Re: Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Martens)

[Muhamed Gessan <mlapine@xxxxxxx>]

[ Muhamed: be sure to delete the last line which says "PLEASE clip all
extraneous ..." when submitting replies to posts. otherwise, your
submissions bounce. Les ]




Comrade Anthony,  forgive me for the delay.
My reply,


> This is true, but Kruschev was in fact a key lieutenant of the Stalin
> faction, and so were all of the members of Kruschev's group. They
> represented the continuity of the core of Stalin's policies from socialism
> in one country (or group of countries), to suppression of inner party
> democracy, to bureaucratic economic planning. Their real differences with
> Stalin's policies were superficial, aimed at gaining political leverge
> against opponents in the party bureaucracy - but without any differences
of
> principle with those opponents.


    There was a great change in Soviet society when Krusehv came to power.
You have stepped on the Coka Cola can of history by saing Krushev and
Stalin's differnces were only "superficial".  First of all their was a coup
de tat carried out by Krushev's gang around the time of his secret speech in
which most of the CC of the Party were removed,and others that he saw as a
threat; the continuers of Marxism-Lenninism. Second after they came to power
they dismantled the "burecratic economic planning" ,infact Krushev
eliminated planning all togather in the Soviet Union. In short, Krushev
built the foundations and later Brezhnev turned the Soviet Structure into a
sort of "state capitalism". Krushev deared that the prolotariart
Dictatorship was eliminated in favor of the "peoples country "Internationaly
the the USSR betrayed the world prolitariat by adopting class claborationist
policies. Also to be noted is Krushev's gang deemphisis on science which I
would blame more than anything for the collapse of the USSR in 1989


> In fact Stalin had declared that in the 1930's the Soviet Union had
> achieved communism! so Kruschev's nonsensical rhetoric was merely a
> repetition of what he had learned under the tutelage of Stalin.

In the Soveit Constituion 1936 it says "Socialism" was established not
"communism" In many other referces afteer that time period Stalin talks
about going to communism. Please show me the source where Stalin decalred
the USSR "Communist" in the 1930s ?

,
> This was a continuation of the policy of socialism in one country launched
> in the 1920's by Stalin's faction, and formalized in the 1930's. It
> included the pact with the KMT in China which led to the 1927 disaster,
and
> included the Stalin-Hitler Pact, Yalta, membership in the UN, etc.
> Krsuchev's efforts at friendship with the USA and Europe were no different
> than Stalin's efforts at friendship with Nazi Germany, or (after Germany's
> 'surprise attack against the USSR), the USA and UK..

Yes, Socialism in one country was a continuation of Stalin's faction AND
Lenin's principles if you read the right articles. Stalin's policies were
not responisble for the Chinese failure, the Chinese failed bacause they
didnt listen to Stalin's advice. I dont see how the Hitler-Stalin pact
relates to that at all. Stalin had to do something so the USSR could build
up strenth for the upcoming war.


> Neither Trotsky nor Bukharin, nor any of their followers ever advocated
> dismantling the Soviet Union, returning it to capitalism, or attacking its
> foundations. Nor did they rally the former bourgeois and liege lords.

    If they did not do so intentionaly or in plain language, they definitly
did so still. Bukrain was advocating free Trade which would of surely
destroyed the USSR, and he was a british Agent.  Trotsky might of been one
also, but he was advocating a "political revolution" in the USSR right at a
dangerous time when Germany was planning to invade. He also called for "self
determination" for Ukraine at  the same time Hitler was. Trotsky's "errors"
are so many that I can't write them all here.

>  For me, these kinds of accusations are made for only one reason: to
> justify killing your ideological opponents.

I personaly dont trust Marten's basic outlook on history because he takes a
very infallible position on Stalin. If you read his analysis and the
analysis of bourgosie historians like Arch Getty and Robert Thurton you will
get a real picture of what happened.  The Purges were a respone to REAL
Threats inside the USSR. Yes, the party got to scared, yes the party went to
far, yes many innocent people were killed. Despite these mistakes we cannot
dismiss the representatives of Stalinism and socialism in the USSR itself as
evil. This requires serious analysis.



comradely,
MG


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.