I’m not sure if he is a meme or if people genuinely like Wolff. I haven’t read him extensively, but I’ve watched/read him enough times to get a sense. I have never been too impressed. While Marx and others leave me with clarity, Wolff consistently leaves me confused. It feels like he has a super narrow understanding of things but doesn’t reveal his own assumptions. It feels like a purely aesthetic Marxism to dress up his own ideas.

For example: https://youtu.be/flFyaguUqIo

The first 3 minutes is a correct summary of, basically, Marx’s letter to Kugelmann. After 3:00, his explanation falls apart. He bastardizes Marx when he says that labor in every society produces a surplus, and that in capitalism that surplus happens to take the form of a commodity. This is utterly wrong, surplus depends on the productivity of a society (I believe Marx wrote about this specific point in Grundrisse as well as Capital). No, the issue in capitalism is not that surplus is unfairly distributed, but that workers are compelled to work longer than necessary, precisely to produce a surplus.

He doesn’t make a clear distinction between surplus of use-value and surplus value.

The result is that he transform Marxism into a mere search for equitable distribution of goods, which is emphatically not what Marx himself believed as he wrote in his critique of the Gotha Program.

I’d love to be proven wrong here, or let in on the joke… thanks!

:RIchard-D-Wolff:

more or less

Seventy-eight years ago to this day, the People's flag was staked into the heart of most grevious reaction and the world celebrated victory over German fascism.

Seventy-eight years later, we stand on the shoulders of those heroes. We stand in the world of their victory, imperfect as it may be yet in contrast of what could have been it is a world in which we can still fight for a better tomorrow.

Let us not just spend the day honoring the sacrifice of the millions of men and women who have passed on the torch of humanity through nostalgic remembrance, but take onto us the legacy of their work to build the foundations of a better world and continue in their place so when the time comes for us to pass on the torch of humanity to the new generation we can say that out of the ruins of the old barbarism we have delivered to them a better future of peace and freedom and continue the great work towards the emancipation of the human race.

Forwards ever, backwards never.

A apocryphal story amongst the Bashkirs retells how Stalin sought the wisdom of a sufi master on winning WW2. The Sufi master revealed that the Soviets would win, but only if Stalin converted to Islam. Stalin declared “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His messenger."

The Sufi master's advice worked. Deeply in gratitude, Stalin asks him what he wanted as a reward. The man rejected any material prize and asked instead for religion to be strengthened in the USSR and for pilgrimages to Mecca to be permitted. Stalin assented, so the story goes.

While obviously fictional, the story is based on real events. In order to aid war mobilization, Stalin enlisted the help of religious leaders to agitate in their communities of worship--in exchange he liberalized religious policy, which persisted postwar

(Although this was interrupted by Khrushchev's ill-conceived anti-religious campaign) The Sufi Master from the story was also real--Gabdrahman Rasulev. He worked with Stalin personally and advised him on how to rally Soviet Muslims for war.

See:

"God Save the USSR: Soviet Muslims and the Second World" Jeff Eden

"Soviet and Muslim: The Institutionalization of Islam in Central Asia" by Tasar

Credit to After_History, a good channel to read through

https://twitter.com/After__History/status/1620122164170231810

Additional information:

“We are told that among the Daghestan peoples the Sharia is of great importance. We have also been informed that the enemies of Soviet power are spreading rumours that it has banned the Sharia. I have been authorized by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic to state here that these rumours are false. The Government of Russia gives every people the full right to govern itself on the basis of its laws and customs. The Soviet Government considers that the Sharia, as common law, is as fully authorized as that of any other of the peoples inhabiting Russia. If the Daghestan people desire to preserve their laws and customs, they should be preserved”

J. V. STALIN (1920)

Source: Congress of the Peoples of Daghestan (November 13, 1920), Works, Vol. 4.

“You [Albanians] are a separate people, just like the Persians and the Arabs, who have the same religion as the Turks. Your ancestors existed before the Romans and the Turks. Religion has nothing to do with nationality and statehood… Nevertheless, the question of religious beliefs must be kept well in mind, must be handled with great care, because the religious feelings of the people must not be offended. These feelings have been cultivated in the people for many centuries, and great patience is called for on this question, because the stand towards it is important for the compactness and unity of the people.”

J. V. Stalin (1949)

Source: Enver Hoxha, Memoirs from my Meetings with Stalin, Second Meeting (March-April 1949), “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana, Albania, 1981. Retrieved from MIA.

“…Stalin set up four Muslim religious boards (Dini İdare / Müftiyat / Dukhovniye Upravlenia) in 1942 for Central Asian, Transcausians, Northern Caucasian and Russian Muslims.

The Muslim Religious Boards guided theoretically by the Koran, the Hadith and the maslahat / the interests of the believers to resolve questions of religious dogma. The decision / fatwa of a religious board on any religious question were brought to the knowledge of all Muslims over signature of the mufti of the Religious Board.

After the Second World War the most important Islamic establishment in the USSR was the Muslim Religious Board for Central Asia and Kazakhstan where 75 per cent of the Soviet Muslim lived. The Soviet Government depended on the Mufti of Tashkent for propagation of its views among the Sunni Muslims of the Islamic World…”

Source: Seyfettin Erşahin (2005), No. 77. Journal für Religionskultur

Wark has been working on this Vectoralist concept starting back with A Hacker Manifesto

(Before I begin, let me specify that what I'm considering is two approaches to labour under communism. Assume all sides agree that the exploitation of labour for profit is a bad thing; what this specific post is discussing is two approaches to non-exploitative labour. Secondly, I'll mostly stick to laying out my own thoughts rather than using a tonne of references, though all this has been discussed in books. Thirdly, I'm trying to explore threads of thought here rather than argue for some conclusion.)

It's a truism that productivity increases over time, as labour-saving technologies and techniques are developed. An hour of labour now apparently produces what 4.4 hours of labour produced in 1950.

This increase in productivity has been significant since the invention of the steam engine and everything since. It could become quite extreme in the 21st century, with lights-out manufacturing, fully robotic warehouses, self-driving vehicles, aeroponic plant labs, etc. (Again, assume all this automation is happening under communism; a different set of issues are raised if it happens under private ownership.)

There are two things an economic planner could do when productivity increases: 1) keep labour hours the same but increase the amount of goods produced, 2) reduce labour hours, creating the same amount of goods with more holiday-time, 3) some combination of these two

Increasing production

Suppose that one man, working for one day, can produce enough food for ten men to eat for a year. Food will be very very cheap (by the labour-theory of value). That makes everybody more food-secure and is something to be celebrated. The challenge it brings is that we can't employ a large amount of our workforce in agriculture.

I chose food as an example deliberately because the demand isn't very elastic. We can't quintuple the amount of food produced to increase wage-labour (because I'm already stuffed man no thanks).

