Wandering thoughts and notes related to the tread. 
>From 1928 with Stalin's Industrialization of the Country speech and plan,  to 
his death in 1953, the polices of forced collectivization, rapid  
industrialization and centralized planning through a series of five year plans  
complete sway. Without question the execution of Bukharin and other  leaders, 
the imprisonment of tens of thousands of rank and file communists -  party 
members, many of whom were innocent of any wrong doings, had much to do  with 
silencing of the voices of opposition. However, it would be wrong to  assume 
that Stalin eliminated diversity of thought and policy, which simply  adapted 
to that peculiar form of Soviet speak. Everyone simple wrote in the form  of 
Stalin and those unfamiliar with this form of Soviet speak will find it all  
but impossible to follow the various intense forms of political struggle and  

It would be horribly wrong to think for a moment that Stalin's economic  
polices were not overwhelmingly supported by the population. The idea that  
violence alone can account for the popularity of Stalin views is equally wrong  
a failure to understand elementary politics. The people loved Stalin beyond  
comprehension of those not familiar with politics and how people actually think 
 things out.
American actually did vote for Bush W. and he was horrible stupid by all  
accounts. Stalin was by no mans unlearned. 
Acceptance of Stalin's view and approach to building socialism was  supported 
because it worked. The success was so obvious in the building of  entire new 
towns, roads, factories and cities. Within an incredibly short time,  (less 
than the time I worked and retired from Chrysler), the Soviet  Union leaped 
a semi-feudal country and backwardness into the front ranks of  the 
industrialized countries. 

One has to visualize this pace of  development; place themselves in this 
environment of going to work everyday and  look out at Soviet society as a 
rather than a detach analyst trapped by  ones own ideological inclination. 
One needs go to the country side and see how  industrialization of the country 
uproots the old society and why dozens of  communists sent to set up schools 
were murdered and many of the female teachers  raped and then murdered. The 
resistance is complex and mirrors the resistance  capital encounters in 
the money economy into a historically stable  natural economy.  

Somewhere on the A-List I produced the  statistics of how fast the population 
moved from peasant to proletariat, and it  is breathtaking. Then what was 
traced was the impact of these peasants turned  proletarian on organization and 
why the organizations would collapse. The  spontaneous life as culture of the 
new proletarian is to convert all  organizations into form of the extended 
family. To understand this one has to  "go there and experience it." The new 
proletariat was less than 10 years old and  Lenin himself wanted only to 
proletarians into the party who had a  minimum of 10 years factory seniority! 

I no longer have the books  with all the stats, but remember some and have 
some from the book "Socialism  Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet 
Union."  In the first year of  the 5 year plan industrial production grew by 11 
percent. From 1928 to 1940 the  industrial sector grew from 28% of the economy 
45 percent of the economy.  Between 1928 and 1937 heavy industry output of 
total manufacturing output grew  from 31 percent to 63%. The illiteracy rate 
drop from 56 percent to 20 percent  and guess who Stalin wrote for and to? 

You can bet it was not the intelligentsia. Here I am condoning nothing  but 
stating the obvious facts so misunderstood by our own intelligentsia.  Further, 
it is a profound misunderstanding that Stalin was not a first rate  
theoretician with a gigantic memory, which he used against his opponents. He  
understood all the issues. Whatever his demons, paranoia, masochism and  
narsssacism, he understood quantitative dimensions of the social process;  
specifically its nodal point and easily outflanked his opponents, who deeply  
political struggle are won and lost on the basis of an abstract theoretical  
profundity. More often than not his opponents were more wrong than he was and 
understood that by reading what they wrote. 

The reason Lenin  recruited Stalin into the upper level of the party is based 
on his early  writings. On his death bed Lenin saw something grievously wrong 
with Stalin's  personality, in the way he treated Lenin's wife. This incident 
and Stalin's  later apology is perhaps the only time he apologized to anyone. 
To understand  the rise of Stalin to power all one has to do is read his 
foundations of  Leninism and compare it to what Bukharin wrote and then what 
Trotsky wrote. The  whole damn party voted for Stalin after reading the 
published in papers  and in the case of Trotsky published in book form. This of 
course means that I  have actually read Trotsky - pretty extensively and 
Bukharin. And then I went  "there" at the time of the great debates. No one in 
Soviet Union could  really go along with Trotsky because he did not make any 
sense that  matched Soviet reality. There is a real reason Lenin called him 
"the Judas." 
This by no means excuse any of the real or perceived "crimes" of the Stalin  

One with a true grasp of material relations and  processes can explain the 
process to a 13 year old child. 

Then of  course Stalin named himself and "Stalin" means "man of steel." 


Plus . . . . 

Building a factory system does not  require the mastery of the theory of 
value. Between 1941 and 1953 the Soviet  Union defeated German fascism and 
- in the main, their economy. By 1948  overall industrial production output 
exceeded 1940 by two and a half times.  

Acute problems in agriculture persisted as the agricultural  population was 
systematically depleted to build industry. This depletion  produced another set 
of distortions, all of which must be laid at Stalin's table  because he was 
the leader of all the good and all the bad. The buck stopped at  his desk and 
this is the proper way to deal with any and all leaders.  

Nevertheless, there is simply no way to explain the emergence of  Nikita 
Khrushchev if one believes there was not wide diversity of thought and  actions 
the Soviet Party. 

The idea that Stalin could destroy  the Soviet state is a mind boggling 
proportion, and to assign to him the power  of a superman.  To begin with the 
Soviet's were not state organizations. In  fact did not Lenin write an article 
called something to the effect: "Why the  Soviets Cannot become State 
Organizations?"  There is a material reason why  the Soviet form would 
collapse, rise 
again and collapse again. 
Saying "because of Stalin" is cool because that is where the buck stops.  The 
problem is that such an explanation explains nothing of the actual process.  
Hence, one leaves themselves open for a repeat of history . . . in theory. :-) 

**************Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your 
neighborhood today. 

Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to