to major examples, but as Valtin shows this was a regular occurrence. Social democracy was proclaimed to be the main enemy, the proletariat was split into two rival camps, and Nazism was allowed to rise to power "without even breaking a window pane" (in Hitler's words) despite the fact the the combined SD and CP votes were consistently higher than the Nazi vote and Hitler was never elected to office. A united front between the social democrats and the communists would have prevented the Nazis from ever getting close to power, but social fascism tossed any serious possibility of that out the window and smugly proclaimed "after Hitler our turn." Furthermore the unscientific nature of social fascism served as a cover for the Nazis- after all why should one give special consideration to the Hitler-fascists if fascists are already in power?- and prevented the development of a Marxian theory of fascism- developing this theory, along with calling for an antifascist united front, was one of Trotsky's major contributions in that period.

As for the part about Germany, I assume you refer to the betrayal by the social democratic leaders against the Spartacist uprisings? I agree that its success would have completely changed the balance of power (a socialist revolution being successful in Germany would certainly have led to more, as well as have removed the potential threat to the USSR, allowing them to develop in a less harmful way); however, the fledgling nomenklatura itself did little with regard to its failure.

That was actually my point, I was expanding the examination of the reasons behind the USSR's degeneration from internal poverty and a lack of development to include international factors, namely the collapse of the 2nd International and social democracy.

As for the War in Spain, I think you may be venturing into the examination with some hindsight bias (albeit, such is warranted, as it's an examination of history after the fact), and that, when the war was going on, the USSR had little faith in the strength of the socialist forces within Spain being able to be its own force withing, and, as a result, focused its efforts upon fighting Franco's forces first and foremost, as opposed to facing the Republicans as well.

So you're arguing that the bureaucracy wasn't consciously betraying at that point but was merely incompetent, ignorant of actual situation in Spain, and blinded by the two-stage theory? But why, then, did it carry out a policy of assassinating the left-wing leaders and ultimately outright repressing the left-wing forces in Spain?

I am mostly in agreement with regard to Britain and China, though in the latter case, due to the lack of a phase of capitalist development, it is most likely that a Chinese revolution would have halted in much the same stage as its Russian counterpart (or perhaps behind it, in a state capitalist phase, such as it is in the present).

Ah, but a successful Chinese revolution would have been the spur to a resurgence of revolutionary forces in Russia and worldwide to the detriment of the bureaucracy.

As for the part on Comintern, I think it needs to be pointed out that, in the period you're specifying, the USSR itself wasn't in a fantastic position to aid the revolution. Not until after industrialization would the USSR have been able to produce enough material aid to sufficiently help arm the proletariat for revolution against the reactionary forces within their countries.

From a perspective of sending material aid, weapons, and so forth you are correct. However, there is another form of aid, one more important still- theoretical aid. The critical thing wasn't that the Comintern didn't send weapons to China in 1925-1927 or to Germany in 1923 but that it sent a bundle of false and positively harmful theories, strategies, and tactics. Not sending the Chinese CP into the Kuomintang with the two-stage theory in order to support the (nonexistent) progressive bourgeois and not making Chiang Kai-shek a honorary leader in the Comintern would have done more for the Chinese revolution than a 100,000 rifles. Likewise the bureaucratic decision to "hold back the Germans" in 1923 was more harmful than any lack of military support.

[Threlizdun]

The USSR was capitalist. There is no need to arbitrarily give it another title when there is already one that fits it perfectly. Leninists need to stop attempting to defend that monstrous failure and get on with their lives. The Soviet Union failed. It was destined to fail, and it was a great thing that it failed. The workers did not liberate themselves; they simply replaced their old tyrants with new ones promising them freedom that they would never actually grant.

Leninism utterly fails as an ideology because it proposes that the state will liberate the people, whereas in reality people have only gained liberation by gaining enough power to make demands of the state. Liberation only comes from the people, and with that being the case, communism can only come with the people demand it and take back the power that the state has stolen from them. The notion of a worker's state is absurd, because the state only exists to oppress and ensure the continuation of hierarchies. No, if Leninists actually want to see any genuine change occur, then they need to stop trying to determine who our next despot should be and instead work to counter all despots. When they actually start doing that, then they'll actually be able to call themselves friends of the workers without lying through their teeth. Until then, they shall remain enemies of the workers and of the people as a whole.

[Zottistan]

Not Lenin's fault at all, as a bourgeois republic would have faced many of the same difficulties. And in their defense, the Bolsheviks did implement many capitalist things (see NEP and Fordism); I was saying that, basically, the difficulties were incredible, and that the Revolution would have faced these same difficulties no matter what happened. Certainly, a socialist state could have still been established, but this would have faced massive difficulties until industrialization and the elimination of illiteracy.

If the difficulties you're talking about are poor education and illiteracy, historically, bourgeois democracies have done great jobs at getting rid of those. And given time, orthodox Marxists hold (or at least held at the time) that Russia would have become a bourgeois democracy like other countries. It was really Lenin's impatience and unorthodox belief that capitalist democracy could be bypassed that was responsible for the failure of the USSR.

[United Marxist Nations]

Firstly, you may have to explain how the social fascism theory (i.e. the theory that refusal to oppose fascism indirectly supports it) helped lead to Hitler's rise, as I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion.

"The Communist Party sent a courier to the headquarters of the Nazi Party with a request for cooperation in the blasting of a Trade Union Conference. Hitlerites agreed, as they always did in such cases...As soon as the conference of Social Democrats was well under way, I got up and launched a harangue from the gallery...We refused to budge. As soon as the first trade union delegate touched one of us, our followers rose and bedlam started. The furniture was smashed, the participants beaten, the hall turned into a shambles." (Jan Valtin, Out of the Night)

"In August 1931, to capitalise on their growing popularity, the Nazi Party launched a referendum to overthrow the Social Democratic government of Prussia. At first the KPD correctly attacked it. Then, three weeks before the vote, under orders from Stalin's Comintern, they joined forces with the fascists to bring down the main enemy, the Social Democrats. They changed the name of the plebiscite to a 'Red Referendum' and referred to the fascists and the members of the SA as 'working people's comrades'!.... ...the German Stalinists had organised a united front with the Nazis in the Berlin transport workers' strike! The tram workers took unofficial action over a proposed wage cut. To everyone's surprise, the Nazi Party supported the strike. They joined forces with the Communist Party attacking trams and ripping up tram lines. Street collections were organised for strike funds, and in Berlin appeared the alarming and confusing sight of a Communist and a Nazi standing together and shouting in unison, while they rattled their collecting tins: 'For the strike fund of the RGO' - 'for the strike fund of the NSBO'. The RGO was the Revolutionary Trade Union Opposition (communist), and the NSBO the (fascist) National Socialist Factory Cell Organisation." (Rob Sewell, Germany - from Revolution to Counter-Revolution)

