[Subversive Rob]

Agreed. But when I said that bourgeois laws are a work of fiction, I did not imply that they are internalyy inconsistent, simply that they do not correspond with objective reality. A set of laws (or any abstract system of law or theory) can be internally consistent and yet not be consistent with reality itself.

To a large degree a legal system develops in tandem with bourgeois relations of production and commodity development in general. I guess in a way it is correct that the legal ideology may obscure actual relations (especially in the sense of an ideal contract). However, the legal system in itself cannot be "fiction" because it has a material existence and bodies of force ready to enforce it. The necessity of internal coherence means that the legal system becomes a site of class struggle and temporary victories can be gained here, of course these must be connected to a broader revolutionary perspective. Also the challenging of legal ideology is usually accompanied by a positive element, whereby a revolutionary class develops its own ideas of legal regulation.

True, but this bourgeois 'evolution' could only proceed so far before meeting determined resistance from the entrenched feudal system, which necessitated a bourgeois revolution; the changing of the system by force. Feudalism could never spontaneously and peacefully evolve into capitalism, just as capitalism itself can never spontaneously and peacefully evolve into socialism.

Obviously so. But this does show that an 'instrumentalist' point of view, that law is solely at the service of the ruling class, is false. Although lasting change cannot be gained through legal struggle due to the necessity of internal coherence challenges can be made as the change in quantity takes place. I was *not* suggesting a peaceful transition is possible merely that a "distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out." (Marx). Also that law exists in the material sense in the forms of courts etc. and is not merely a "fiction".

Legal regulation can also increase progress from one social system to another, i.e. the superstructure can necessarily react back upon the base, although not decisively.

Have you ever read Pashukanis?

[Potemkin]

But all political parties in Britain have this assumption. The Conservatives believe the bourgeois class, with their hereditary class privileges, are best suited to know what is best for the hoi polloi; the Liberals have the same belief, with the proviso that they do not believe in class struggle, and the left wing parties, as you point out, believe that the working class requires a vanguard of professional revolutionaries. It's part of our culture, and is inevitable given Britain's semi-feudal, semi-bourgeois social structure.

I don't live in Britian. I live in the US. And rich means bad, right? What aobut people who fairly deserve it without abusing the workers?

They don't exist.

They succeeded in overthrowing the Tsar, but their revolution had already been hijacked by the bourgeois class, who set up a Provisional Government to look after their particular class interests. Kerensky wanted to continue the imperialist war, and he sent out detachments of troops to stop the peasants from seizing the landowners' land for themselves. That shows you whose side he was on. The working class were not able to overthrow the bourgeois Provisional Government on their own, so Lenin did it for them, in their name.

Oh, I'm sorry, you mean the "wartime communism" Lenin? The one who was hated by the peasents?

Yes, that's the Lenin I mean. Lenin seized power in the name of the urban proletariat, not in the name of the peasants. The Bolsheviks believed that industrialisation was both a good and necessary thing for Russia; this meant turning peasants into workers. Peasants=bad, workers=good. If you read Marx's Das Kapital, he wrote some scathing things about peasants; he regarded them as basically petty-bourgeois in their attitudes and essentially reactionary (though prone to occasional outbursts of anarchic violence). It's only with the development of Maoism that the idea has become current that Marxism is a pro-peasant ideology. Russia had to industrialise itself quickly after the Revolution, and this meant squeezing the peasants to fund that industrialisation. And during the period of War Communism, the grain requisitioning from the peasants was needed to feed the cities during the Civil War.

But weren't all these Soviets part of the communist party?

No, absolutely not! The word 'Soviet' in Russian simply means 'council', and originally had no political connotations. It's just that during 1917, the Bolsheviks began to dominate these workers' councils, edging out the other radical parties, and used the Soviets as their power base. In fact, in 1919, one of the leading Bolshevik ideologists, Preobrazhensky, actually suggested that the Bolshevik Party should be absorbed into the Soviets, thereby achieving the 'withering away' of the state. Lenin believed this would be premature, and in fact the exact opposite actually happened - the Soviets were eventually absorbed into the Bolshevik Party. Hence the modern confusion between the 'Soviets' and the 'Communists'; the two are not synonymous.

[Attila The Nun]

They don't exist.

Then ignore Henry Ford, then ignore Bill Gates, then ignore most modern bourgeoise of today. Obviously capitalism has been undeveloped since 1890.

Yes, that's the Lenin I mean. Lenin seized power in the name of the urban proletariat, not in the name of the peasants. The Bolsheviks believed that industrialisation was both a good and necessary thing for Russia; this meant turning peasants into workers. Peasants=bad, workers=good. If you read Marx's Das Kapital, he wrote some scathing things about peasants; he regarded them as basically petty-bourgeois in their attitudes and essentially reactionary (though prone to occasional outbursts of anarchic violence). It's only with the development of Maoism that the idea has become current that Marxism is a pro-peasant ideology. Russia had to industrialise itself quickly after the Revolution, and this meant squeezing the peasants to fund that industrialisation. And during the period of War Communism, the grain requisitioning from the peasants was needed to feed the cities during the Civil War.

