Primitive Accumulation in the USSR Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 01:50:58 No. 18943
newfag thread; engage with accordingly, and point out any level of moronocy The USSR engaged in huge amounts of primitive accumulation that was no different then what bourgeois governments; especially those of England and France; engaged in. If anything, the parallels are comically striking, especially after the fall of the NEP (New Economic Programme) and the failure to develop a solid alternative. The USSR under Stalin lead arguably one of the largest and most efficient attempts at primitive accumulation in history. And while they arguably helped create the economy that ended up beating the Nazi menace, the path there was mired in nothing but bloodshed. First, some background: the NEP had offered the USSR a significant rebound from the civil war conditions of War Communism. While richer peasants continued to hoard and manage a significant amount of grain, the ability to sell it on a market let prices generally lower and allowed for some form of access to food, cooling the woes. However, in 1928, the situation fell apart. From PDF: >In fall 1928, the economic situation grew worse. Harvest collections fell again, and the price of food and grain on the free market shot up. Workers’ riots intensified, and peasants, spooked by earlier confiscations, reduced their sown area. In early 1929, V.M. Molotov and Stalin visited the Urals and Siberia to oversee grain collections, impose delivery quotas on kulak households, and arrest hoarders. These “extraordinary measures”, extended throughout the country, allowed the state to meet its procurement and export targets. The collectivization campaigned that followed, however, was not just hurt by the clear backwardness of the peasantry (especially the clerics), but by a rushed decision. > That summer, an emboldened Party mobilized 25,000 workers to go into the villages to organize collective farms. The hasty decision, made under pressure of urban strikes and rural disturbances, produced a cascade of unanticipated consequences. Neither Party leaders nor worker activists were prepared for the intensity of resistance. Rumors swept the countryside. Angry, frightened peasants slaughtered rather than collectivize their livestock, and village priests warned that the Apocalypse was at hand. This isn't totally Stalin's fault; this was well aided by the internal peasant woes by all means; but the fact of the matter is that the hasty plan to collectivize lead to a major panic. A year later, the plan to liquidate the Kulak Class went underway, with over 1.7 million people exiled, including non kulaks, to outposts, new towns, and special settlements, often in increasingly useless locations (the forest, tundra, wasteland, etc). This entire process is literally just primitive accumulation here, mass dispossession of the peasant class in trying to make way for a new foundation of social relations. Thousands of peasants who left these settlements were left much like the English counterparts of the 1700's; forced to wander the countryside, masking there identity, in search of new housing and work. That was also cut short. Between 1929 and 1932, nearly 11 million people entered the workforce, a huge sum. That jump was over double the original number of people in the workforce. Stalin then proceeded to issue internal passports, meant to stem the flow of migrant workers. In 1724, Peter the Great had done the same, in preventing peasants from entering his vast new work projects. They had been abolished by the Bolshevik's in 1918; their reintroduction in 1932 was "a reversal of all previous revolutionary programs". >The Soviet state apparatus quickly found the passport system a useful means of control and discipline. It slowed the influx of peasants to the cities, reduced labor turnover, and helped purge the towns of dispossessed kulaks, private traders, people deprived of voting rights, criminals, and vagabonds. Factory directors were encouraged to comb their personnel records to ensure that outcast groups were not “masquerading” as workers.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 02:13:55 No. 18944
>>18943 This article is based upon the useless ideas of a trotskyite who was executed by Stalin. This article is just bourgeois ideology; it presents nothing but a utopian critique of history along with worthless idealist and moralistic judgements that forgo reality.
The author, Wendy Z. Goldman, is a typical representative of the privileged and decadent academic class that serves the interests of imperialism and capitalism. She is a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, a private institution that receives funding from various corporations and foundations. She is also married to Marcus Rediker, a pirate historian who glorifies the criminal and parasitic elements of society.The author is a member of many bourgeois institutions, like the Wilson Center.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 02:49:14 No. 18945
>>18944 but do you have any actual response to the content
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 02:54:03 No. 18946
True. Look at how for example tankies brag about the Soviets lifting millions out of poverty, literally verbatim the same rhetoric that more standard bourgeois economists use to illustrate how capitalism was merciful and brought the feudal peasants out of darkness (somewhat true). It was bourgeois project to get rid of the last vestiges of the feudal landlord class and turn peasants into more profitable proles.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 02:54:06 No. 18947
>>1508774 >capitalism was merciful and brought the feudal peasants out of darkness (somewhat true ). kys I can't believe Comrade Roo will die when you will live
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 02:56:30 No. 18948
>>18947 That's what you're gonna nitpick? Also, if you have a problem with that, then why do you think the USSR was good for developing industrial capitalism, if you do?