As these two quotes illustrate what social fascism amounted to was a combined struggle with the Nazis against the social democrats. The Red Referendum and the transport workers' strike are to major examples, but as Valtin shows this was a regular occurrence. Social democracy was proclaimed to be the main enemy, the proletariat was split into two rival camps, and Nazism was allowed to rise to power "without even breaking a window pane" (in Hitler's words) despite the fact the the combined SD and CP votes were consistently higher than the Nazi vote and Hitler was never elected to office. A united front between the social democrats and the communists would have prevented the Nazis from ever getting close to power, but social fascism tossed any serious possibility of that out the window and smugly proclaimed "after Hitler our turn." Furthermore the unscientific nature of social fascism served as a cover for the Nazis- after all why should one give special consideration to the Hitler-fascists if fascists are already in power?- and prevented the development of a Marxian theory of fascism- developing this theory, along with calling for an antifascist united front, was one of Trotsky's major contributions in that period.

As for the part about Germany, I assume you refer to the betrayal by the social democratic leaders against the Spartacist uprisings? I agree that its success would have completely changed the balance of power (a socialist revolution being successful in Germany would certainly have led to more, as well as have removed the potential threat to the USSR, allowing them to develop in a less harmful way); however, the fledgling nomenklatura itself did little with regard to its failure.

That was actually my point, I was expanding the examination of the reasons behind the USSR's degeneration from internal poverty and a lack of development to include international factors, namely the collapse of the 2nd International and social democracy.

As for the War in Spain, I think you may be venturing into the examination with some hindsight bias (albeit, such is warranted, as it's an examination of history after the fact), and that, when the war was going on, the USSR had little faith in the strength of the socialist forces within Spain being able to be its own force withing, and, as a result, focused its efforts upon fighting Franco's forces first and foremost, as opposed to facing the Republicans as well.

So you're arguing that the bureaucracy wasn't consciously betraying at that point but was merely incompetent, ignorant of actual situation in Spain, and blinded by the two-stage theory? But why, then, did it carry out a policy of assassinating the left-wing leaders and ultimately outright repressing the left-wing forces in Spain?

I am mostly in agreement with regard to Britain and China, though in the latter case, due to the lack of a phase of capitalist development, it is most likely that a Chinese revolution would have halted in much the same stage as its Russian counterpart (or perhaps behind it, in a state capitalist phase, such as it is in the present).

Ah, but a successful Chinese revolution would have been the spur to a resurgence of revolutionary forces in Russia and worldwide to the detriment of the bureaucracy.

As for the part on Comintern, I think it needs to be pointed out that, in the period you're specifying, the USSR itself wasn't in a fantastic position to aid the revolution. Not until after industrialization would the USSR have been able to produce enough material aid to sufficiently help arm the proletariat for revolution against the reactionary forces within their countries.

From a perspective of sending material aid, weapons, and so forth you are correct. However, there is another form of aid, one more important still- theoretical aid. The critical thing wasn't that the Comintern didn't send weapons to China in 1925-1927 or to Germany in 1923 but that it sent a bundle of false and positively harmful theories, strategies, and tactics. Not sending the Chinese CP into the Kuomintang with the two-stage theory in order to support the (nonexistent) progressive bourgeois and not making Chiang Kai-shek a honorary leader in the Comintern would have done more for the Chinese revolution than a 100,000 rifles. Likewise the bureaucratic decision to "hold back the Germans" in 1923 was more harmful than any lack of military support.

1) Ah, thank you for explaining that, because I wasn't familiar with that one. Faced with that, I have to concede the point.

2) Yeah, It took me a while to figure out whether I should keep that sentence in, because I wasn't entirely sure whether you were implicating the nomenklatura there or not.

3) At least part of the reason is, as you mentioned, that the two-stage theory and the idea of the "popular front" led them to fallaciously believe that the only way to confront the fascist forces was an ironclad alliance with the Republicans (it was this same reasoning that led to the failed attempts to form an alliance with France in 1938-39); thus, anything that was a possible threat to the alliance with the Republicans was therefore deemed a threat to the war effort.

4) I have to think that the bit about China is very speculative, especially with the Japanese plans for intervention. And the American support for Chiang Kai-Shek would have been very problematic for the Chinese Red Army as well. A worry I would have would be that the CRA and Nationalists fighting among themselves would be too weak to resist the Imperial Army when it arrived.

5) I think you're largely correct there, but even with more agitation and more people joining in, there would have still been a need for rifles. I would perhaps use the Boxer Rebellion as an example of how it could have gone wrong.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) The USSR was capitalist. There is no need to arbitrarily give it another title when there is already one that fits it perfectly. 2) Leninists need to stop attempting to defend that monstrous failure and get on with their lives. The Soviet Union failed. It was destined to fail, and it was a great thing that it failed. The workers did not liberate themselves; they simply replaced their old tyrants with new ones promising them freedom that they would never actually grant.

Leninism utterly fails as an ideology 3) because it proposes that the state will liberate the people, whereas in reality people have only gained liberation by gaining enough power to make demands of the state. Liberation only comes from the people, and with that being the case, communism can only come with the people demand it and take back the power that the state has stolen from them. The notion of a worker's state is absurd, 4) because the state only exists to oppress and ensure the continuation of hierarchies. No, if 5) Leninists actually want to see any genuine change occur, then they need to stop trying to determine who our next despot should be and instead work to counter all despots. When they actually start doing that, then they'll actually be able to call themselves friends of the workers without lying through their teeth. Until then, they shall remain enemies of the workers and of the people as a whole.

1) How can it be capitalist when there was no private property? It was a stage between capitalism and socialism, not everything is black and white.

2) So, because researching into molecular biology has found us no ways to cure cancer, because there is not yet a way to treat several diseases, we should just give up and say "we failed"? No, socialism must follow the scientific method, and that means conducting experiments, and then analyzing the results, and determining what can be done better next time, which is what this thread is for. Not whining because you don't like the result.

3) No it doesn't, it proposes that the proletariat destroy the state, and form a new one controlled by them. Hence: dictatorship of the proletariat.

