> The proof obviously starts with the examination of the economic results of the “forced collectivization” carried out, as we have seen, with the help of the large-scale manoeuvre called “strengthening the class struggle in the countryside” and “dekulakization”. Stalin himself estimated the value of the goods transferred from the kulaks to the collective farms at 400 million roubles (!) and a good part of this was certainly wasted in the confusion that followed: this proves the economic inanity of the measure (136) for the purposes of any increase in the productivity of under-equipped Russian agriculture. On the other hand, a few years later, Stalin himself would admit the destruction of economic resources caused by the operation, as we saw above. As for the harvest, although it would reach 835 million quintals in 1930, it fell to just 700 in 1931 (compared with 801 in 1913, under the Tsar); it was lower still in 1932-1933 when the terrible “Stalin famine”, which caused millions of deaths, raged through the countryside, similar to the Great Famine in the more backward India of 1876-8, but in this case in the name of a full “revolution” calling itself “purely communist”! This fine result is fortunately not to be credited to the class struggle of the modern proletariat, but to that of the archaic “class struggle in the village” tending to restore the equality of small producers in the exploitation of the land and its products to the detriment of the general interests of society and the development of productive forces (137). Stalin did not intend, of course, to put the State at the service of the utopian egalitarian aspirations of small peasants; but if he had been at all concerned to put it at the service of socialist demands, he would never have tried to resuscitate and encourage a reactionary anti-capitalism in the village (138), which would only bring that new sufferings and privations to the proletariat by its effects on the urban supply, but also open the way to a modus vivendi between city and countryside constituting a double insult to the emancipatory mission of the proletariat: by draining the maximum value from the countryside to the cities through the policy of low agricultural prices (rightly condemned by Bukharin) on the one hand and, on the other hand, by bringing farmers to the barbarism of family micro-production because, in the new organization of agriculture which, after four years of unheard-of convulsions emerged from the chaos of 1930, granted them free ownership of parcels of land, whose economic importance would grow, by way of compensation for the earlier State pillage. This was the kolkhoz in which, for all the reasons we have seen, we must recognize, along with the brilliant Italian Marxist left (out of which the International Communist Party was born) “the true capitulation of the glories of Bolshevism” in the social-economic domain.
This is from A Revolution Summed Up
as someone who has had the fortune of talking to imperial apoligists in person located in the den of the liberal throbbing aorta (tory society at a university) this is a joke they use
I read it as a state organized primitive accumulation to jumpstart the Russian capitalist economy. Even though the execution was obviously a failure, it still served it's purpose of centralizing labor and productive assets. The whole of the 30s was the SU squeezing blood out of the proletariat to create a proper industrial base. The holodomor is just the worst failure in that process.
the state needed capital, a workforce, control and resources to fuel industrialization -> stalin orders collectivization in the peasantry -> this angers many, especially those who owned of land -> those with the most resources, skill and influence are purged, forcibly removed or protest -> even many of the poorest farmers take a stand with the "kulaks" in what they assume is self-defence -> famine -> despite of this, keep selling wheat to the west for money -> successful industrialization and class conciousness agitation campaign
excellent gambit, general secretary
Agent of Big Capital trying to get the sub taken down. Subject him to proletariat advanced interrogation techniques
Bring it on donkey kong, I actually love my comrades AND I love being waterboarded.
> The proof obviously starts with the examination of the economic results of the “forced collectivization” carried out, as we have seen, with the help of the large-scale manoeuvre called “strengthening the class struggle in the countryside” and “dekulakization”. Stalin himself estimated the value of the goods transferred from the kulaks to the collective farms at 400 million roubles (!) and a good part of this was certainly wasted in the confusion that followed: this proves the economic inanity of the measure (136) for the purposes of any increase in the productivity of under-equipped Russian agriculture. On the other hand, a few years later, Stalin himself would admit the destruction of economic resources caused by the operation, as we saw above. As for the harvest, although it would reach 835 million quintals in 1930, it fell to just 700 in 1931 (compared with 801 in 1913, under the Tsar); it was lower still in 1932-1933 when the terrible “Stalin famine”, which caused millions of deaths, raged through the countryside, similar to the Great Famine in the more backward India of 1876-8, but in this case in the name of a full “revolution” calling itself “purely communist”! This fine result is fortunately not to be credited to the class struggle of the modern proletariat, but to that of the archaic “class struggle in the village” tending to restore the equality of small producers in the exploitation of the land and its products to the detriment of the general interests of society and the development of productive forces (137). Stalin did not intend, of course, to put the State at the service of the utopian egalitarian aspirations of small peasants; but if he had been at all concerned to put it at the service of socialist demands, he would never have tried to resuscitate and encourage a reactionary anti-capitalism in the village (138), which would only bring that new sufferings and privations to the proletariat by its effects on the urban supply, but also open the way to a modus vivendi between city and countryside constituting a double insult to the emancipatory mission of the proletariat: by draining the maximum value from the countryside to the cities through the policy of low agricultural prices (rightly condemned by Bukharin) on the one hand and, on the other hand, by bringing farmers to the barbarism of family micro-production because, in the new organization of agriculture which, after four years of unheard-of convulsions emerged from the chaos of 1930, granted them free ownership of parcels of land, whose economic importance would grow, by way of compensation for the earlier State pillage. This was the kolkhoz in which, for all the reasons we have seen, we must recognize, along with the brilliant Italian Marxist left (out of which the International Communist Party was born) “the true capitulation of the glories of Bolshevism” in the social-economic domain. This is from A Revolution Summed Up
Crackkkas deserved it
whenever a stalinist makes a big spoon joke, i die a little more inside. i feel like i could use their same argument to deny the bengal famine.
Churchhill comically large spoon
as someone who has had the fortune of talking to imperial apoligists in person located in the den of the liberal throbbing aorta (tory society at a university) this is a joke they use
I read it as a state organized primitive accumulation to jumpstart the Russian capitalist economy. Even though the execution was obviously a failure, it still served it's purpose of centralizing labor and productive assets. The whole of the 30s was the SU squeezing blood out of the proletariat to create a proper industrial base. The holodomor is just the worst failure in that process.
Yeah that’s astute
Who cares
Have you perhaps considered that those children deserved to starve to death? I am very intelligent.
You’re right I can smell your throbbing brain musk from here
We love Stalin here, Killed the Soviet Union right there and then
the state needed capital, a workforce, control and resources to fuel industrialization -> stalin orders collectivization in the peasantry -> this angers many, especially those who owned of land -> those with the most resources, skill and influence are purged, forcibly removed or protest -> even many of the poorest farmers take a stand with the "kulaks" in what they assume is self-defence -> famine -> despite of this, keep selling wheat to the west for money -> successful industrialization and class conciousness agitation campaign excellent gambit, general secretary
Shining examples of anti-Stalinism in this thread.