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 02:58:30 No. 18949
>>18948 Because the soviet union
and chyna unlike capitalism was actually merciful and brought peasants out of darkness
Has anybody ever called you an insufferable faggot before son?
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:02:06 No. 18950
>>18949 but didn't the source prove that it quite literally had some of the same parallels of capitalist primitive accumulation?
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:02:27 No. 18951
>>18950 also "merciful" lol
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:03:43 No. 18952
>>18949 Yeah, they brought them out of the darkness into Heaven On Earth with co-ordinated state investment in imports of industrial equipment and creation of factories along with land expropriations in the countryside
>Has anybody ever called you an insufferable faggot before son? Intellectual heavyweight right here
>>18950 By "merciful" I'm paraphrasing what the bourgeois economist (and also tankie if we're referring to specifically Russia and China) position on this would be
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:05:10 No. 18954
>>18952 You could have just said yes you unbearable faggot
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:06:52 No. 18955
>>18954 I don't know if you know this, but I can post whatever I want even if easily aggravates you. Hopefully you learned a life lesson out of this.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:08:19 No. 18956
>>18952 >By "merciful" I'm paraphrasing what the bourgeois economist (and also tankie if we're referring to specifically Russia and China) position on this would be The difference is that the former is lying or stupid, read Engel's
Conditions on the Working Class you little pipsqueak
Properly, don't just skim it for a phrase and then elevate that phrase to a metaphysical truth like you usually do
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:08:58 No. 18957
>>18955 Do you want me to start reporting you?
I haven't done that yet
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:10:55 No. 18959
>>18956 >The difference is that the former is lying or stupid Agreed. So is the latter.
>>18957 Man this was one of the easiest and dumbest online arguments I've been in. You're like the stereotype of a spoiled 14 year old having a tantrum.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:15:31 No. 18960
>>18952 >Yeah, they brought them out of the darkness into Heaven On Earth with co-ordinated state investment in imports of industrial equipment and creation of factories along with land expropriations in the countryside that process of expropriation was again a coordinated campaign in which peasants were violently deported to far off lands and forcefully dispossessed of there land. while i'd hardly call this fully Stalin's fault, the fact of the matter is that the process is nearly a 1/1 mirror of English Primitive Accumulation, with mass dispossesion of the peasantry in trying to create capital for industry
in his defense, the USSR lacked a capitalist base to expropriate, and was a weak link to imperialism which lacked foreign colonies during the russian empire. but the fact that this was the model that the USSR effectively helped export (in China, Romania, etc etc) proves to me that the USSR didn't really create a way to develop industrial power in countries with large peasant populations outside of "just recreate the process of capital accumulation all over again by dispossessing the peasants". again, to be fair, this model generally wasn't as followed in some countries, like cuba (pic related)
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:19:06 No. 18961
>>18959 You don't need to be posting here to figure out a way to save comrade Jason's life comrade
https://m.facebook.com/MaoistRebelNews/photos/a.197870803674852/3600497523412146/?type=3&_rdr https://www.youtube.com/user/maoistrebelnews2 He took your position and is about to kill himself because he realized how wrong he was
Reported
Good luck and Goodbye, you've got some very important things to do and it's a life or death situation
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:21:15 No. 18962
>>18960 it's almost like the bolshevik's completed a successful bourgeois democratic revolution and were able to implement massive primitive accumulation..but still fell short of creating a socialist society or carrying out a socialist revolution
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:31:38 No. 18963
>>18962 They just ruthlessly accumulated industrial capital, uprooting the lives of hundreds of millions as a sort of jury rig towards "socialism". It happens.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 03:32:44 No. 18964
>>18963 so this begs the question: for when self declared communist parties, be they bolsheviks, the CPC, whatever, take hold in countries that still have huge swathes of peasantry, what are they to do? is it ALWAYS doomed to only lead a bourgeois-democratic revolution?