4) Yeah, which is why the proletariat needs to destroy the old state, so that they can seize control of the state machinery to ensure the bourgeois can't just re-make the old order. When there is no bourgeois or bourgeois remnants, the state has no reason to exist, because the proletariat are the state, and everyone is the proletariat. And when everyone is the proletariat, no one is, so; thus, the state fades away naturally from lack of necessity. Do you even State and Revolution? And don't spout that bullshit about "the bourgeois want liberation too", because it's not true. If they wanted liberation, then they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against it. It is against their interests to lose their place of power.

5) I see you ignored what I was talking about, since the entire point of this essay is determining why the USSR degenerated into the authoritarian state it was, so that we can avoid having it happen again. Which is, you know, exactly what you say we need to start doing.

[Pandeeria]

The USSR ultimately degenerated because the Party was simply too power-hungry.

[Costa Fierro]

UMN, I think that the idea of the bourgeois in a traditional communist sense is a bit outdated. For one thing, in all the communist countries during the Cold War, the people who had influence and the wealth and the power were all high-ranking members of the party. They were the ones that controlled the state industries, wealth and economics. They were the elite and therefore could easily be considered bourgeois because power was not vested in the people but rather the Politburo and other high-ranking officials and political bodies.

Therefore I would personally call it a state capitalist because the only people who benefited from the trade and the wealth generated by the trade were those that controlled it i.e the party. As the party is essentially the "state", it could be considered a state capitalist. The same can be said for most countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, bar places like Cambodia.

Do I get a response? I'm interested in what you think of my musings UMN.

[United Marxist Nations]

Sorry, Costa! I got caught up in replying to the post above yours and forgot about it. I'm on my phone now , so a long post right now isn't really a possibility. I can give a more in-depth post in the morning, but for now you might have to be satisfied with the lack of private property.

[Pandeeria]

UMN, I think that the idea of the bourgeois in a traditional communist sense is a bit outdated. For one thing, in all the communist countries during the Cold War, the people who had influence and the wealth and the power were all high-ranking members of the party. They were the ones that controlled the state industries, wealth and economics. They were the elite and therefore could easily be considered bourgeois because power was not vested in the people but rather the Politburo and other high-ranking officials and political bodies.

Therefore I would personally call it a state capitalist because the only people who benefited from the trade and the wealth generated by the trade were those that controlled it i.e the party. As the party is essentially the "state", it could be considered a state capitalist. The same can be said for most countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, bar places like Cambodia.

Do I get a response? I'm interested in what you think of my musings UMN.

No one ever replies to my original post in this thread ever, Costa.

[Empire of Narnia]

It will return again some day to liberate the world.

[Anglo-California]

I'm pretty sure the demands for sovereignty amongst the various ethnic groups sped up the decline.

[Costa Fierro]

Sorry, Costa! I got caught up in replying to the post above yours and forgot about it. I'm on my phone now , so a long post right now isn't really a possibility. I can give a more in-depth post in the morning, but for now you might have to be satisfied with the lack of private property.

OK, although I'd differ on the definition of "private" in this case but I'll wait to see what you have to say.

[Daburuetchi]

I vehemently disagree with you comrade. The USSR was socialist until the Khruschevite clique gained power. The need for the state is derived from the fact that classes still exist even if the rule of capital in one country has been overthrown. It is therefore necessary for the not only for the working class to organize a state of its own but to demonstrate effective coordination and action in order to survive. The balance between democracy and centralism must move according to material conditions if the proletariat is to maintain power. Proletarian democracy implies exhaustive discussion regarding any pending decision and implies that any part of state organization may participate. Only a state based on Soviets, a state which operates in accordance to democratic centralism can survive in the context of global imperialism. Workers cannot be given direct ownership of the means of production. As Lenin said in On Democratization and the Socialist charter of the Soviet Power “any justification whether direct or indirect of the ownership of the workers of a certain factory or certain profession for their specific production…is a gross distortion of the fundamental principles of Soviet power and a complete renunciation of socialism” since socialism presupposes that the state seizes and centralizes the means of production of in the name of society. Only through the soviet apparatus and positions of leadership within the party can the dictatorship of the proletariat be realistically enforced.

As Chairmen Enver Hoxha aptly describes democratic centralism as practiced in the Soviet Union:

“Stalin knew when and to what extent compromises should be made provided they did not violate the Marxist-Leninist ideology, but on the contrary, were to the benefit of the revolution, socialism, the Soviet Union and the friends of the Soviet Union. The proletariat, the Marxist-Leninist parties, the genuine communists and all the progressive people in the world considered the salutary actions of the Bolshevik Party and Stalin in defense of the new socialist state and socio-economic order to be just, reasonable and necessary. The work of Stalin was approved by the world proletariat and the peoples, because they saw that he fought against the oppression and exploitation which they felt on their own backs. The peoples saw that the slanders against Stalin came precisely from those monsters who organized mass tortures and killings in capitalist society, those who were the cause of starvation, poverty, unemployment and so much misery, hence they did not believe these slanders.”

The USSR was betrayed by Khruschevite revisionism. As Zane Carpenter Secretary of the CPGB-M notes step by step between 20-22nd congress of the Soviet Union the Khrucehvites has perfected their revisionism of Marxist-Leninism and pursued a systematically revisionist line. Khruscheve’s introduction of market reforms was a departure from socialism because centralized planning or direct social production is one of the the fundamental characteristic of socialist society.

The abuse of bureaucracy and power is not inevitable in a socialist state. As Kim Jong Il wrote “Our experience proves that when ideological education and ideological struggle are conducted vigorously among offices to improve methods and style of work, it is quite possible to eliminate the abuse of power and bureaucracy which are the vestiges of the old society.”

A vanguard party that neither commands the masses nor tails behind them, one that is firmly based upon the Leninist principles of Democratic centralism can survive.

[Germanic Nordland]

It was not impossible to head "into socialsm" for Soviet, what is this? They were a socialist-country.
*Do you even know that Stalin constructed Holodomor; mostly, to sell grains abroad to strenghten his army as he prepared for the great war, where he wanted to invade the rest of Europe?


Also, Soviet spent all of its money on military and industry, they never cared about their people. Socialism is basically that you don't care about your people, at least that's how it ALWAYS ends up. Communists like to act all "loving", yet I've never seen any traces of this "love" in politics, quite the opposite.
Exampe; In Norway, you might get a heavier penalty for tax-fraud than rape. Norway is one of the most socialist-countries in Europe, and for that the people are worth very little compared to the state. The 200 000 euroes are easier to replace for the government than for a rape-victim to get a worthy life, isn't it? compared to the Norwegian state, no.