Similarly, construction demands can't be elastically increased. If everyone has an apartment, then what? Ok, so we can give them a bigger apartment, and build some nice opera houses and community halls, but that can maybe increase the amount of construction by 100%. The amount of construction can't be increased by 10,000% – you'd just have empty buildings. And technology will decrease the labour-time per unit of building by a greater factor: here's China building a 10-storey building in under 29 hours: https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=you-BV35B9Y

In short: if demand can't be increased elastically, neither can supply. Demand for goods puts a limit on this method of job-creation.

The elasticity of demand is different in different industries. The planner could respond to this abundance by increasing production quotas of:

• luxury goods

• Things never before seen, e.g. by space colonisation, or by employing large sectors of the workforce in research&development. There'll be a limit here too, as not everyone has the aptitude for R&D.

Stimulating supply is necessary if you have a position of pro-work communism. It preserves Marx's principle-of-equivalence, that everyone should be rewarded for the work they do, e.g. get one labour-token per hour they work. If we must view unemployment as a problem, we must find work for people.

But hol' up a minute. Even if we can increase consumption, do we want to? It's anti-efficiency. Capitalism conspires to increase consumption by doing things like Juicero and increasing private vehicle ownership. Do we want to do the same? Increasing production-consumption creates ecological harm under any economic system.

Economic planners should, in my opinion, increase consumption a bit, to the limits of human comfort, even human luxury. But it's a bad system that needs to increase consumption in order to increase production in order to pay wages. I'd rather give free money to non-workers.

Reducing labour

There are two ways to reduce labour: a) reduce the number of hours worked, b) reduce the number of people working, i.e. increase the number of people unemployed

As regards a) reducing working hours: working hours have been falling under capitalism – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Annual_working_time_in_OECD.svg – but it's complex to disentangle the effects of technology, exploitation, and pressure from unions in causing this. Probably fair to say productivity-boosting technology is one contributing factor.

Reducing labour hours from 2200 per year to 1750 is fine. It brings no problems. Even bringing it down to around 1350 (the current average in Iceland) should be fine. As labour hours get very low (under 21st-century communism, remember), deskilling could become a problem. Could we reduce work to 800 hours a year, so every employed person is working what we would call a part-time job? Maybe not, because people like doctors wouldn't get enough work experience to get enough skills to be effective.

As regards b) reducing the workforce: this obviously brings problems to be solved. So much politics is about "More Jobs!", "The right to work!". One response to this is to be a pro-work communist. The Soviet Union created full employment (while reducing working hours), though that may not apply the same way in the 21st century with more advanced automation.

How can an economic planner respond to technology-induced increases in the number of unemployed people? There are four available responses: i) welfare, ii) universal welfare, iii) stimulating demand to increase work, iv) make-work in non-producing sectors

i) if unemployed people are given welfare by the government, this creates a division in society. Workers will feel (from valid self-interest) that they are supporting idlers. This happens under social democratic capitalism (grumbling about "welfare queens"), but the criticism would be more valid under a non-exploitative system.

ii) basic income would solve the problem in i). If workers and non-workers get the same welfare payments, the workers have no complaint. The problem it runs into is arithmetic: where does the money come from? This depends on what monetary system prevails: maybe the money could simply be printed, maybe labour-tokens would have to be taxed.

iii) See previous section

iv) As robotic automation eats most jobs in the means of producing, caring professions (childcare, elder care, etc.) could perhaps expand. This would be a communist version of the jobs guarantee proposed by Pavlina Tcherneva), providing automation-resistant government-issued jobs to everyone who wants them. I suspect there is a limit to this, for similar reasons to those explored above: there's a limit to the demand for care-professionals (though it's not yet been reached in reality), so there must be a limit to supply too. Maybe the state could even start paying mothers/parents for the work they do in "producing" productive members of society (second-wave feminists advocated for this.) E.F. Schumacher said that we shouldn't necessarily see work as a curse (as an economic 'bad'). Perhaps the economic planner shouldn't encourage fully automated plant labs. Instead he should plan community farms, which do require labour-input (and therefore make food more expensive, a bad thing to the labour-theory-of-value) but also have positive externalities of people working outdoors, preserving the soil, building community, laughing together, and the psychological benefits that come from being busy and productive. I'm talking about a situation where enough labour-saving technology is used to make it easy, decent work rather than a Dickensian grind.

The labour-theory-of-value says automate everything as much as possible to make everything as cheap/available as possible. That's correct as far as it goes. It should be done. It's the only way we can beat poverty. But when automation becomes extreme, you can't keep labour-theory-of-value and principle-of-equivalence (i.e. paying according to labour-input). You can compromise on labour-theory-of-value and create a medium-labour society of handicrafts, small farms, and other pleasant, fulfilling jobs; this is a sort of pro-work communism. You can compromise on principle-of-equivalence, and give people free money with which to buy the fruits of the robots; this is a sort of anti-work communism.

I was wondering if there's anything like what our :large-adult-son: did for DoE? I've been enjoying the book, but I'd love for more directed and structural turns than what Graeber gives. Not that arguments for "spiritual warfare" against capitalist hell aren't useful (they are, individually, I'm sure!) - but I'd love for interventions from the ML side on the argument. Especially because he also occasionally uses old 20th century AES as comparison and critique of neoliberalism.

Currently on Chapter 5, thinking it might be a good read for my undergrads in my rhetoric classes, but I want to pair it with some other material (gonna include some :citations-needed: pods, among other things).

Anyway, also just a general place for comrades to converse about it/Graeber. Personally, I like him more than :large-adult-son: did, but I definitely recognize the limits of his anarchist approach to things.

Let's try to be :left-unity-4: in this too - I'm not trying to start a struggle session! I just want to know how to incorporate Graeber's ideas into a more statist framework (because I'm a :sicko-pig: like that).

Propaganda artwork is titled <Felix Dzerzhinsky, 1877-1926. "Be Vigilant and Alert!" >

To correct the misunderstanding of what a political purge is - which is a result of the peopagandized education America feeds its citizens from cradle to grave - I am here to post excerpts of varying books from varying professional authors, historians, and journalists of varying political backgrounds on what "purging the party" actually entailed in the Soviet Union. If I run out of space in the main post, I will continue it in the comments.

_

The entire membership of the Communist Party was therefore subjected to what is called a “cleansing” or “purge” in the presence of large audiences of their non-Communist fellow workers. (This is the only connection in which the Soviet people use the term “purge.” Its application by Americans to all the Soviet treason trials and in general to Soviet criminal procedure is resented by the Soviet people.) Each Communist had to relate his life history and daily activities in the presence of people who were in a position to check them. It was a brutal experience for an unpopular president of a Moscow university to explain to an examining board in the presence of his students why he merited the nation’s trust. Or for a superintendent of the large plant to expose his life history and daily activities — even to his wife’s use of one of the factory automobiles for shopping — in the presence of the plants workers, any one of whom had the right to make remarks. This was done with every Communist throughout the country; it resulted in the expulsion of large numbers from the party, and in the arrest and trial of a few.

Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 136

_

The purge–in Russian “chiska” (cleansing)–is a long-standing institution of the Russian Communist Party. The first one I encountered was in 1921, shortly after Lenin had introduced “NEP,” his new economic policy, which involved a temporary restoration of private trade and petty capitalism and caused much heart burning amongst his followers. In that purge nearly one-third of the total membership of the party was expelled or placed on probation. To the best of my recollection, the reasons then put forward for expulsion or probation were graft, greed, personal ambition, and “conduct unbecoming to communists,” which generally meant wine, women, and song.

Duranty, Walter. The Kremlin and the People. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 116

_

Kirov’s murder brought a change, but even so the Purge that was held that winter was at first not strikingly different from earlier Purges.

Duranty, Walter. The Kremlin and the People. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 116

_

The Central Committee organized a “purge” and expelled barely 170,000 members in order to improve the party quality. Stalin has frequently been held responsible for the “purge.” He was not its author. This party-cleansing was done under Lenin’s leadership. It is a process which is unique in the history of little parties. The Bolsheviks however, do not regard it as an extraordinary measure for use only in a time of crisis, but a normal feature of party procedure. It is the means of guaranteeing Bolshevik quality. To regard it as a desperate move on the part of leaders anxious to get rid of rivals is to misunderstand how profoundly the Bolshevik party differs from all others, even from the Communist Party’s of the rest of Europe.

Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 144

_

Lenin initiated the first great “cleansing” of the Bolshevik party just as the transition had begun from “war communism” to the new economic policy. In 1922, when, as Lenin put it, “the party had rid itself of the rascals, bureaucrats, dishonest or waivering Communists, and of Mensheviks who have re-painted their facade but who remained Mensheviks at heart,” another Congress took place; and it was this Congress which advanced Stalin to the key position of Bolshevik power. It brought him into intimate contact with every functionary of the organization, enabling him to examine their work as well as their ideas.

Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 145

_

The party maintains its quality by imposing a qualifying period before granting full membership, and by periodical ” cleanings” of those who fail to live up to the high standard set.

Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 169

_

In all fairness I must add that no small proportion of the exiles were allowed to return home and resume their jobs after the Purge had ended.

Duranty, Walter. The Kremlin and the People. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 122

_

Besides examining Communists against whom definite complaints are made, the Control Commission at long intervals resorts to wholesale “purges” of the Party. In 1929 it was decided to institute such a purge, with a view to checking up on the rapid numerical growth of the Party, which has been increasing at the rate of about 200,000 a year during the last few years, and eliminating undesirable elements. It was estimated in advance that about 150,000 Communists, or 10 percent of the total membership (including the candidates) would be expelled during this process. In a purge every party member, regardless of whether any charges have been preferred against him or not, must appear before representatives of the Control Commission and satisfy them that he is a sound Communist in thought and action. In the factories non-party workers are sometimes called on to participate in the purge by offering judgment on the Communists and pointing out those who are shkurniki or people who look after their own skins, a familiar Russian characterization for careerists .

Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 68

_

From time to time the party “cleans out” its membership, and this is always done an open meetings to which all workers of the given institution are invited. Each communist in the institution must give before this public an extended account of his life activities, submit to and answer all criticism, and prove before the assembled workers his fitness to remain in the “leading Party.” Members may be cleaned out not only as “hostile elements, double-dealers, violators of discipline, deganerates, career-seekers, self-seekers, morally degraded persons” but even for being merely “passive,” for having failed to keep learning and growing in knowledge and authority among the masses.

Strong, Anna Louise. This Soviet World. New York, N. Y: H. Holt and company, c1936, p. 31

_

I have in the course of 15 years in the Soviet Union met an occasional Communist who was a grafter, and many more who were stubborn bureaucrats and unenlightened fanatics. But I have also seen how the party throws out dead wood–not always accurately–and renews itself from the working class it leads.

Strong, Anna Louise. This Soviet World. New York, N. Y: H. Holt and company, c1936, p. 37

_

It would be a mistake to regard the 1933 chistka as having been directed solely against members of the opposition. The largest single group expelled were “passive” party members: those carried on the roles but not participating in party work. Next came violators of party discipline, bureaucrats, corrupt officials, and those who had hidden past crimes. Members of dissident groups did not even figure in the final tallies. Stalin himself characterized the purge has a measure against bureaucratism, red tape, deganerates, and careerists, “to raise the level of organizational leadership.” The vast majority of those expelled were fresh recruits who had entered the party since 1929, rather than Old Bolshevik oppositionists. Nevertheless, the 1933 purge expelled about 18 percent of the party’s members and must be seen as a hard-line policy or signal from Moscow.

Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 127

_

“Not everyone who wishes can belong to the party,” said Stalin; “it is not given to everyone to brave its labors and its torments.”

Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 280

_

Western students have applied the word “purge” to everything from political trials to police terror to nonpolitical expulsions from the party. The label “Great Purges,” which encompasses practically all party activities between 1933 and 1939, is an example of such broad usage. Yet the Communist Party defined and used the word quite specifically. > The term “purge” (chistka–a sweeping or cleaning) only applied to the periodic membership screenings of the ranks of the party. These membership operations were designed to weed the party of hangers-on, nonparticipants, drunken officials, and people with false identification papers, as well as ideological “enemies” or “aliens.” In the majority of purges, political crimes or deviations pertained to a minority of those expelled. No Soviet source or usage ever referred to the Ezhovshchina (the height of police arrests and terror in 1937) as a purge, and party leaders discussed that event and purges in entirely separate contexts. No political or nonpolitical trial was ever called a purge, and under no circumstances were operations, arrests, or terror involving nonparty citizens referred to as purges. A party member at the time would have been mystified by such a label.

Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 38

[Continued below]

one of many great paragraphs:

The prevailing populist narrative grants the People (of the West) moral innocence by attributing to them utter stupidity and naivety; I invert the equation and demand a Marxist narrative instead: Westerners are willingly complicit in crimes because they instinctively and correctly understand that they benefit as a class (as a global bourgeois proletariat) from the exploitation enabled by their military and their propaganda (in Gramscian: organs of coercion and consent). We’re not as stupid as we’re made out to be. This means that we can be reasoned with, that there is a way out.

article source

Even among many contemporary Communists, the nature of Marxism-Leninism is not adequately understood. Some treat it as a label of affiliation, a way to identify that one aligns with the larger movement of Communism. Others treat it as a mere philosophical position, an immature idea in its own right that can only develop when positioned against a different, more matured school of science. However, Marxism-Leninism is a mature and developed scientific school of study, it is the scientific structure by which we can study and develop economic, political, and social relations, as well as the science of applying revolutionary change.