Because agriculture is never important for any modern country. I guess spending money on food form outside countries is the true marxist way!

No, absolutely not! The word 'Soviet' in Russian simply means 'council', and originally had no political connotations. It's just that during 1917, the Bolsheviks began to dominate these workers' councils, edging out the other radical parties, and used the Soviets as their power base. In fact, in 1919, one of the leading Bolshevik ideologists, Preobrazhensky, actually suggested that the Bolshevik Party should be absorbed into the Soviets, thereby achieving the 'withering away' of the state. Lenin believed this would be premature, and in fact the exact opposite actually happened - the Soviets were eventually absorbed into the Bolshevik Party. Hence the modern confusion between the 'Soviets' and the 'Communists'; the two are not synonymous.

But didn't the bolshevik soviets take control of the council through bolshevik suppression of other soviets of different parties? Wasn't the Soviet council just a pretty puppet used by Lenin?

[Potemkin]

The necessity of internal coherence means that the legal system becomes a site of class struggle and temporary victories can be gained here, of course these must be connected to a broader revolutionary perspective. Also the challenging of legal ideology is usually accompanied by a positive element, whereby a revolutionary class develops its own ideas of legal regulation.

Ah yes, good old "socialist legality". But I think you overestimate the need for internal self-consistency of the bourgeois legal system. When Brecht lost his legal case against the makers of the film version of 'The Threepenny Opera', I think he stated that bourgeois laws must contain an irreducible element of theoretical inconsistency in order for the bourgeoisie to achieve practical consistency in the application of those laws, since they do not correspond to reality. In British law, there are many laws which contradict each other, but the bourgeoisie is not overly concerned about this; in fact, this is why judges (who by definition are bourgeois) are given a large amount of leeway of 'interpretation' when applying the law.

True, but this bourgeois 'evolution' could only proceed so far before meeting determined resistance from the entrenched feudal system, which necessitated a bourgeois revolution; the changing of the system by force. Feudalism could never spontaneously and peacefully evolve into capitalism, just as capitalism itself can never spontaneously and peacefully evolve into socialism.

Obviously so.

It's not obvious to the Revisionists who now control the Left!

But this does show that an 'instrumentalist' point of view, that law is solely at the service of the ruling class, is false. Although lasting change cannot be gained through legal struggle due to the necessity of internal coherence challenges can be made as the change in quantity takes place.

...and a sufficent change in quantity can lead to a change in quality.

Legal regulation can also increase progress from one social system to another, i.e. the superstructure can necessarily react back upon the base, although not decisively.

Agreed. I'm not a 'vulgar' Marxist!

Have you ever read Pashukanis?

No. Should I have?

[Potemkin]

They don't exist.

Then ignore Henry Ford, then ignore Bill Gates, then ignore most modern bourgeoise of today. Obviously capitalism has been undeveloped since 1890.

I was talking about Britain, not America. And while I admire Henry Ford for his development of mass production and assembly line techniques (something which Lenin enthusiastically copied, by the way), Bill Gates is just another monopoly capitalist robber baron.

Because agriculture is never important for any modern country. I guess spending money on food form outside countries is the true marxist way!

Unfortunately, due to Stalin's hamfisted and brutal collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, the Soviet Union ended up having to import grain from America to feed its people. All rather embarrassing, I'll grant you, but not an inevitable part of Marxist ideology.

But didn't the bolshevik soviets take control of the council through bolshevik suppression of other soviets of different parties? Wasn't the Soviet council just a pretty puppet used by Lenin?

It ended up that way, yes, but it didn't begin that way.

[Attila The Nun]

I was talking about Britain, not America. And while I admire Henry Ford for his development of mass production and assembly line techniques (something which Lenin enthusiastically copied, by the way), Bill Gates is just another monopoly capitalist robber baron.

Becuase Gates makes a good product or because he's a great businessman? "Monopolization" is not always the product of shrew business tactics.

Unfortunately, due to Stalin's hamfisted and brutal collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, the Soviet Union ended up having to import grain from America to feed its people. All rather embarrassing, I'll grant you, but not an inevitable part of Marxist ideology.

It is if you disregard the peasants. They're very important, even more important than the protelariate.

It ended up that way, yes, but it didn't begin that way.

It was inevitable in a system when one party controls all.

[Potemkin]

Bill Gates is just another monopoly capitalist robber baron.

Becuase Gates makes a good product or because he's a great businessman? "Monopolization" is not always the product of shrew business tactics.