Communism/socialism is about everyone being equal, but not in a positive manner. It's easier to drag people down than to drag them up, so they drag the others down. Like in Cambodia, where everyone that could read etc got killed to remove "intellectuals". Maybe someone in here have "better" ideas, yet I'm yet to see any of this in action.

Stop defending communism. Karl Marx had a few decent ideas, but his politics are flawed and cannot be abliged. Most people are way too stupid to have anything to do with governing their own countries, people who believe otherwise aren't worth speaking to. Modern communism/socialism usually turn into dictatorships because that's what it's about, lack of freedom. Not that dictatorsships are all bad.. EXCEPT that communists have a way of murdering everyone that disagree with them, since 1918.......

I see a lot of people talking positive about Soviet here.
Weird... Soviet was behind so many more deaths than the Nazis that it's sickening. Communism are the ideology that has claimed most lives in the last 100 years. Commuism is the worst ideology of our era, making nazism look like a peaceful ideology.

*Fascism, an ideology that in reality has nothing to do with race.*
""Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. ... National pride has no need of the delirium of race" - Mussolini(creater of Fascism)
Yet Fascism is considered an evil ideology. Anti-semitism in Italy was obviously a must if they wanted to be a part of the Axis, which they did, and hence they paid the price.
I find this weird, as commuism is a much more destructive force than fascism. Fascism isn't even about races, like most of the people here think?
Why can't we have a "real fascist" state, one not controlled by nazis? (eg italy was under strong influence from Germany, which was the major force in Europe at the time).
That's not something ANYONE would discuss, because that's "morally wrong". Even though it has nothing to do with racism, it has something to do with cultures.

The problem with communists are their morals. They question everyone yet they support regimes that have commited horrible crimes, some much worse than anything Adolf Hitler ever had in mind.
Stalin cannot get any "thumbs up" for his politics, as he sacrificed millions to strenghten the industry for war. Hitler at least strenghtend his country in multiple ways, as he, unlike Stalin, cared about his people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest - Hitler releasing Jews because of protests from his citizens.
I'd like to see Stalin do that. Oh wait, he'd send all the protesters to Gulag camps.

Communist=Hypocrits

[United Marxist Nations]

@Costa Fierro:

Capitalism is based on several key bases; the first of these is private ownership, i.e. individuals controlling the means of production or a portion of the means of production (the latter in the case of firms), or through a state occasionally acting as an intermediary; however, in the USSR, there was no private ownership, and the state didn't necessarily act in the interests of those in control of it. Key ways to see if this is the case is looking at capital accumulation; in a capitalist economy (be it state capitalist or any other variant), the means of production are managed primarily for the purpose of accumulating profit, but, in the USSR, there was very little actual accumulation of capital, as the means of production were primarily managed for the purpose of using what was created (though foreign trade was an exception); the nomenklatura did not manage the means of production for the primary cause of producing capital for themselves, but rather for the purpose of increasing the position of the USSR economically, militarily, and diplomatically. Another key feature of capitalism is the exchange of values (e.g. use values, surplus values, etc.) in a market, but who were the nomenklatura exchanging with in the USSR? With the entire economy under their simultaneous control, the nomenklatura had no need to exchange for profit, because no matter what the products exchanged and for what values, the state received the same from it. Wage-labor is another key feature, and why the USSR did have wages, it was used in different ways; more like a labor voucher, and that's not even going into the system of "social wages" (social wages were the system of subsidies and state benefits that workers received), which were a huge part of a Soviet worker's "income".

---

@Northern California:

That is true, but nationalist sentiment would have been less powerful a force if socialism had actually existed.

---

@Daburuetchi:

You use Hoxha as a source, but Hoxha himself disagrees with your analysis in the very quote you provided. In fact, Hoxha's analysis is dependent upon the examination of the USSR as being managed by a bureaucracy, the relevant part of the quote is this:

"The peoples saw that the slanders against Stalin came precisely from those monsters who organized mass tortures and killings in capitalist society, those who were the cause of starvation, poverty, unemployment and so much misery, hence they did not believe these slanders.”

While it may not necessarily be evident, Hoxha implies that the control by the bureaucracy (hence, not by the workers) was the cause of those things, and that as a result, blaming Stalin ignores the base cause, and gave that bureaucracy a convenient scapegoat upon which all of its actions could be pinned.

As for North Korea, I find it funny you should first use Hoxha, then try to use an argument that Hoxha would vehemently disagree with (Hoxha pointed out the absurdity of North Korea before it was cool), and the WPK has turned itself to Juche and Songun, which directly rejects Marxism-Leninism and has ethnic supremacy as a key feature.

This essay by Gary Howell gives an excellent analysis: http://espressostalinist.com/2011/11/02 ... -leninism/

[Constantinopolis]

UMN, I really want to give you a proper response to your OP, but for now I don't have much time. However, I want to strongly recommend the book Western Marxism and the Soviet Union, which does an excellent job of cataloging all the various theories about what the Soviet system was (that is to say, the theories put forward by those Marxists who did not believe it was socialist).

To summarize, the theories about the nature of the Soviet system can be divided in 4 categories - arguably, there are really only 4 possible theories, with everything being a version of one of these four:

1. The Soviet Union was a socialist society. This is, of course, the view upheld by the USSR itself, as well as by the majority of Marxists during the Cold War and (probably) the majority of people in general. It is supported mainly by pointing out that the USSR had a planned economy, nearly all the means of production were state property, workers were provided with more extensive social services than even social democracy offers, and there was a very high degree of economic equality.

2. The Soviet Union had a socialist economic system but the working class did not hold state power. This is the original Trotskyist theory, as put forward by Trotsky himself (who called the Soviet state a "degenerated workers' state"). It accepts all of the arguments listed above for why the Soviet economic system was socialist, but points out that political power was held by a small minority of bureaucrats, and there was no real democracy or free political discussion. But wait - you might ask - how can there be socialism if the working class does not hold political power? The same way that we can have capitalism without the bourgeoisie holding political power, which is something that has happened on a number of historical occasions. In the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, we often see countries where the economy became capitalist first, and the bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocratic state later. Thus, there was a period of time when the economy was largely capitalist but the aristocrats still controlled the state. The dominant class in a given mode of production does not necessarily hold state power as well. It usually does, but not always. So just like you can have a capitalist society temporarily ruled by someone other than the bourgeoisie, you can also have a socialist society temporarily ruled by someone other than the workers. The fact that the USSR collapsed underscores the fact that such an arrangement is always temporary.