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 07:37:14 No. 18965
>no different then what bourgeois governments it's very different because it is for the purpose of socialization>the path there was mired in nothing but bloodshed muh hoholdomor>internal passports necessary to prevent famine due to premature depopulation of the countryside, all in line with socialist primitive accumulation as for the paper attached:>Stalinism there's no such thing>capital accumulation capital does not exist in a socialist economy. capital is money and means of production used for the purpose of valorization, which the USSR did not engage in
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 08:01:51 No. 18966
At the end of the day when faced with imperialist encirclement and the failure of the permanent revolution thesis (the proletariat accomplishing the tasks of the bourgeois demoratic and the socialist revolution by securing the support of the proletariat in more advanced countries) a party of communists has two choices before them, fold them or hold them. The former, the path of Bukharin is capitulation, retreat, controlled or otherwise and accepting the failure of the revolution and trying to carefully steer it back to capitalist development, the standard 'natural' path of market mechanisms encouraging land consolidation and the building up of priate capital, accepting a role for the kulak and private capitalist in the running of the economy and state. The other path, the path of Stalin, is the refusal by the communists to give up political and economic power and to 'become the villain', accomplish the world historical task of primitive capital accumaltion, land consolidation and wage unlimited genocide on the peasantry to speedrun the process that in capitalist england took 100 years in 15 years. Do you retreat, and possibly squander the one chance given to us communists, or do you advance in spite of the unfriendly material conditions and make enemies of and sacrifice the people you were supposed to liberate to try to beat the capitalists at their own game.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 08:08:12 No. 18967
>>18943 >mass dispossession of the peasant class lol
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 08:09:53 No. 18968
I like how Trots will defend the NEP but think the USSR became counterrevolutionary when it actually embarked on socialism in 1928,
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 08:26:12 No. 18969
>>18946 Capitalist accumulation was more built on mass murder and slavery in the colonies.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 11:07:42 No. 18970
>>18943 Didn't happen but it was based and should happen again.
Forced collectivization and rapid industrial development IS socialism. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Trotting out some mealy-mouthed criticisms about 'muh famine' 'muh mass murder' is just generating excuses for the bourgeois imperialists who destroyed the USSR.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 21:59:09 No. 18972
>>18965 >there's no such thing Disliking a term doesn't mean it's inaccurate. "Marxism-Leninism" was used to designate more than the ideology of the USSR under Stalin, and most
Stalinists on this board hate Krushchev (to the extent there are posts in favor of Beria). Maoists are also "Marxist-Leninists," so the term is overly general.
"Stalinism" is an accurate and specific description of what many people on this board believe. It's also more widely understood.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 22:02:47 No. 18973
>>18965 >there's no such thing who synthesized marxist-leninism
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 22:08:51 No. 18974
>>18972 >>18973 the paper is using Stalinism as a sneer and this is the case the vast majority of times the term is used
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 22:36:10 No. 18975
>>18971 >primitive accumulation It's not remotely applicable to the USSR.
Cope.
Anonymous 2023-06-24 (Sat) 22:36:45 No. 18976
>>18973 Lenin although he didn't claim so.
Lenin Hat 2023-06-24 (Sat) 23:15:59 No. 18978
>>18977 >using filters Opinion discarded
Lev Davidovich Bronstein 2023-06-24 (Sat) 23:43:44 No. 18979
>>18968 Who said that it was counterrevolutionary? You just have some imaginary trot in your head you always argue with.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 00:06:00 No. 18980
>>18945 It would be a waste of time, engaging with that nonsense. I've already proven how the work is meaningless from a materialist point of view, as the article is built upon false premises, lies, and IS bourgeois ideology. The article has nothing to do with reality or science. The article's only function is to distort the objective facts of history with fallacy laden, superimposed bourgeois ideology. This makes it easy to critique, however.
1. 'Socialist primitive accumulation' is a bourgeois trotskyite construct, used at the time to advocate for a more gradual and utopian collectivization of Kulak private property, along with expansion of the NEP.
