Buy Another View of Stalin 1st by Ludo Martens, John Plaice (ISBN:) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders. Author: Martens, Ludo. Note: with other titles. Link: PDF at Stable link here: ?key= olbp This book by Ludo Martens of the Worker’s Party of Belgium, Another View of Stalin (EPO, Antwerp: ), is pretty incredible. For us, working.
|Published (Last):||4 March 2009|
|PDF File Size:||10.4 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.75 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I read Adorno, Jameson, and Critical Theory. Later my utopianism became more nuanced and sophisticated as I studied philosophy formally. Whatever his errors may have been, Mao was a lydo of fresh air, so clear and simple, yet sharp as a razor — so practical and useful!
What did this say about what socialism could be? Through a more thorough study of Marxism and of history, I came to lkdo that Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist and that the USSR, at least until the Krushchev years, provided a shining example of what Marxism was when applied. Nothing is assured just because the proletariat has seized state power.
Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens
Fast forward a bit. I attended a recent conference where a lot of Trotskyite groups tabled. On the way to conference, in the van that we had rented for our mobilization, I was talking about Soviet history, about Stalin and his contributions to building socialism, and about the slow death of the Soviet system as the sickness of revisionism tore the USSR apart from Krushchov to margens Gorbachav, to Yeltsin and the liquidation of the CPSU and the rise of the oligarchs.
And the millions killed? They were very confusing, and after all, they said all the same things about Stalin that their highschool teachers had been saying all along!
And this brings us to the question of revisionism. In the last instance, it comes down to the very essense of Marxism, to historical materialism, to the scientific analysis of social, political and economic change. Vieww our answer is yes, then we must come up with a balance sheet of its successes and failures, we must go into the particulars, the local and geopolitical contradictions, the historical milieu. The question of Stalin is central to this — the question of naother architect anothher the first Socialist society and leader of the international communist movement for so many crucial decades.
To defend Stalin one must have a firm grasp of history. And we know, as Mao Zedong has said, the basis of Marxist epistemology, that is the basis of all scientific knowledge, is practice. A lot of people I know who have read this book on Stalin by Comrade Martens have been stunned by the degree of the lies perpetuated to attack the architect ludi socialism. It is a common thread that links all of communisms enemies: Imperialists, Fascists, Trotskyites, Revisionists, etc.
Comrades like it because it is a weapon. Anti-capitalist fellow-travellers like it because it reaffirms what they have always suspected — that the greatest enemies of capitalism and imperialism are the ones who are most villified by the petit-bourgeois lackeys of international monopoly capital. One mzrtens look in philosophy as well. And we can see where that leads.
The humanists are liberals, as Louis Althusser has pointed out in his cleaver syllogism: Where does this revisionism lead?
Another View of Stalin By Ludo Martens
In the Soviet Union and the Warsaw States it led to capitalist restoration in its most barbaric form. Humanism restored gangster-liberalism in the Soviet Bloc. Mao Zedong puts it very simply: I am an activist, a militant involved in the daily struggles of the working marttens oppressed people. I argue for socialism, for Marxism-Leninism. To do this, this book by Comrade Martens is useful, especially with students and young people.
So many people see these problems of exploitation, poverty, national oppression, sexism, and so on. They see that they are systemic, but so often it stops there. But this book does well to demonstrate that, situated within its historical context, Communism is a good thing.
Stalin, architect of stalon, is a shining example to genuine Marxist-Leninists everywhere. The Velvet Counter Revolution. For more on the role of Stalin, the anti-revisionist movement and a critical evaluation of the role of Mao and the CPC, see also Ludo Martens. Wow, what a really thoughtful and honest post. Stalin is indeed a complex person, as is that whole time period in general. Oh and some older comments of mine are online here.
You might also be interested in my posts about Proletarian Democracy.
I read your stuff on proletarian democracy and your article on Stalin, and there are a few points I take issue with in both. This is political liberalism. It is bourgeois democracy, plain and simple. And in your Stalin article you make the statement: Meaning, there was a qualitive improvement of life under the Stalin era for the majority of people.