3. The Soviet Union was neither socialist nor capitalist, but rather represented a different and unique mode of production. This is the theory held by those who call the Soviet system "bureaucratic collectivism", or who use other similar terms that are meant to indicate that it was neither socialist nor capitalist. The argument is that a planned economy with the means of production owned by the state is obviously not capitalist, but at the same time the Soviet system cannot be called socialist either, because the working class did not own the means of production and had no ability to control their use. It may be possible for a country to be socialist without the workers holding state power, but the Soviet bureaucracy did not merely hold state power - it controlled the means of production as well. Therefore, in practice, the means of production in the Soviet system were owned by a minority of people - a class - who were not workers. So it wasn't socialism.

4. The Soviet Union was an example of "state capitalism". This theory is mainly held by some anarchists, but also a few left-communists and others. The argument is, basically, that the Soviet system involved a privileged minority controlling the state and the means of production, and that's enough for it to be considered capitalist. I can't really defend it, because it's such a stupid theory. Apparently the people who hold this view have never heard of feudalism, or any other non-capitalist mode of production that involved a privileged minority controlling the state and the means of production. They just use the word "capitalism" to mean "class society in general".

Personally, I find myself undecided between theories #2 and #3.

[Daburuetchi]

I do not understand the claim that the USSR was a state of mangers rather than a state of the working masses. Within the party positions of leadership, a bureaucracy is necessary because no everyone has developed collective conciousness. The whole point of socialism as Che Guevara said was the creation of "the new man" a man which does not exhibit a predilection toward selfishness and can engage in free productive activity. In practical terms it makes no sense for incompetent people to run important industries or educate the masses. As Lenin said . "Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; that the masses can be contrasted to classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, to categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that usually, and in the majority of cases, at least in modern civilized countries, classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions ." Any claim against a socialist state does not need a burreaucracy would promote a self admitstration model similar to the one in Yugoslavia. This model resulted in the creation of a rich exploitative peasantry.

Also juche is not a racist , nationalistic perversion of Marxism. Juche arouse from the fact that the USSR was trying to impress it revisionism unto other socialiet countries and dictate the course of the revolution. North Korea was a great friend to the Black Panthers and to Arab countries. How can they be considered racist?

[Dejanic]

UMN, I really want to give you a proper response to your OP, but for now I don't have much time. However, I want to strongly recommend the book Western Marxism and the Soviet Union, which does an excellent job of cataloging all the various theories about what the Soviet system was (that is to say, the theories put forward by those Marxists who did not believe it was socialist).

To summarize, the theories about the nature of the Soviet system can be divided in 4 categories - arguably, there are really only 4 possible theories, with everything being a version of one of these four:

1. The Soviet Union was a socialist society. This is, of course, the view upheld by the USSR itself, as well as by the majority of Marxists during the Cold War and (probably) the majority of people in general. It is supported mainly by pointing out that the USSR had a planned economy, nearly all the means of production were state property, workers were provided with more extensive social services than even social democracy offers, and there was a very high degree of economic equality.

2. The Soviet Union had a socialist economic system but the working class did not hold state power. This is the original Trotskyist theory, as put forward by Trotsky himself (who called the Soviet state a "degenerated workers' state"). It accepts all of the arguments listed above for why the Soviet economic system was socialist, but points out that political power was held by a small minority of bureaucrats, and there was no real democracy or free political discussion. But wait - you might ask - how can there be socialism if the working class does not hold political power? The same way that we can have capitalism without the bourgeoisie holding political power, which is something that has happened on a number of historical occasions. In the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, we often see countries where the economy became capitalist first, and the bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocratic state later. Thus, there was a period of time when the economy was largely capitalist but the aristocrats still controlled the state. The dominant class in a given mode of production does not necessarily hold state power as well. It usually does, but not always. So just like you can have a capitalist society temporarily ruled by someone other than the bourgeoisie, you can also have a socialist society temporarily ruled by someone other than the workers. The fact that the USSR collapsed underscores the fact that such an arrangement is always temporary.

3. The Soviet Union was neither socialist nor capitalist, but rather represented a different and unique mode of production. This is the theory held by those who call the Soviet system "bureaucratic collectivism", or who use other similar terms that are meant to indicate that it was neither socialist nor capitalist. The argument is that a planned economy with the means of production owned by the state is obviously not capitalist, but at the same time the Soviet system cannot be called socialist either, because the working class did not own the means of production and had no ability to control their use. It may be possible for a country to be socialist without the workers holding state power, but the Soviet bureaucracy did not merely hold state power - it controlled the means of production as well. Therefore, in practice, the means of production in the Soviet system were owned by a minority of people - a class - who were not workers. So it wasn't socialism.

4. The Soviet Union was an example of "state capitalism". This theory is mainly held by some anarchists, but also a few left-communists and others. The argument is, basically, that the Soviet system involved a privileged minority controlling the state and the means of production, and that's enough for it to be considered capitalist. I can't really defend it, because it's such a stupid theory. Apparently the people who hold this view have never heard of feudalism, or any other non-capitalist mode of production that involved a privileged minority controlling the state and the means of production. They just use the word "capitalism" to mean "class society in general".

Personally, I find myself undecided between theories #2 and #3.

I think you're simplifying the "state capitalist" theory a little bit here, whilst the rather lacklustre critique example you gave is sometimes used by Anarchists; Left Communists have a much more refined critique which is usually based around the "fact" that under the USSR a disposed working class had to sell their labour-power (thus wage labour existed), and the production for exchange (thus generalised commodity production still existed). A Leninist may respond to this by saying that what they call Socialism still has "vestiges of Capitalism", but since Left Communists believe that Socialism and Communism are one in the same, and that the DOTP=Capitalism, they would reject the Leninist argument.

I do agree though that there is a big problem with "Ultra Leftists" (Anarcho-Communists, Left Comms, etc) pretty much calling any society with a state, or class "Capitalism", if done incorrectly it can definitely be seen as a lazy critique.

Personally I am also somewhere between theory 2 and 3.

[United Marxist Nations]

I am also between 2&3. I would respond to other posts more, but I am on my phone; expect longer posts in four hours or so.