I think we can rule out option one. Microsoft Windoze is one of the worst operating systems ever devised - it's bloated, it's bug-ridden, and it's incredibly vulnerable to viruses and hackers. When Windoze 95 was released, it had no security features at all. Not one. None. And it costs a fortune. And you don't even get a choice about whether to buy it or not - it comes pre-installed on almost all new PCs. In effect, there's a Microsoft tax on all new PCs: you pay extra for the Windoze operating system, without being asked or having any choice. If that isn't monopoly capitalism, what is?

And before you ask, no I don't use Windoze. I use Linux - it's free, it's fast, it's secure and it never, ever crashes. And did I mention that it's free?

It is if you disregard the peasants. They're very important, even more important than the protelariate.

No, they are less important, even if they happen to constitute the majority of the population (which they did in Russia in 1917). During industrialisation, they will all be converted into urban workers anyway. They are therefore an historically doomed social class. How many peasants are there in Britain nowadays?

It was inevitable in a system when one party controls all.

Which is why Preobrazhensky suggested that the Party should be absorbed into the Soviets. Lenin pointed out to him that the Soviet government was fighting for its life in a vicious civil war against the class enemy, so it was hardly the right time to encourage the state to wither away.

[Subversive Rob]

Ah yes, good old "socialist legality". But I think you overestimate the need for internal self-consistency of the bourgeois legal system. When Brecht lost his legal case against the makers of the film version of 'The Threepenny Opera', I think he stated that bourgeois laws must contain an irreducible element of theoretical inconsistency in order for the bourgeoisie to achieve practical consistency in the application of those laws, since they do not correspond to reality. In British law, there are many laws which contradict each other, but the bourgeoisie is not overly concerned about this; in fact, this is why judges (who by definition are bourgeois) are given a large amount of leeway of 'interpretation' when applying the law.

Good point. Although you also have to remember this varies with the codification and non-codification of certain legal systems. Also, the legal system can, it is true, be inconsistent but not, in non revolutionary situations, broadly so. This is because many people have an irrational faith in the legal system as somehow being above classes etc. and to an extent this can be exploited. Capitalists rule on "force" and "consent", a constant display of naked class power would quickly provoke a revolution, and so in this way the law is "elastic", in that the ruling class *must* make concessions.

Incidentally, isn't socialist legality something better applied to Khruschev and his boys (i.e. Stalin violated it). Personally, since I understand law in the present epoch to be inherently bourgeois, in that it corresponds to commodity categories, and a weapon of the bourgeois in the class struggle, I do not advocate perely legal methods. I also recognise that extensive use of legal channels allows the creation of repressive tolerance, and that the very nature of an organic totality means no struggle can be purely legal and remain revolutionary.

But I also recognise that class struggle proceeds in every facet of society, explicitly or not. So in the material sense, law becomes a nodal point of class struggle (Trade Unions struggle etc.) and can result in helping the working class further along the road to victory. I also recognise that on the ideological front bourgeois legal ideology must be combatted. However, as a materialist I know only a change in the relations of production can result in a new social system, i.e. revolution is necessary. This does not stop me from recognising the importance of law, however.

It's not obvious to the Revisionists who now control the Left!

Well I ain't one...

...and a sufficent change in quantity can lead to a change in quality.

Which I hope you realise was my point...

Agreed. I'm not a 'vulgar' Marxist!

Ever read Caudwell? He's one of our own.

No. Should I have?

Bolshevik legal theorist, developed the commodity theory of law, very interesting as it goes. Although in my opinion he makes several errors, in that he occupies two extremes; instrumentalism and formalism, and that he misidentifies the central relation in bourgeois law, he is worth the read as a comprehensive dialectical materialist viewing the law.

This section is particularly enlightening on our topic of conversation.

We must, therefore, demonstrate both that general juridic concepts may enter and actually do enter into the structure of ideological processes and ideological systems-this is not subject to any dispute-and that in them, in these concepts, it is possible to discover social reality which has, in a certain way, become mystified. In other words, we must determine whether or not legal categories are such objective forms of thought (objective for an historically specific society) which correspond to objective social relationships. Consequently, our question is: is it possible to understand law as a social relationship in the same sense in which Marx termed capital a social relationship?

E.B. Pashukanis, General Theory of Law and Marxism

[Potemkin]

Good point. Although you also have to remember this varies with the codification and non-codification of certain legal systems. Also, the legal system can, it is true, be inconsistent but not, in non revolutionary situations, broadly so. This is because many people have an irrational faith in the legal system as somehow being above classes etc. and to an extent this can be exploited. Capitalists rule on "force" and "consent", a constant display of naked class power would quickly provoke a revolution, and so in this way the law is "elastic", in that the ruling class *must* make concessions.