Marx himself treated the development of his ideas as a scientific one, as shown in the 1867 Preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital: “In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific inquiry meets not merely the same enemies as in all other domains … Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have never made concessions, now as aforetime the maxim of the great Florentine is mine: ‘Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.’ [Follow your own course, and let people talk – paraphrased from Dante]”1

In reading Das Kapital, we don’t see a simple adaptation of positions based on idealistic dogmatism, we don’t see a mechanistic refutation of opposing ideas based on nothing as when anticommunists will rely on “common knowledge” arguments; we see a methodological, scientific deconstruction of political economy, we see a continuation of the scientific laws established by the original philosophers applied to the analysis of the development of economy and society as a whole.

This misconception results in several fundamental errors, which I will explain here.

The first is the error of approaching Marxist education through the rote memorization of ideas and concepts. Self-professed Communists will attempt to learn our phraseology and slogans without ever understanding our principles, will champion the rallying cry of class struggle while never understanding its practice and development. In doing so, they become dogmatists, rigidly adhering to the concepts of Marxism as they learn them, rather than learning the principles of Marxism behind those concepts and actively applying them to developing situations.

The second is the error of believing that their individual understanding of Marxist concepts holds equal, or even greater, weight when measured against the collective school of Marxist theory. People will join the Party who believe that they are the purist Marxist, that they are the true revolutionary who understands the theory better than anyone, that those who oppose their existing understanding of Marxist concepts are revisionists and opportunists. They will claim to attempt to learn our ideas while professing an already existing expertise. If you already know our theory, and singularly hold the knowledge necessary to build a revolutionary Communist Party, then what use are we to you? And if you claim to know our theory, independently, better than we do, collectively, then what use are you to us?

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong on a given issue, this individualist approach is decidedly anti-Bolshevik. To be a Bolshevik is to submit oneself to the Majority within the Party, and to apply the principles of democratic centralism in all things related to the Party. If everyone was to attempt to impose their will on the Party when they believed themselves to be right, rather than subjecting themselves to the will of the Party, we would be anarchists. If an aspect of the Party line is incorrect, this is something which can be resolved through the framework of democratic centralism. And make no mistake, comrades, the damage done from breaking democratic centralism is far greater than the damage done from temporarily having an incorrect line.

The third error is those who approach being a Communist as part-time, or hobbyists, rather than treating it with the gravity it deserves:

“Such workers, average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and selfsacrifice [sic] in strikes and in street, battles with the police and the troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the outcome of our entire movement — but the struggle against the political police requires special qualities; it requires professional revolutionaries. And we must see to it, not only that the masses “advance” concrete demands, but that the masses of the workers “advance” an increasing number of such professional revolutionaries.”2

This passage from “What Is to Be Done?” by V.I. Lenin demonstrates the necessity of refining ourselves as Communists to the highest caliber, the transformation of working-class consciousness into professional revolutionary organization. This conception of Marxist theory which reduces it to a simple intellectual exercise, to a mere point on a larger grid of political philosophy rather than the scientific development of that philosophy itself, results in a non-serious approach totally devoid of dedication and discipline, with a total disregard for the scientific rigor demanded by revolutionary Marxism.

The fourth error is the development of ideological eclecticism. If Marxism-Leninism becomes reduced to a mere list of ideas which can be adopted and discarded on a whim, rather than a school of science rooted in dialectical materialism and historical materialism where ideas are accepted on the basis of scientific rigor and concrete analysis, this allows for revisionists and opportunists to manipulate Marxism to their own ends, to dilute both its revolutionary and its scientific nature, ultimately defanging Marxism and rendering it powerless.

As Communists, we cannot accept or reject ideas based on who said them or based on our preconceived ideas of how things should be. That is the approach adopted by Anarchists and Trotskyists. We accept or reject ideas based on whether or not they align with objective reality and hold up to scrutiny and analysis. In “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” J.V. Stalin puts it succinctly:

“Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full of “things-in-themselves” that can never be known to science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and practice.”3

We cannot allow these unserious, idealistic elements to take hold any more than they have, and we must actively combat the tendency that lays claim to Marxism while rejecting its scientific nature and approach. That which does not conform to objective reality gets corrected by reality, viciously so, and if our theory and methodology is rooted in idealistic misconceptions about Marxism-Leninism rather than in a strict application of the science, the same will be true for us.

References https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

“Confessions” were semi-jocular questionaires that were very popular in Victorian England, and filling them out a common passtime in many families, including Marx's, where friends and relatives particpated. A number of versions of Confessions belonging to Marx have been preserved.

In the Spring of 1865 Marx stayed with his uncle, Lion Philips in Zalt Bommel (Holland), and his answers to the Confession he completed here is shown in the middle column below. His daughter Jenny kept an album, an image of which is shown, and the answers shown in the right hand column are in Laura Marx's hand. Where the answers are the same, it is shown only once.

Netchen, or Nannette, was Antoinette Philips, aged 28 at the time, Marx's cousin and a member of the Dutch section of the Internatrional. Martin Tupper was an English poet who penned trivial moralistic verses. Gretchen is the tragic heroine of Goethe’s Faust. “Keppler” refers to the great German astronomer, Johannes Kepler, and Spartacus was the leader of the slaves’ revolt in ancient Rome.

The formatting is as follows: Question - Answer in 1865 - Answer in Jenny’s album (if available.)

The Quality you like best - Simplicity

 In man - Strength :arm-L::marx-goth::arm-R: 

In Woman - Weakness	:shrug-outta-hecks: 

Your chief characteristic - Singleness of purpose

Your favourite occupation - Glancing at Netchen - Bookworming :read-theory:

The vice you hate most - Servility :soviet-bottom:

The vice you excuse most - Gullibility :kitty-cri-screm:

Your idea of happiness - To fight :stalin-gun-1::stalin-gun-2:

Your idea of misery - To submit :bottom-speak:

Your aversion - Martin Tupper - Martin Tupper, violet powder

Your hero - Spartacus, Keppler

Your heroine - Gretchen

The poet you like best - Aeschylus, Shakespeare - Dante, Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Goethe

The prose writer you like best - Diderot - Diderot, Lessing, Hegel, Balsac

Your favourite flower - Daphne - Laurel

Your favourite dish - Fish

Your Maxim - Nihil humani a me alienum puto [Nothing human is alien to me]

Your motto - De omnibus dubitandum [doubt everything]

Your favourite colour - Red :ussr-cry:

Your favourite Colour of eyes & hair - Black :anarchists:

Your favourite Names - N/A - Jenny, Laura

The character in history you most dislike - N/A - N/A

Karl Marx :marx:

http://www.comunistas-mexicanos.org/partido-comunista-de-mexico/2292-declaracion-del-bp-del-pcm

The Communist Party of Mexico calls on the Mexican workers to oppose the imperialist war that has its formal beginning in the conflict being waged between Russia versus the US and the European Union in Ukraine, after years of diplomatic, economic and commercial tensions, maneuvers and the constant accumulation of "explosive material".