[United Marxist Nations]

I do not understand the claim that the USSR was a state of mangers rather than a state of the working masses. Within the party positions of leadership, a bureaucracy is necessary because no everyone has developed collective conciousness. The whole point of socialism as Che Guevara said was the creation of "the new man" a man which does not exhibit a predilection toward selfishness and can engage in free productive activity. In practical terms it makes no sense for incompetent people to run important industries or educate the masses. As Lenin said . "Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; that the masses can be contrasted to classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, to categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that usually, and in the majority of cases, at least in modern civilized countries, classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions ." Any claim against a socialist state does not need a burreaucracy would promote a self admitstration model similar to the one in Yugoslavia. This model resulted in the creation of a rich exploitative peasantry.

Also juche is not a racist , nationalistic perversion of Marxism. Juche arouse from the fact that the USSR was trying to impress it revisionism unto other socialiet countries and dictate the course of the revolution. North Korea was a great friend to the Black Panthers and to Arab countries. How can they be considered racist?

First you say "the USSR wasn't a state of managers", then say "you need a state of managers". I'm not arguing that some kind of bureaucracy is necessary, I'm arguing that it doesn't need to be on a model of the USSR, and could be based on a more socialist model, such as this:

All places of work will be organized in a Republican fashion. The workers shall appoint, by vote and from among their own rank, a soviet of one representative for every ten workers. The soviets in a municipality will appoint, from among their members, representatives [representation will be proportional to population of each place of work] to stand for them in a municipal soviet. This municipal soviet will act as the governing body for the municipality. The population for the whole of a district, province, or territory will participate in direct vote to appoint representatives [representation proportional to the areas from which representatives are appointed] to a regional soviet (legislative body for the region). Each region will participate in direct election to appoint representatives [proportional to the population of the regions represented] to a Supreme Soviet (the legislative body for the entire country). The Supreme Soviet will appoint, by vote, members of the Central Committee, which shall be the executive branch of the Soviet State. The Supreme Soviet will draft economic plans for the country based on the economic needs of the country. Regional and Local Soviets will modify these plans to fit with regional and local needs. They will then send their revisions to the Supreme Soviet for approval; the Supreme Soviet will judge whether these modifications meet the needs of the nation, and will either approve or deny them. The plans will be sent to the Central Committee, which will provide for the necessary organizations to carry out these plans.


As for Juche being based on ethnic Korean supremacism and not being Marxist, we shall take some excerpts from the Gary Howell (who quotes North Korean leaders throughout).

First of all, to establish that Juche is a non-Marxist ideology:

Kim Jong Il claimed, in his essay “The Juche Philosophy is an Original Revolutionary Philosophy” that the Juche Idea is no mere development of Marxism-Leninism, but an entirely new revolutionary philosophy:

“We must give a clear understanding of the Juche Philosophy as a new revolutionary philosophy, not as a mere development of the preceding philosophy.”

And…

“…some development of materialism and dialectics does not constitute the basic content of the Juche philosophy.”

And…

“The Juche philosophy is an original philosophy which is fundamentally different from the preceding philosophy in its tasks and principles.”

So, to sum up the differences between Marxism-Leninism and the Juche Idea, in their tasks and principles, and answers to the basic question of philosophy, according to Kim Jong Il:

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION of MARXISM-LENINISM:
” The relationship between material and consciousness, between being and thinking.”

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION of the JUCHE IDEA:
“The relationship between the world and man, and man’s position and role in the world.”

This leads to the PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLE of JUCHE:
“Man is the master of everything and decides everything.”

So, the MAJOR TASK OF MARXISM-LENINISM:
“The clarification of the essence of the material world and the general law of its motion.”

Whereas

The MAJOR TASK of the JUCHE IDEA:
“The clarification of man’s essential characteristics and the law of the social movement, man’s movement.”

But, what exactly are the differences between Marxism-Leninism and the Juche Idea according to Kim Jong Il? Well, the answer is, when you read what he says, rather banal:

In a nutshell, he doesn’t deny that the universal laws and categories of Dialectical Materialism operate in nature and society (and, by definition, thought as well). He also does not deny that the laws of social development operate in society, thus:

“Of course, society, too, changes and develops in accordance with a certain law, not by man’s own will… Some of the laws of society governs every society in general irrespective of social systems, and some of them governs a particular society.”

But, Marxism-Leninism, according to Kim Jong Il, mechanically applies Dialectical Materialism to society -

“The major limitation of the materialistic conception of history is that it failed to correctly expound the peculiar law of the social movement and explained the principles of the social movement mainly on the basis of the common character of the motion of nature and the social movement in that both of them are the motion of material.

“Marxist materialistic conception of history broke down society into social being and social consciousness and attached determining significance to the social being; it also broke down the social structure into productive force and production relations, foundation and superstructure, and attached decisive significance to material production and economic relations. This means an unaltered application of the principle of materialistic dialectics to society, the principle that the world is of material and changes and develops in accordance with the general law of the motion of material. The world, viewed by the founders of Marxism when applying the general law governing the material world to social history, is an integrity of not only nature but also man and society in that they are material beings. If you consider man as a part of the world, a material integrity, not as a social being with independence, creativity and consciousness, and apply the general law of the movement of material world to social history, you cannot avoid seeing the social-historical movement as a process of the history of nature.”

The above quotation of Kim Jong Il should serve as a monument to the incoherence and self-contradictory nature that is the essence of the Juche Idea.

Kim Jong Il starts off by asserting that an Apple is not an Apple but an Orange, and then proceeds to demonstrate beyond doubt that all the features of the Orange – texture, feel, look, taste, etc., are those of the Apple – but still asserts that the Apple is an Orange!

The “principle that the world is of material and changes and develops in accordance with the general law of material” IS “society, too, changes and develops in accordance with a certain law, not by man’s own will.”

“Material” means “Objectively”, i.e., independently of man’s will, outside of man’s consciousness, but it seems Kim Jong Il’s mind operates according to a different logic than the rest of humanity, one where 1+1 really does equal 3 and where one really can square circles on a daily basis. But, in the real world, his assertions are patent nonsense. It should be apparent now that the features I have outlined so far are those that have an identity with all brands of revisionism, from Bernstein’s brand onwards, namely that “new conditions” necessitate the “creative development” of Marxism-Leninism, which, in reality means divesting it of its revolutionary essence, the difference, in the WRP’s case being that Marxism-Leninism’s “limitations and ideo-theoretical immaturities” necessitate its wholesale replacement with the two Kims’ scatter-brained petit bourgeois farrago of distortions of Marxism-Leninism – aka, the Juche Idea. This shouldn’t come as any surprise to Marxist-Leninists who are well aware of the feudalistic personality cult that surrounds the two Kims, the anti-Marxist leadership theories that have been perpetrated in the DPRK, where, it is said, over 30 000 monuments to the “Great Leader” Kim Il Sung, have been erected.

