Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That’s why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as “true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be “true.” I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem.
As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.
For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate.
China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” As far as “western Marxism” is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of “empiricism,” the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to “stupid materialism,” as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That’s why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as “empiricists” but “dialectical materialists.”
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man.
Subtitles do not work in English on my end, so unfortunately I cannot read it, and I do not speak Russian. Is there a text version I can run through a translator?
It’s a shame, I stumbled across it by accident and experienced déjà vu. as if it were a continuation of our conversation
I couldn’t find the transcript of this video.
I can summarize his views.
Nikolai Platoshkin has an ambivalent view of modern China: while acknowledging its remarkable economic successes, he criticizes the country’s departure from classical Marxism and expresses concerns about Beijing’s overly pragmatic foreign policy toward Russia. The politician’s main theses on China: “Special” socialism: The politician notes that the Chinese Communist Party retains power and state planning, but within the country, hard-line capitalism prevails, with colossal social stratification and private property. Foreign policy pragmatism: The expert warns that Beijing primarily protects its economic interests and fears large-scale Western sanctions, which is why it acts with an eye on the United States and may limit cooperation with Russia. Historical parallels: Platoshkin criticizes some of Deng Xiaoping’s decisions and China’s current course, believing that in terms of social protection and equality, China is inferior to the standards established under Mao Zedong.
There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don’t believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
“Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism.”
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a “Russian fatalist” instead, that would be more correct… )))
I’m not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don’t want to seem toxic.
““true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism.”
You’re so hung up on that word, Comrade… Can’t I express myself figuratively?.. )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce… But that’s putting it mildly, Comrade!
“Whoever doesn’t regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain.”
V.V. Putin
“As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.”
How much longer, Comrade? They’ve been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I’m reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he’s writing… literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month… I read this, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God’s help… let’s say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?.. ))) It’s Rockefeller.
Don’t you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn’t have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so
I sincerely apologize! I didn’t know it would offend you! I’m serious.
But, frankly, I’m very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists “Comrade.” I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some… socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Once again, I’m sorry, I won’t call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don’t believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union’s conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia’s ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union’s models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia’s conditions are not the same as the USSR’s.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China’s case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for “western Marxism,” in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world.
You know I disagree… )))
What’s wrong with Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don’t you think Mao’s thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin’s “Great Leap Forward” is much more impressive than the “Great Leap Forward”… I’ll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959)
Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968)
Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975)
From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988)
Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993)
Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003)
Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013)
Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
“snake Khrushchev”
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn’t that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin’s artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev’s second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can’t shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called “Khrushchev-era buildings,” began.
So what if they made a deal with the western devil?
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
The soviets did so too during the NEP
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn’t have capitalism at that time, just like China didn’t. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy.
But Stalin, at some point, said “Stop!” And he didn’t do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don’t forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more.
I’ve described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
“Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country.”
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng’s advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin’s artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the “soul” being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That’s why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as “true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be “true.” I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem.
As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.
For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate.
China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” As far as “western Marxism” is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of “empiricism,” the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to “stupid materialism,” as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That’s why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as “empiricists” but “dialectical materialists.”
It wasn’t me who named it, Lenin named it… ))))
Yes, you’re probably right.
Really, this is what I’m more getting at:
I agree with Lenin, of course… )))
Here, I found this especially for you. Just don’t scold me, please, it’s not me speaking.
I found a video of that Russian communist whose book, only in translation, some guy here presented to me as an argument.
Therefore, you should understand this man the same way.
This is Platoshkin, whom Putin recently almost sent to prison because he called for revolution. He miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.
He’s a professor, a graduate of Moscow State University, who worked as a diplomat back in the USSR.
Turn on English subtitles. You’ve never heard such an opinion… from “Eastern Communists”… )))
He is one of the most ardent communists currently existing in Russia.
https://youtu.be/du8jt5pSFR0
Subtitles do not work in English on my end, so unfortunately I cannot read it, and I do not speak Russian. Is there a text version I can run through a translator?
It’s a shame, I stumbled across it by accident and experienced déjà vu. as if it were a continuation of our conversation
I couldn’t find the transcript of this video.
I can summarize his views.
Nikolai Platoshkin has an ambivalent view of modern China: while acknowledging its remarkable economic successes, he criticizes the country’s departure from classical Marxism and expresses concerns about Beijing’s overly pragmatic foreign policy toward Russia. The politician’s main theses on China: “Special” socialism: The politician notes that the Chinese Communist Party retains power and state planning, but within the country, hard-line capitalism prevails, with colossal social stratification and private property. Foreign policy pragmatism: The expert warns that Beijing primarily protects its economic interests and fears large-scale Western sanctions, which is why it acts with an eye on the United States and may limit cooperation with Russia. Historical parallels: Platoshkin criticizes some of Deng Xiaoping’s decisions and China’s current course, believing that in terms of social protection and equality, China is inferior to the standards established under Mao Zedong.
There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don’t believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics.
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
“Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism.”
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a “Russian fatalist” instead, that would be more correct… )))
I’m not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don’t want to seem toxic.
““true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism.”
You’re so hung up on that word, Comrade… Can’t I express myself figuratively?.. )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce… But that’s putting it mildly, Comrade!
“Whoever doesn’t regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain.”
V.V. Putin
“As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.”
How much longer, Comrade? They’ve been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I’m reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he’s writing… literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month… I read this, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God’s help… let’s say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?.. ))) It’s Rockefeller.
Don’t you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn’t have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
I sincerely apologize! I didn’t know it would offend you! I’m serious.
But, frankly, I’m very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists “Comrade.” I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some… socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Once again, I’m sorry, I won’t call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don’t believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union’s conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia’s ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union’s models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia’s conditions are not the same as the USSR’s.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China’s case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for “western Marxism,” in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
You know I disagree… )))
What’s wrong with Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don’t you think Mao’s thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin’s “Great Leap Forward” is much more impressive than the “Great Leap Forward”… I’ll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959) Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968) Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975) From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988) Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993) Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003) Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013) Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
“snake Khrushchev”
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn’t that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin’s artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev’s second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can’t shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called “Khrushchev-era buildings,” began.
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn’t have capitalism at that time, just like China didn’t. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy. But Stalin, at some point, said “Stop!” And he didn’t do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don’t forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
I’ve described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
“Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country.”
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
The team is small, 10 people…
I didn’t know this, I said the phrase on my own.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng’s advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin’s artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the “soul” being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.