The special military operation, the attack on Ukrainian targets by the Russian Federation is inadmissible, as the real goal is to secure the interests of its monopolies. Just as the US and the European Union through NATO seek to secure the interests and profits of their monopolies. And no matter how many costumes both parties to the conflict put on, no matter how much they allude to the "defense of democracy", "sovereignty", "human rights" or even the fight against "fascism", the only certainty is that it is the logic of profit, of advancing in capitalist competition and having a better position in the imperialist system that moves them. The conflict is based on the acute competition in the imperialist system between the pole of the USA and the European Union against Russia and China.

Thus, in order to justify themselves, they resort to lies, demagogy and historical misrepresentation. While Biden, co-responsible for the crimes against Yugoslavia, Libya and the aggressive expansion of NATO, as well as for a fierce anti-immigrant policy, hypocritically presents himself as the world champion of freedom, Putin distorts history by attacking Lenin, Bolshevism and the socialist construction in the USSR as if they were at the basis of these contemporary problems. Both anti-communists fail to obscure the fact that during 70 years of socialism and the Soviet Union the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, and those of other nationalities, lived together in harmony, worked for common goals, fought together against Nazi-fascism, progressed socially, confronted the Great-Russian chauvinism of Tsarism; and it is precisely the overthrow of socialism that leads to this tragic point of bringing them into confrontation.

It should also be clear that since 1991, when the USSR ceased to participate, the UN is no longer an instrument for settling conflicts, where the oppressed peoples can have a tribune or count on allies to stop aggressions, but an instrument that serves the interests of a group of imperialist countries that justifies interventions against the peoples, or as in this case, sides with the US/EU in the current conflict. Therefore there should be no illusion about the role played by the UN, since it is as useless as the League of Nations was in the run-up to the Second World War.

Having clear the imperialist character of the conflict, the Communist Party of Mexico insists that both sides defend the interests of their own monopolies and that these are antagonistic to the working class of all countries. In no way should the working class, the peoples, place themselves behind interests that are not their own, that are antagonistic to them, that lead them to barbarism, to death.

We express our solidarity with the workers and peoples of Russia and Ukraine who are suffering at this moment the consequences of the inter-imperialist dispute. Their living conditions will be aggravated, new sacrifices are underway such as forced displacement, famine and living under constant terror. We condemn the outlawing of communists in Ukraine by a reactionary and pro-war government, and we also condemn the criminalization in Russia of those who oppose the imperialist war.

We condemn the sanctions announced by Biden, and the determination of the U.S. and the EU to move towards a generalized military confrontation.

We oppose any participation of the workers of Mexico in this imperialist war, and therefore we condemn the position of the social-democratic government of López Obrador that places itself without hesitation alongside the U.S. and the European Union, and that declares through Foreign Minister Ebrard that Mexico and Biden are principal allies in defense of the UN, that is, in defense of everything that protects and sustains one of the aggressive imperialist poles. All flirtation by the Mexican government with NATO must cease, and in no way should it participate in joint exercises with that aggressive instrument of imperialism or any kind of UN mission. We call on the workers to rebel against any decision by the Obrador government to engage in that imperialist war, to sabotage any attempt in that direction. No one to war, no penny to war, not a drop of oil for war, no piece of territory for war. Our struggle against imperialism and imperialist war begins in the struggle against the Mexican monopolies, against the Mexican government which is their mouthpiece and their firm alliance with the U.S. with the T-MEC. Furthermore, the government of López Obrador acts in defense of the interests of the Mexican monopolies with investments in Ukraine, like Bimbo (the main monopoly of the bakery industry in Mexico and Spain) or Gruma.

We call on Mexican youth to refuse any attempt by the Mexican government to get involved in the war. We call on trade unionism to be vigilant against any attempt to curtail labor rights, such as the right to strike in so-called strategic enterprises or those involving "national security."

As part of the international communist movement we call to keep the red flag of proletarian internationalism high, developing the class struggle independently of the interests of the imperialist countries in conflict. It is not easy, history gives us lessons of the nefarious role of opportunism, for example during the First World War.

Down with imperialist war!

Down with the Mexican bourgeoisie!

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

The Political Bureau of the Central Committee

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

The transcript of the testimony was reenacted by James Earl Jones.

The general understanding of the United States in Marx's historiographic vision is fairly straightforward, however. The American Revolution was, like its counterpart in France, a bourgeois revolution, which had the social aim of overthrowing the feudal-aristocratic order and imposing the rule of the capitalist middle classes, or in Marxist terminology the bourgeoisie. What made the American Revolution special for Marx, however, was that feudalism had no real roots in America in the first place, it was "subordinate to bourgeois society" from the very beginning; this, combined with the fact that America was a whole new continent available for exploitation, allowed the bourgeoisie to "develop to hitherto unheard-of dimensions". [1]

As he makes clear in On the Jewish Question, this is also reflected in the United States' commodification of religion. In the US, "the relation of religion to the state" is crystallised in its pure form. "The preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals". [2] The bourgeois revolution in the United States has subjugated and commodified religion to an extent not seen anywhere else.

In 1846, in fact, Marx described America as the "most progressive nation" on the planet. [3] Now, this is a rather ambiguous quote because he is actually describing what he thinks Proudhon says about America, but if you read the passage as a whole it seems clear he agrees on that point, just not the idea he ascribes to Proudhon, namely that racial slavery is well and good because it sustains American economic life.

Marx supported the intensification of bourgeois relations, as in the United States, as a prelude to proletarian revolution: "In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." [4]

Interestingly, later on, Marx actually put his name to a letter to Abraham Lincoln, which was submitted by the International Working Men's Association in 1864 and received by the American government. The text of this letter is reproduced here, and is worth a read since it's very short. Of particular interest is the final paragraph:

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War [i.e., the Civil War] will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Also of interest is that Ambassador Adams' reply on behalf of Lincoln is cordial and seems to accept the sentiments of the letter in full!

Sources:

[1] In Bruce Cumings, 'Revising Post-Revisionism, Or, The Poverty of Theory in Diplomatic History', in America in the World: The Historiography of US Foreign Relations Since 1941, p. 48.

