Re: From Marx to Stalin

Randy,

You cannot simply assert that (a) or/and (b) leads to Stalinism. You have
to show by logic and facts that this is an inevitable outcome. Where have
you done this? I have no burden to prove that (a) or/and (b) do not
inevitably lead to Stalinism since I never made such a claim. Of course,
one need only look around and see that (a) and/or (b), generously
construed, do not lead to Stalinism, since most state socialist societies
are not Stalinist. Perhaps you mean that (a) and/or (b) inevitably lead/s
to Stalinism in Russia during the first half of the 20th century, in which
case your argument is a statement of fact and not a theoretical claim. But
then your argument is trivial.

You also need to show that (a) and/or (b) under Stalin were the same (a)
and/or (b) Marx had in mind. This cannot be accomplished by using the
Marxist rhetoric of Stalin, since a good propagandist would use the
appropriate language, but must be shown objectively, in practice. In
thinking about this matter, you need to consider that Marx argued that
strategy has to change given conditions; for example in a later preface to
the Communist Manifesto Marx emphasized that the strategies advocated were
dated because of the changed historical circumstances. One would have to
show that Marx would have advocated the same things in Russia during the
Stalinist period, or even during the Leninist period, given historical
conditions. This is, obviously, at least in part, an exercise in
speculation. But given that, it makes no sense to make the claim that
Marxism (which needs to be defined) inevitably leads to Stalinism (which
needs to be defined).

You are asserting that (a) and (b) are "errors of Stalin." How are they
errors of Stalin? More important, how are they errors at all? The Soviet
Union proved to be a successful development strategy, lifting hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty, providing universal healthcare and
education. Moreover, the Soviet Union supported successful state socialist
societies all over the world, and every country that pursued the state
socialist strategy lifted themselves out of the poorest third of
countries. The decline of these countries comes with their walking away
from state socialism. The more state socialist countries rely on
capitalist markets the more impoverished their people become. Given the
degree of inequality and widespread poverty under global capitalism,
market advocates really don't have much to brag about.

Stalin was one of the leaders of the Soviet Union. He inherited a system
where (a) and (b), defined broadly, were goals. The Soviet Union under
Stalin emerged as a great industrial power and defeated the Nazi movement.
There were others after Stalin. They were critical of Stalin. What parts
of Stalinism were institutionalized in the Soviet system? How did (a) and
(b) lead to the development of these institutions? You might ask yourself,
how useful is the "great man" theory of history in analyzing the world
communist movement anyway?

You cannot make assertions and walk away from them, Randy. If you feel
need to convince people on this list of your position then you will have
to make an effort to support the claims you make. So far what you have
provided is crude anti-communist ideology. This list (as I understand it)
is a list meant to reflect the discipline of scientific historigraphy;
political ideology is a poor substitute for historical social science.

Sincerely,
Andy Austin

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 John_R_Groves@ferris.edu wrote:

>Andrew, you ask which parts of Marx led to Stalinism. I thought my posts 
>were
>clear on this: (a)eliminating markets and (b) the dictatorship of the
>proletariat. The whole thrust of my argument has been that once one agrees 
>to
>these two components of Marx's philosophy, then the "political logic" 
>eventually
>leads to Stalinism. I have been asking for arguments to the contrary, but 
>no one
>seems willing to take up the challenge.
>
>Randy Groves
>
>