But on the other hand, communists should never follow a commandist approach of doing things and should always carry out the mass line. It was applied throughout the history of the Marxist-Leninist movement by all successful revolutionaries.
I would say most expecially by Lenin and Stalin. Well, I used to share your opinions on multiple parties. But I think if we have learned anything from the history of past socialist societies, it is that there is no formal measure to prevent revisionism. The running record for the one-party state preventing revisionism is 0 to 2. Mutliple parties creates a formal atmopshere of democracy and accountability — why is that bourgeois liberalism?
Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens
Democratic centralism is absolutely essential to a revolutionary party. But does democratic centralism means absolute obedience to a CP, even if the CP is wrong? This has been true in the past and may well be so for the future; it means long-termcoexistence and mutual supervision. And yes, you have a very real point: I am no revisionist — I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and think the Cultural Revolution was one of the greatest moments in staln history and the class struggle.
This was clearly a move to throw the proletarian revolutionaries off and to confuse the masses. Lenin smashed to atoms the notions of classless democracy in a class divided society.
But the leason was not easilly learned, and still not learned by modern revisionists and social-democrats that populate the Western countries. But while fighting off revisionism and bourgeois liberalism, some communists have committed the opposite error, leaning towards stale dogmas and developing a rigid attitude towards differences of opinons, and contradictions among the people. Those who make mistakes of this kind will not only find themselves isolated, but defeated.
My friend, that you for this anothr discussion! This is not the same thing.
Another View of Stalin By Ludo Martens – U.S.S.R.
No party but the CPC held the helm of the dictatorship of the anothsr. I think you are taking the rise of revisionism in the CPSU where the Party was liquidated when just what you are advocating took place and CPC where capitalism has not been fully restored out of their historical context. Well, I think even a one-party state can be considerably democratic. But I think the whole of the ICM has been bogged by too much conservatism, including how we look at and examine history.
Revisionism took on different forms…in China they still have the one-party system. I anothdr the one-party system only gives the revisionists and toadies more reason to join and subvert the CP. As such, participants in the state should take oaths to promote and uphold these principals. If the Party is to contest power with other progressive and democratic parties, it must struggle harder to engage the mass line, to educate the people and to continually revolutionize society.
Contested, multiparty elections serve the proletariat in this ,udo. If a Party, even the Communist Party itself should change color, or begin to lose luster, it can find itself removed from posts.
If a party in power attempts to act against the will of the masses despite the formal consitution, it would the duties of revolutionaries and progressive people everywhere to struggle against that action. This is where the historical important and example of the Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind. This is what concerns me. These events all had broad mass support and the intention of fundamentally changing the political, social and economic structures of anofher countries in question.
Had there been other parties contesting for power it would have been Rightist parties that would have been given power — in some cases parties backed by the CIA, as were many of those upheavals. A party without democratic centralism and criticism and self-criticism, with CIA backing and a counter-revolutionary agenda comes to power. As for two-line struggle. Criticism and self-criticism provide the party with a self-correcting line. A constitution is fine and good.
Parliamentary competion or even legal factions in the CP are not. The link of the email list is http: You are invited to join the email list and take part in the discussion.
We have around members making it the largest Marxist-Leninist email list on the internet. Please feel free to post whatever I write wherever you like.
Just continue to give reference to this blog. Regarding your dialogue with Vidrohi. Since you are still in the evaluation phase and like the CPC docs on Stalin, martns read this article concerning those documents. I think it is very good and would be interested to know your opinion and it would make for very interesting discussion, I think. Given your interests I think that you perhaps more than many from the pro-Chinese or Mao Zedong Thought tendency would find it particularly interesting.
This post on post on my blog might be interesting for you: First of all, every disagreement within our class is not a line struggle, and those who would treat debate and ferment in such a way, I wonder what a society run like that would look like.
It seems you push forward Stalin more then Mao, and I wonder if this is correct. Speaking with bias, of course, as a ludl Maoist, I see Maoism as the highest stage of Marxism at this point in time.