[2] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

[3] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm

[4] http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx

It was at this period, however, that Lenin drafted his famous “Testament,” which undoubtedly reflects his forebodings with regard to Stalin’s brusqueness but says not one word in criticism of his policy…. Nor did Stalin challenge him on his return to activity in the latter part of the year. On the contrary, it appeared they were in complete accord…. Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 146

There is no criticism in a [A OR THE] document–Lenin’s testament–of Stalin’s policy, but only this delineation of personal qualities, That Stalin deeply felt Lenin’s personal criticism is certain. For more than 20 years Lenin had been his teacher and he a faithful disciple. But he could “take it.” He has many of the qualities of the master. He is no yes-man. He has deep convictions, tremendous will-power and determination, and–could Lenin have lived long enough to see it–a patience which at times seems inexhaustible. Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 151

…although subsequent events proved that he [Lenin] had over-estimated Trotsky and underestimated his “wonderful Georgian.” When he [Stalin] read it [Lenin’s Testament] to the 13th Congress of the Party and commented, “Yes, I [Stalin] am rude to those who would destroy Lenin’s party, etc..,” he shifted the issue from one of good manners to the larger battle — ground of the principles, aims and role of the Party as the leader of the Revolution. Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 154

There began already at that time, though not openly, the struggle between Trotsky and Zinoviev for the succession to Lenin. But there was discussion also as to what was going on at Lenin’s house at Gorky, in other words about Stalin. Thus it was almost a sensation when Kamenev brought the news that Lenin had broken with Stalin, and had written to Stalin dismissing him. Before long, however, the sensation shrank to its true proportions. It turned out that the actual personal difference had nothing to do with politics: Lenin had charged Stalin with rudeness and tactlessness toward his wife Krupskaya. It is easy to imagine that. It appears that Stalin never had any great opinion of Lenin’s wife. Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 106

Lenin’s “testament” is, of course, favorable for the most part to Stalin; compared with the assessments given the others, the one of Stalin was the most positive…. But Lenin had for the entire preceding period given many descriptions of Trotsky, and they were entirely negative…. Stalin was, of course, distinguished by rudeness. He was a very blunt person. But if not for his harshness I don’t know how much good would have been accomplished. I think harshness was necessary, otherwise there would have been even greater vacillation and irresolution. Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 213

This addendum to Lenin’s testament was read after his death to a plenary meeting of the Central Committee. Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 108

Khrushchev’s treatment of the relations between Stalin and Lenin concentrates on Lenin’s growing apprehension of Stalin’s bureaucratic methods in 1923. He omits Lenin’s earlier admiration for Stalin and his forwarding of Stalin’s career in the Party dating back at least to 1912. Nor does he note that Lenin’s later attacks on Stalin were made when Lenin was ill and cut off from Party activity, and that even then, in his “testament,” he considered Stalin to be one of the outstanding Party leaders, his faults not those of “non-Bolshevism”–as with Trotsky–but of an over-bureaucratic method of work and personal “rudeness.” The fact that people who had “worked with Lenin” were executed means little unless we know who the people were and why they were executed. The fact that people worked with Lenin does not mean they were pro-socialist, as witness Kamenev & Zinoviev, both of whom Lenin condemned in his “testament.” Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 124

[In the Testament] neither his [Stalin] orthodoxy as a party man nor his loyalty to Lenin were called to question. Graham, Stephen. Stalin. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1970, p. 90

Another strange thing: of all those mentioned in the letter Stalin appears in the most favorable light. He is the one Lenin accuses of rudeness and intolerance, but that was never regarded as a fault in the proletarian party. Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 208

STALIN VOLUNTEERS TO RESIGN AFTER LENIN’S CRITICISM

So young Joseph — Soso, they called him…. Lenin criticized Stalin. Stalin told this himself three years ago in open Congress of the Communist Party, and said quietly: “I told you then and I repeated now, that I am ready to retire if you wish.” Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 168

When Stalin came to speak [before the Central Committee in October 1927] he declared that he had twice offered his resignation as General Secretary, but that the Party had rejected it on both occasions. Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 96

When Lenin’s testament became public property through having been spread furtively by word-of-mouth, Stalin submitted his resignation,… Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1942, p. 95

For nearly a year while he lived Lenin did nothing with his statement and it was only after his death that it was presented to the Party. When it was presented, Stalin offered his resignation but the Party, including Trotsky, would not accept it. Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers’ Press, Inc., c1946, p. 25

Stalin consequently offered to resign but the Central Committee refused to accept his resignation. Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 49

It must have come as a relief for him [Stalin] when it was decided that the Congress would be bypassed and the notes would not be published. Nevertheless, when the newly elected Central Committee met, he offered his resignation. He was probably confident that those he had carefully selected for election would not accept it. In any event the committee, including Trotsky, voted unanimously not to accept his resignation. Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 197

Right from the first session of the Central Committee, after the 13th Congress, I asked to be released from the obligations of the General Secretaryship. The Congress itself examined the question. Each delegation examined the question, and every delegation, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, voted unanimously in favor of Stalin remaining at his post. What could I do then? Abandon my post? Such a thing is not in my character…. At the end of one year I again asked to be set free and I was again forced to remain at my post. What could I do then? Stalin, Joseph. Stalin’s Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 244

[In 1927 Stalin stated], I asked the first plenary session of the Central Committee right after the Thirteenth Congress to relieve me of my duties as secretary-general. The congress discussed the question. Each delegation discussed the question. And unanimously they all, including Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev, made it binding upon Stalin to remain in his post. What could I do? Run away from the post? This is not in my character. I never ran away from any post and I have no right to run away. That would be desertion. I do not regard myself as a free man, and I obey party orders. A year later I again submitted my resignation, but again I was bound to remain. What could I do? Levine, Isaac Don. Stalin. New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, c1931, p. 281

It is said that in that “will” Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the 13th Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post. What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey. A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do? As regards publishing the “will,” the congress decided not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress and was not intended for publication…. Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 180-181

After the congress [May 1924], when the leading bodies of the party were being constituted, Stalin, referring to Lenin’s testament, demonstratively declined to accept the post of general secretary. But Zinoviev and Kamenev, and after them the majority of the central committee members, persuaded him to withdraw his resignation…. Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 85

[Continued in comments]

Source

“As soon as the Bolsheviks break away from the masses and lose contact with them, they should cover themselves with bureaucratic rust, so that they lose all strength and become an empty shell,” Stalin warned

Today, even the vicious enemies of Soviet power do not deny the rapid economic development of the Soviet country in the pre-war years. True, the slanderers are trying to denigrate the labor feat of the Soviet people, keeping silent about the popular enthusiasm of the builders of the first Stalinist five-year plans and assuring that the Soviet economy was created only with the help of gross violence. However, it is impossible to deny the existence of factories, factories, entire industries, large cities created during the Stalinist five-year plans that still exist today.