To assert that because the universal laws and categories of Dialectical Materialism apply to society, as they apply to nature and to thought, that therefore, Marxism views man as an animal in nature, is sheer lunacy, that even Kim Jong Il himself contradicts, further on in his essay. He is just thrashing about, trying to find holes in Marxist-Leninist philosophy that are just not there, so he resorts to ‘straw man arguments’ against Dialectical and Historical materialism, in order to try and justify their replacement with the decidedly dodgy Juche Idea.

Here is another of Kim Jong Il’s ‘straw man arguments’:

“The Marxist philosophy defined the essence of man as an ensemble of social relations, but it failed to correctly expound the characteristics of man as a social being. The preceding theory explained the principle of the social movement mainly on the basis of the general law of the development of the material world, because it failed to clarify the essential qualities of social man. For the first time the Juche philosophy gave a perfect elucidation of the unique qualities of man as a social being.”

Further on…

“The origin of man’s essential qualities must be sought not in the development of his features common with those of other material beings (animals – G) but in the characteristics unique to him.”

As regards the concept of “social being”, it should not be understood as Marxist-Leninists understand the term:

“Regarding man’s essential qualities, it is important to have a correct understanding of the social being. The founders of Marxism, while raising the question of man’s essence in social relationship, used the phrase social being as a concept meaning the material conditions and economic relations of social life which exist objectively and are reflected in social consciousness. Since they regarded man as a component of productive forces, as the ensemble of social relations, the phrase social being they used implied man as well. However, they did not use it as one having the particular meaning that defines man’s essential qualities. Systematizing the Juche Philosophy, we used the term social being as one having the particular meaning that defines man’s essential qualities. In the theory of the Juche philosophy man is the only social being in the world.”

Further…

“The Juche Philosophy is a new philosophy which has its own system and content, so its categories must not be understood in the conventional meaning.”

So, according to the Juche Idea, “Man is a social being with independence, creativity and consciousness.”

The sheer banality of this definition will be obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. It is the marxist-leninist definition of man’s essential qualities which is the adequate explanation, not the vacuous distortion that is the Juche definition.(1)

The Juche definition of man’s essential characteristics rips man out of time ands space – in other words, it is an abstraction. Marxism-Leninism, never abstracts man from the world. In Marxism-Leninism’s characterization, man is always concrete man. Man exists exclusively in a concrete time and place, in a definite social-economic formation, in definite relationships with other people, e.g., class, family, nation, peer group, work collective and so on.

So, in effect, the Juche Idea’s definition of man’s essential qualities is meaningless and worthless in the scientific reflection of the objective law-governed world and man’s position and role in it.

Next, to establish Juche's ethnic supremacism; this excerpt begins with a very long quotation of Kim Jong-Il, then goes on afterward to explain why it is incorrect and ethnic supremacist; so just be aware that, until you see the citation (which I bolded so that the transition would be clear), you're reading Kim Jong-Il, not the Gary Howell essay:

“The following happened when Kim Jong Il was a student at Kim Il Sung University, One autumn day in 1960, during a lecture on Korean history, there was an argument on whether or not Koreans overseas could be considered a part of the Korean nation, since the Marxist-Leninist classics said that only when the foregoing conditions – common language, territory, economic life and psychology manifested in culture – were met could the people constitute a nation.

‘ In those days, scholars who dogmatically accepted the existing theories held that the Korean nation had been formed either in the 18th century when Korea was in the initial stage of capitalist development or in the period of Japanese imperialist colonial rule or even after liberation on August 15, 1945. Kim Jong Il criticized their dogmatic view based on the Marxist-Leninist Classics and said that the basic indexes of a nation are homogeneity of bloodline, a common language and a common territory; in particular, that bloodline and language are the most important in defining a nation, and that a nation is a solid group of people who are united with homogeneity of bloodline, language and territory.

‘He went on to say that Korean nation has long lived in one territory, inheriting the same bloodline and speaking the same language, and it is a nation with a history of 5,000 years and with a splendid culture, and that expatriates, too, belong to Korean nation. A nation is a cohesive group of people that was formed historically and the largest unit of social life. A nation is not formed or broken up easily by a change in the social system. The formation of a nation conditions the appearance of social classes and strata. Even in a classless society the nation still exists. If one’s bloodline and language are same, one belongs to one and the same nation, even though one’s ideology, ideals and territory are different. This is his outlook on the nation.

‘Our nation is a homogeneous nation descended from Tangun that has inherited only one bloodline for 5,000 years. Such a phenomenon is rare in the world. Homogeneity of bloodline is the most important characteristic of a nation. If we regard a common economic life as the main mark of a nation as held by previous theories, our fellow countrymen who live under the different economic systems of north and south Korea should be divided into a “bourgeois nation” and a “socialist nation”, and several million Korean expatriates could not be regarded as part of our nation. Viewed from this angle, Kim Jong Il is the benefactor who has identified all the people in the north and south and the several million expatriates as belonging to one and the same nation. Language is another important factor defining a nation. Of the several factors defining a nation, territory and culture may be altered, but the homogeneity of bloodline and a common language cannot be changed. Since the people of north and south Korea have inherited the same bloodline and speak the same language, even though they have lived in different territories and under different economic conditions for more than 50 years since the country’s division, they have a feeling of affinity and friendship. A common territory is not the same as the territory ruled by State power.

‘The territorial definition of a nation means the land where fellow countrymen of the same bloodline and speaking one language have lived their lives from generation to generation. The territory of a national community might be occupied by foreign forces, but it cannot be lost; even a subject nation cannot abandon the land where their forefathers have lived.

‘The main territory of Koreans is the land of 3,000 ri (One ri is 400 metres) where they have lived for 5,000 years. (5,000-ri means the total length of Korea’s territory.) This land remained our nation’s home in the 41-year period of Japanese colonial rule and cannot be land owned by Americans because they have occupied the southern part of our country for half a century. It is our nation’s living space and nest today and will be forever in the future as in the past.

