Originally posted by Michal_Dembinski+Mar 28 2005, 09:53 PM-->(Michal_Dembinski @ Mar 28 2005, 09:53 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angie999@Jul 17 2004, 03:18 PM But I personally think that the original ideals of the Bolshevik revolution would have been a positive benefit to the world. [post=26922]Quoted post[/post] There were no checks and balances preventing the rise of monsters. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was a sham, a gang of hardmen seized power in a weak but potentially powerful nation. Living in a post-communist country makes you realise it was one big lie, utterly destructive of the human spirit, the guys running the system either evil b*stards or, at best, small-time crooks. It will take us a full generation to remove the last vestiges of the system and move ahead as a normal, decent nation. Michal from Warsaw [post=32651]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Well personally I don't believe your country is post-Communist because I don't think it was ever Communist. Stalinist yes, which is a perversion of Bolshevism, but that is another matter. One of the reasons this perversion arose was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country such as Russia in the 1920s, which permitted the rise of the bureaucracy.
Originally posted by angie999@Mar 29 2005, 08:21 AM Well personally I don't believe your country is post-Communist because I don't think it was ever Communist. Stalinist yes, which is a perversion of Bolshevism, but that is another matter. One of the reasons this perversion arose was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country such as Russia in the 1920s, which permitted the rise of the bureaucracy. [post=32666]Quoted post[/post] Hi Angie, Couldn't disagree more, there was no aspect of Stalinism that was not originated by Lenin. The Party Burearcracy, the Cheka, Purges etc. Bolshevism differed from Menshevism in that Lenin insisted Russia could become Communist despite it's backwardness. So essentially, Lenin is responsible for insisting that Russia could become a communist nation despite the obvious contradictions with Marxist theory. So if it was this backwardness that caused the perversion of Bolshevism, blame Lenin as he thought the 'jump' could be made. Take care, Neil
Originally posted by Neil B+Mar 29 2005, 02:33 PM-->(Neil B @ Mar 29 2005, 02:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-angie999@Mar 29 2005, 08:21 AM Well personally I don't believe your country is post-Communist because I don't think it was ever Communist. Stalinist yes, which is a perversion of Bolshevism, but that is another matter. One of the reasons this perversion arose was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country such as Russia in the 1920s, which permitted the rise of the bureaucracy. [post=32666]Quoted post[/post] Hi Angie, Couldn't disagree more, there was no aspect of Stalinism that was not originated by Lenin. The Party Burearcracy, the Cheka, Purges etc. Bolshevism differed from Menshevism in that Lenin insisted Russia could become Communist despite it's backwardness. So essentially, Lenin is responsible for insisting that Russia could become a communist nation despite the obvious contradictions with Marxist theory. So if it was this backwardness that caused the perversion of Bolshevism, blame Lenin as he thought the 'jump' could be made. Take care, Neil [post=32682]Quoted post[/post] [/b] But only in the case that Russia was the first in a series of revolutions, including more advanced countries. The defeat of revolutinary movements in western Europe, notably Germany, in the period to 1923 led inexorably to the rise of the Soviet Nomenklatura and the perversion under Stalin of "Socialism in one country". The Bolsheviks accepted the reality of isolation by the introduction of the NEP, which was a step back from a socialist economy.
Stalin ended the NEP in 1928 if I recall. My point is the Cheka (formed 1917), the forced discipline of labor (Trotsky 1919), Party purges (1920? poss. '21), ruthless suppression of dissent (1917 on) were all created, not by Stalin but under Lenin's guiding hand. These were the products of the October 1917 Revolution, the February 1917 Revolution is another matter. Wouldn't the NEP be a move towards Socialism in One Country by Lenin himself? Sorry to bring this up again! Neil
Originally posted by Neil B@Mar 30 2005, 02:16 PM Wouldn't the NEP be a move towards Socialism in One Country by Lenin himself? Sorry to bring this up again! Neil [post=32716]Quoted post[/post] I would have thought that the repressive measures you quote were justified by the foreign interventions against the revolution, the need to defeat the Whites and the need for the revolution to survive. Nobody is pretending that the Bolsheviks were a load of teddy bears, but they were acting in a historically progressive cause. Stalinism on the other hand was a counter-revolutionary negation of the revolution. The NEP was certainly not an attempt to build socialism in one country, but was in fact a refreat back towards capitalism forced by the isolation of the revolution. Read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed for a fuller argument against Stalinism.
Let me jump right in to the controversy. It's kind of silly to say the Soviets in 1920 could conquer western Europe. They lost the war against the Poles ! France and Germany didn't have anything to worry about from the Soviets in 1920. And it's big time distorted history to claim the Poles saved Europe from Soviet occupation. That's really bizarre and I've never heard that claimed before. Most likely reason for me not hearing that claim is I've never traveled to Poland.