How can anyone take seriously a theory that was invented by Preobrazhensky, a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet people, who was rightly executed by Stalin? How can anyone value a theory that contradicts all of the teachings of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, who are the founders and leaders of scientific socialism? How can anyone accept a theory that denies the role of the proletariat and the party as the leading force of socialism, a theory that undermines the very movement of communism?
The theory to this day is like a broken compass, pointing in the wrong direction; or, rather, the theory is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, pretending to represent the interests of the entire peasantry, but actually only serving the interests of the kulaks and the capitalists.
2. The article is a slanderous and biased bourgeois attack on Stalinism, which was at the time the highest stage of Marxism-Leninism and the only true and scientific extent form of socialism. The article portrays Stalinism as a violent and coercive process of expropriation and repression that resulted in social instability and discontent. This is a lie and a distortion of history. Stalinism was supported by the masses of workers and peasants, who were loyal and grateful to The Party as their leader and teacher, as the Party represented their interests. Stalinism was a beacon of hope and inspiration for the oppressed peoples of the world, who fought for liberation and socialism under the guidance of Stalin.
This is like saying that a rose is an evil, thorny and poisonous plant that causes only pain and suffering.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 03:08:38 No. 18981
>>18980 >all rhetoric no substance yawn
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 03:12:30 No. 18982
>>18980 this still proves nothing. if this is a "waste of time", you certainly had the time to write a flowery, meaningless piece of rhetoric. criticize the content.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 03:54:46 No. 18984
>>18982 What is there to discuss? What is there to prove? I'm critiquing what is in effect any anti-communist propaganda poster, or what may as well even be Dumbledore's sacrifice from the Harry Potter books; no shit there is no substance, as the critique is of a substanceless article, which is a meaningless bourgeois critique of Actual History. Do you people actually believe that this shitty bourgeois article means anything, presents cognitive value, or is even worth actual discussion?
Allow me to feign ignorance and engage pointlessly in good faith.
>Stalinism bad. Is this it?
>muh muh muh muh millions died And?
>The peasants were oppressed and exploited!!1 The kulak parasites were expropriated. Thusly, the agricultural laborors were liberated.
>Collectivization was a disaster and a failure!!1 Collectivization was a necessity and entirely a success. It transformed the backward and feudal agrarian sector into a modern and socialist one. It increased the productivity and efficiency of agriculture. It provided the surplus and resources for industrialization. It eliminated class enemies and strengthened the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Need I go on?
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 04:04:16 No. 18985
>>18984 Should probably add eliminated famine for the slow ones in the audience
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 07:14:22 No. 18987
>>18986 GULAG was reeducation through labour for reactionary swines and criminals.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 09:51:05 No. 18988
>>18984 >>18985 Why could not collectivisation and industrialization be explained and done by the bottom, avoiding blindness/state bureaucracy?
The democratic soviets were in place, although they were taken by party at this time, but may be if not that, the local soviets could educate on collectivisation and organize locally. They could communicate with town soviets and plan for new agriculture machinery.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 09:54:36 No. 18989
>>18988 Thank you for your question comrade Jordan Peterson
That is an interesting question
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 09:57:11 No. 18990
>>18988 >collectivisation and industrialization be explained and done by the bottom Why do you think they didn't play a role?
But really such measures can only be undertaken on a large scale. A village can't build a steelworks.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 10:26:08 No. 18992
>>18990 I do not know, what role they played? May be they played some role, but text in OP is discussing state bureaucracy.
There can be a consensus among villages. Like, a village will say: we can give this amount of grain, we need to keep some for village and the planner will use this data for planning, not some blind outside observer data.
Anonymous 2023-06-25 (Sun) 12:09:28 No. 18993
>>18992 I've read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_grain_procurement_crisis_of_1928 >Communist Party penetration of the countryside remained weak, amounting to an average of 1 rural Communist for every 6 village soviets[8] — a mere 0.52% of the rural population vs. 1.78% of the total population in 1927. So they did not control all soviets, I was wrong. Why then they did not organize more democratically?
And this
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1928/may/28.htm Where he is talking on subsidies for common farms which is soft and nice. But he is insisting on fast industrialization, shows he does not know what is going on in detail.
Unique IPs: 17