But the anti-Soviets do not want to hear when evidence is presented about the democratic character of the Soviet political system. Having distorted the concept of "democracy", which from time immemorial meant "rule of the people," the apologists of capitalism assert that the bourgeois system, which consolidates the omnipotence of the exploiting minority, is the pinnacle of democracy. Since the victory of capitalism in Russia put an end to true democracy and no traces of the former democracy remain, it is easier for slanderers to prove, especially to the generation born after 1991, that the USSR was a kingdom of tyranny and terror.

The slanderers who control the mass consciousness of modern Russia are especially hated by the evidence of Stalin's role in the implementation of democratic political transformations. They hysterically declare that Stalin and democracy are incompatible concepts. Perhaps for this reason, citing indisputable archival documents about the political reforms of the 30s, carried out on the initiative of I.V. Stalin, the historian Yuri Zhukov called his book "Another Stalin". The idea of ​​Stalin as a fighter for the democratization of Soviet society contradicts the ideas embedded in the mass consciousness. Indeed, in accordance with them, the Soviet system, created on the basis of communist doctrine, is the embodiment of tyranny.

Meanwhile, Stalin's struggle for democratic political reforms naturally and logically followed from his Marxist-Leninist ideas about the development of democracy as socialism was being built, as well as about the correspondence of the political institutions of society to the nature of its economic relations. In the mid-1930s, Stalin raised the question of the need for democratic changes in the country's constitutional structure, which would reflect the grandiose changes that had taken place in the economy and social life of Soviet society.

How the 1936 Constitution was created

The current authorities and the bourgeois media try not to remember the Stalinist Constitution. If it is mentioned, it is portrayed as a "smokescreen" designed to hide the mass repressions prepared in advance. So, in his book about Stalin, E. Radzinsky wrote: "Before the New Year, Stalin arranged a holiday for the people: he gave him the Constitution, written by poor Bukharin." This short phrase contains several factual errors. First, the Constitution was adopted not “just before the New Year,” but on December 5, 1936. Secondly, the new Constitution was not "given" from above. Its adoption was preceded by many months of nationwide discussions of the draft constitution. Thirdly, Bukharin was not the author of the Constitution, but only headed one of the subcommissions on its preparation.

The myth of Bukharin as the creator of the Soviet Constitution is constantly repeated today on all television channels. The host of the Top Secret program Svyatoslav Kucher called Bukharin the "Creator of the Constitution". Even during one of the popular programs "Clever and Clever", its participants were taught that the Constitution of 1936 was written by Bukharin.

In fact, the Constitution was not the product of one man's efforts. The development of individual sections of the Basic Law of the USSR was carried out by 12 subcommissions, and their proposals were summarized by the editorial commission, which consisted of twelve chairmen of the subcommissions. At the same time, the facts indicate that the initiative to revise the 1924 constitution, and then to create a new constitution, came from I.V. Stalin. At a meeting of the Politburo on May 10, 1934, at the suggestion of Stalin, a decision was made to amend the country's Constitution. Stalin headed the entire editorial commission, as well as the subcommittee on general issues.

In a conversation with the author of this article, the former chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR A.I. Lukyanov told how in 1962, fulfilling the instructions of the then leadership of the country, he had the opportunity for several months to study archival materials concerning Stalin's work on the draft Constitution. A detailed note on this issue of several hundred pages was written by Lukyanov and presented by him to the Presidium of the Central Committee.

From the materials with which he got acquainted, it followed that in the course of their work, the members of the editorial commission brought Stalin various versions of the so-called rough draft of the draft constitution. After that, Stalin re-ruled her articles over and over again.

A.I. Lukyanov emphasized: “Joseph Vissarionovich understood very well that the essence of socialist democracy is to ensure real human rights in society. And when N. Bukharin, who headed the legal subcommittee, proposed to preface the text of the constitution with the "Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Citizens of the USSR," Stalin did not agree with this and insisted that the rights of a Soviet citizen be enshrined directly in the articles of the constitution. Moreover, they were not just proclaimed, but guaranteed in the most detailed way. So for the first time in world practice, the Basic Law of the country introduced the rights to work, rest, free education and health care, social security in old age and in case of illness. "

Anatoly Ivanovich Lukyanov further noted: “It was amazing how meticulously Stalin worked on the wording of each article of the constitution. He revised them many times before bringing the final text up for discussion. So the 126th article, which deals with the right of citizens to unite, Stalin wrote himself and rewrote and revised several times. " In total, Stalin personally wrote eleven of the most significant articles of the Basic Law of the USSR.

According to Lukyanov, Stalin, trying to develop the democratic foundations of the Soviet system, carefully looked at the historical experience of world parliamentarism. A record of his speech has been preserved in the archives: “There will be no congresses ... The Presidium is the interpreter of laws. The legislator is a session (parliament) ... The executive committee is not good, there are no more congresses. Soviet of Working People's Deputies. Two chambers. Supreme Legislative Assembly ". By agreement with I.V. Stalin V.M. Molotov, in his report at the VII Congress (February 1935), spoke of a gradual movement "towards a kind of Soviet parliaments in the republics and towards an all-Union parliament."

At the same time, Lukyanov emphasized, it should be borne in mind that Stalin did not mechanically copy the models of parliamentary practice, but took into account the experience of the Soviets accumulated over two decades. He personally included in the text of the Constitution the 2nd and 3rd articles, stating that the political basis of the USSR is made up of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies, which grew and became stronger as a result of the overthrow of the power of the landowners and capitalists and the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that all power in the USSR belongs to the working people of the city and villages, represented by the Soviets, who do not know the division of powers and have the right to consider any issues of national and local importance.

Another important principle was the supremacy of the Soviets over all accountable state bodies based on mass representation (more than 2 million deputies) and the right of the Soviets to decide, directly or through their subordinate bodies, all issues of state, economic and socio-cultural development.

By March 1936, work on the text was largely completed. In April, the "Rough Draft" of the Constitution of the USSR was developed. It, in turn, was revised into the "Preliminary draft of the Constitution of the USSR", which on May 15, 1936 was adopted by the constitutional commission. Then the project was approved by the June (1936) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), and on June 11 - by the Presidium of the USSR Central Executive Committee, which ordered its publication.

The draft Constitution of the USSR was published in all newspapers of the country, broadcast on the radio, published in separate brochures in one hundred languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR with a circulation of over 70 million copies. The scope of the nationwide discussion of the draft is evidenced by the following data: it was discussed at 450 thousand meetings and 160 thousand plenums of the Soviets and their executive committees, meetings of sections and deputy groups; over 50 million people (55% of the country's adult population) took part in these meetings and sessions; during the discussion, about 2 million amendments, additions and proposals to the project were made. The latter circumstance testifies to the fact that the discussion of the draft was not formal.