‘A common culture needs to be viewed by taking bloodline and language as the common features. This is because the character, mentality and consciousness of a nation are unthinkable apart from communities based on blood and language.

‘As seen above, Kim Jong Il’s definition of a nation based on one’s blood and language is correct and scientific. Kim Jong Il gave a wise answer to the question of our nation’s formation. Criticizing the dogmatic view which fixed the time of the formation of our nation to the development of capitalism, he said: “Our people is a homogeneous nation who have inherited one bloodline, language and culture in one territory from olden times, and it is a wise nation with 5,000 years of history, a brilliant culture and splendid traditions.” The question of a nation’s founding is a basic one for the theory of the nation and is the starting point to systematize a nation’s history.

‘The Korean nation was not formed in modern society in the course of capitalist development. Our compatriots long lived in one territory having one blood, language and culture, and in the course of history they became a single nation. The beginnings of the nation’s formation can be seen in clan society. With the emergence of the state, the clan became a special group settling in a certain region. In due course, this developed into a nation. This is a brief summary of his view on the formation of our nation. His Juche-oriented view of the features of our nation and of its formation presents a compass for people who were in the past obsessed with flunkyism and dogmatism to use their own brains and think independently about national questions.”

(Full Embodiment of National Independence – from Guiding Light General Kim Jong Il, Foreign languages Publishing House, Pyongyang, DPRK, 1997)

Kim Jong Il’s definition of the Nation here is not a million miles removed from the Nazis’ mystical views on “blood and soil” (blut unt boden). There is no such thing as a pure “race” or a pure “ethnic group”. We are, in the words of the scientists, “energetic mongrels”. The idea that the definition of a nation can be thought of in terms of “bloodline” is just laughable and merely reflects the pseudo scientific character of the “Juche Idea”. Kim Jong Il’s ideas on the nation are eclectic and metaphysical. They certainly do not reflect the dialectical nature of the objective law governed world. What, in Kim Jong Il’s mind would Britain, France and Germany represent then, with their multi ethnic, multi-cultural states, let alone the USA and Canada and Australia?

There are not many countries that would fit Kim Jong Il’s definition of a nation, if we accepted his thesis.

-Excerpted from "The Juche Ideal in the Light of Marxism-Leninism", Gary Howell; essay was found posted to Espresso Stalinist.

[Seaxeland]

More like they realized their dreams of a Left-wing Utopia were impossible and bailed a quarter of the way there.

[United Marxist Nations]

It was not impossible to head "into socialsm" for Soviet, what is this? 1) They were a socialist-country.
*Do you even know that 2) Stalin constructed Holodomor; mostly, to sell grains abroad to strenghten his army as he prepared for the great war, where he wanted to invade the rest of Europe?


Also, 3) Soviet spent all of its money on military and industry, 4) they never cared about their people. Socialism is basically that you don't care about your people, at least that's how it ALWAYS ends up. Communists like to act all "loving", yet I've never seen any traces of this "love" in politics, quite the opposite.
Exampe; In Norway, you might get a heavier penalty for tax-fraud than rape. 5) Norway is one of the most socialist-countries in Europe, and for that the people are worth very little compared to the state. The 200 000 euroes are easier to replace for the government than for a rape-victim to get a worthy life, isn't it? compared to the Norwegian state, no.

6) Communism/socialism is about everyone being equal, but not in a positive manner. It's easier to drag people down than to drag them up, so they drag the others down. 7) Like in Cambodia, where everyone that could read etc got killed to remove "intellectuals". Maybe someone in here have "better" ideas, yet I'm yet to see any of this in action.

Stop defending communism. Karl Marx had a few decent ideas, but his politics are flawed and cannot be abliged. Most people are way too stupid to have anything to do with governing their own countries, people who believe otherwise aren't worth speaking to. Modern communism/socialism usually turn into dictatorships because that's what it's about, lack of freedom. Not that dictatorsships are all bad.. EXCEPT that communists have a way of murdering everyone that disagree with them, since 1918.......

I see a lot of people talking positive about Soviet here.
8 ) Weird... Soviet was behind so many more deaths than the Nazis that it's sickening. Communism are the ideology that has claimed most lives in the last 100 years. Commuism is the worst ideology of our era, making nazism look like a peaceful ideology.

*Fascism, an ideology that in reality has nothing to do with race.*
""Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. ... National pride has no need of the delirium of race" - Mussolini(creater of Fascism)
Yet Fascism is considered an evil ideology. Anti-semitism in Italy was obviously a must if they wanted to be a part of the Axis, which they did, and hence they paid the price.
I find this weird, as commuism is a much more destructive force than fascism. Fascism isn't even about races, like most of the people here think?
Why can't we have a "real fascist" state, one not controlled by nazis? (eg italy was under strong influence from Germany, which was the major force in Europe at the time).
That's not something ANYONE would discuss, because that's "morally wrong". Even though it has nothing to do with racism, it has something to do with cultures.

The problem with communists are their morals. They question everyone yet they support regimes that have commited horrible crimes, 9) some much worse than anything Adolf Hitler ever had in mind.
Stalin cannot get any "thumbs up" for his politics, as he sacrificed millions to strenghten the industry for war. Hitler at least 10) strenghtend his country in multiple ways, as he, unlike Stalin, cared about his people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest - Hitler releasing Jews because of protests from his citizens.
I'd like to see Stalin do that. Oh wait, he'd send all the protesters to Gulag camps.

Communist=Hypocrits

1) How so? Since when was the state controlled by the working class?
2) Disputed, as I have pointed out multiple times.
3) At its highest (the late '80's) the actual figure is closer to 20%.
4) Then care to explain the massive increase in life expectancy, literacy, living conditions, near universal employment and housing, the elimination of many diseases, and the massive decrease in infant mortality (women during Stalin's time were the first generation of Russian women to have access to pre-natal care).
5) Norway isn't even remotely socialist, it is very capitalist.
6) No it isn't.
7) Pol Pot's ideas don't reflect Marxism in any way, his ideology best illustrates radical primitivism.
8 ) Hahahahah! No. The USSR is believed to be responsible for the deaths of about 15 million people in total (9-11 million of which were during Stalin's time), the Nazis killed 13 million+ civilians in the USSR, killed 11 million as part of the Holocaust, killed 5 million Soviet POW's, and started a war that killed 60 million people when all was said and done. And the Nazis hadn't even gotten started, the USSR got to carry out whatever it wanted.
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
10) In what way is getting your country destroyed "strengthening your country"?