(Continued in the comments)

The October Revolution, officially known as the Great October Socialist Revolution under the Soviet Union, also known the Bolshevik Revolution or Red October, It constituted the radicalization of the Russian Revolution of 1917, after the February Revolution and the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.

It was led by the Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin, it meant the first declared socialist revolution of the 20th century, with the participation of workers, peasants and soldiers through the soviets. At the end of the First World War, peace, bread and land were proposed for the people. Equality between men and women. Education and culture in their own languages for the different nations of Tsarist Russia. It proved that a government run by peasants, workers and soldiers was possible.

The October Revolution was one of the most important events in contemporary times. Its impact was palpable in both America and Europe. Although the Revolution did not spread Communism as an immediate effect, it gave other troubled Third World countries an example to follow. Decades later, the philosophical / governmental model would take on renewed prominence as the Soviet Union, turned into a socialist state and an economic and military superpower, faced the United States in the Cold War.

Economic causes :stonks-down:

The economic causes of the Russian Revolution are largely attributed to the mismanagement of the Tsar, adding the Empire to the First World War. More than fifteen million men joined the army, which left insufficient numbers of workers in factories and farms. The result was a widespread shortage of food and raw materials. The workers had to endure terrible working conditions, including twelve to fourteen hour shifts and low wages.

Large riots and strikes broke out demanding better conditions and higher wages. There was a protest to which Nicolás responded with violence, in response, the industrial workers went on strike and effectively paralyzed the railroad and other transport networks. In 1917, famine threatened many of the big cities.

Social causes :angrels:

The social causes of the Revolution have their origin in centuries of oppression of the Tsarist regime on the dispossessed.

About 85% of the Russian people were part of the peasantry, oppressed by the feudal aristocracy and imperial officials. Vassal, commonly associated with the Middle Ages, accurately describes the social situation of Russia in the early 20th century.

World War I only increased the chaos. The huge demand for industrial production of war articles and workers caused many more insurrections and strikes. Furthermore, as many workers were needed in the factories, the peasants migrated to the cities, which were soon overcrowded, living under rapidly worsening conditions. To top it all, while the amount of food required by the army was increasing, the supply behind the front became poorer and poorer. The sum of all the above factors contributed to a growing discontent among Russian citizens, which would later lead to the Revolution.

Political causes :marx-goth:

From at least 1904, the workers of Russia suffered a dire economic situation. Many of them worked eleven hours a day. Health and safety conditions at work were precarious, and wages fell. There were numerous strikes and protests over time. Most of them were ignored by the tsarist government or repressed, sometimes in a bloody way.

The failure of Russian foreign policy, especially in the Far East with the failed attempt to conquer Manchuria and the debacle of the imperial army and navy during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 caused deep discomfort in different social sectors of the country.

Part of the intellectual class (educated in many cases in the West) also rejected the tsarist autocracy. In 1915, the situation became critical when Nicolás decided to take direct control of the army, personally supervising the war front and leaving his incapable wife Alejandra in charge of the government. By October 1916, Russia had lost between 1.6 and 1.8 million soldiers, to which must be added two million prisoners of war and one million missing. These figures did little to morale in the army. Riots began, and in 1916 rumors of fraternization with the enemy began to circulate. The soldiers were starving and short of shoes, ammunition, and even weapons. Nicholas was blamed for these calamities, and what little support he still had left began to falter.

As this general discontent and hatred for Nicholas II grew, the Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament made up of landlords, citizens, industrial workers and peasants) issued a warning to the Tsar in November 1916, declaring that the disaster upon the nation if constitutional reforms were not implemented. As expected, Nicolás ignored it. The result was not delayed, and, several months later, the regime collapsed during the February Revolution of 1917.

The October Revolution :lenin-da:

On October 25, 1917 (November 7 according to the Gregorian Calendar), the maximum leader of the Bolshevik Party, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, led the uprising in Petrograd, the then capital of Russia, against the provisional government of Alexander Feodorovich Kerensky.

The Red Guard, led by the Bolsheviks, seized the main government buildings before launching a final assault on the Winter Palace during the night of November 7-8. The assault, led by Vladimir Antónov Ovséyenko, was launched at 9:45 PM after a salvo shot from the Cruiser Aurora. The palace was taken around two in the morning of the 8th; November 7 would be officially established as the date of the Revolution.

Consequences :stalin-pipe:

The heroic days of October - as described by the American journalist John Reed - shook the world. A new epoch has opened for humanity. No subsequent event can overshadow the greatness of the Russian Bolsheviks. On November 7, 1917, the highest of the European political intelligentsia was combined with the revolutionary spirit of the Russian working class and the struggle of the peasants for land and their rights.

The exploits of 1917 and the years in which Lenin led the process constitute milestones of exemplary and imperishable value in the struggle of the peoples for the conquest of freedom. For years and decades, the communists and the people of the USSR fought colossal battles and made prodigious advances in the economic, social, political, cultural and military fields. In a relatively short historical time, they turned the impoverished and exploited country they inherited into a world power of the first order.

The Russian Revolution was the first to be won by the proletariat, since the French Revolution - bourgeois in character - left intact capitalist private ownership of the means of production as the prevailing economic system. Instead, the Russian Revolution was the tangible proof that the outcasts of the earth needed to be sure that Marx's dream was not unreal.

The Great October Socialist Revolution opened for Humanity a new era, that of the passage from the theory of scientific socialism to the human practice of socialism.

Socialist revolution :hammer-sickle:

It is nothing more than a radical qualitative transformation of society, which marks the transition from capitalism to socialism. The socialist revolution substitutes the relations of production of domination and subordination, based on private property, by the relations of collaboration and mutual aid, with which the exploitation of man by man is liquid. It has a creative character.

Comprehensive list of resources for those in need of an abortion :feminism:

Resources for Palestine :palestine-heart:

Here are some resourses on Prison Abolition :brick-police:

Foundations of Leninism :USSR:

:lenin-shining: :unity: :kropotkin-shining:

Anarchism and Other Essays :ancom:

Remember, sort by new you :LIB:

Follow the Hexbear twitter account :comrade-birdie:

THEORY; it’s good for what ails you (all kinds of tendencies inside!) :RIchard-D-Wolff:

COMMUNITY CALENDAR - AN EXPERIMENT IN PROMOTING USER ORGANIZING EFFORTS :af:

Come listen to music with your fellow Hexbears in Cy.tube :og-hex-bear:

Queer stuff? Come talk in the Queer version of the megathread ! :sicko-queer:

Monthly Neurodiverse Megathread and Monthly ND Venting Thread :Care-Comrade:

Join the fresh and beautiful batch of new comms:

!worldbuilding@hexbear.net :european-soviet:

!labour@hexbear.net :iww:

!cars@hexbear.net :w