Agreed.

Incidentally, isn't socialist legality something better applied to Khruschev and his boys (i.e. Stalin violated it). Personally, since I understand law in the present epoch to be inherently bourgeois, in that it corresponds to commodity categories, and a weapon of the bourgeois in the class struggle, I do not advocate perely legal methods. I also recognise that extensive use of legal channels allows the creation of repressive tolerance, and that the very nature of an organic totality means no struggle can be purely legal and remain revolutionary.

Yes. In fact, a legal system would no longer exist in a truly classless, communist society. Legality is part of the apparatus of a state, and states are, as Marx pointed out, instruments of class oppression. This is another reason why purely legal methods can never lead to the achievement of a communist society.

But I also recognise that class struggle proceeds in every facet of society, explicitly or not. So in the material sense, law becomes a nodal point of class struggle (Trade Unions struggle etc.) and can result in helping the working class further along the road to victory. I also recognise that on the ideological front bourgeois legal ideology must be combatted. However, as a materialist I know only a change in the relations of production can result in a new social system, i.e. revolution is necessary. This does not stop me from recognising the importance of law, however.

In other words, legal methods are a useful interim measure in the war of manoeuver (to use Gramsci's phrase) which the current stage of the class struggle necessitates? I would agree with that.

It's not obvious to the Revisionists who now control the Left!

Well I ain't one...

Glad to hear it, comrade!

...and a sufficent change in quantity can lead to a change in quality.

Which I hope you realise was my point...

Which is why I said it.

And Pashukanis looks interesting....

[Attila The Nun]

I think we can rule out option one. Microsoft Windoze is one of the worst operating systems ever devised - it's bloated, it's bug-ridden, and it's incredibly vulnerable to viruses and hackers. When Windoze 95 was released, it had no security features at all. Not one. None. And it costs a fortune. And you don't even get a choice about whether to buy it or not - it comes pre-installed on almost all new PCs. In effect, there's a Microsoft tax on all new PCs: you pay extra for the Windoze operating system, without being asked or having any choice. If that isn't monopoly capitalism, what is?

And before you ask, no I don't use Windoze. I use Linux - it's free, it's fast, it's secure and it never, ever crashes. And did I mention that it's free?

Well, first of all Windows 95 is not the pinnacle of technology. 3 new versions have come out since them. And you have to compare it to buying a Mac. Those are even worse.

No, they are less important, even if they happen to constitute the majority of the population (which they did in Russia in 1917). During industrialisation, they will all be converted into urban workers anyway. They are therefore an historically doomed social class. How many peasants are there in Britain nowadays?

Converted into urban workers, while they work on sunshine and happiness? You need to feed your urban workers. How will you accomplish this if you have no one to grow the crops? Agricultural work is definitely not a thing of the past (though the peasants have gotten a little more high-tech).

Which is why Preobrazhensky suggested that the Party should be absorbed into the Soviets. Lenin pointed out to him that the Soviet government was fighting for its life in a vicious civil war against the class enemy, so it was hardly the right time to encourage the state to wither away.

Actually, it accomplished the opposite, didn't it. The government actually grew, instead of disappeared. And what Preobrazhensky said was just a formality of what was already happening.

[Potemkin]

Well, first of all Windows 95 is not the pinnacle of technology. 3 new versions have come out since them. And you have to compare it to buying a Mac. Those are even worse.

Yeah, good point about the Mac. But the later versions of Windoze are little better; it was only with the development of XP that the multi-user architecture was built into the OS (an idea they ripped off from Unix/Linux btw), enabling at least some level of security. Even despite this, there was a recent security scare about XP. And I'm not even going to mention Internet Explorer.

And I only mentioned Windoze 95 because when it shipped in, er, 1995, it had no security features at all, at a time when the threat of viruses was well known. Later versions were slightly better, but not much. When you have a monopoly, you don't have to worry about protecting the interests of your customers.

Converted into urban workers, while they work on sunshine and happiness? You need to feed your urban workers. How will you accomplish this if you have no one to grow the crops? Agricultural work is definitely not a thing of the past (though the peasants have gotten a little more high-tech).

Which is one of the reasons for the collectivisation of agriculture in the early 30s. The idea was to build vast 'factories' for 'manufacturing' grain in the countryside; the peasants and farm labourers would become rural 'workers' in the equivalent of 'food factories'. It was hoped that this would proletarianise them, and eradicate their petty-bourgeois tendencies. The result, it has to be said, fell far short of expectations. The Soviet Union ended up having to import grain from America at the height of the Cold War simply to feed its own people. All very embarrassing.

Which is why Preobrazhensky suggested that the Party should be absorbed into the Soviets. Lenin pointed out to him that the Soviet government was fighting for its life in a vicious civil war against the class enemy, so it was hardly the right time to encourage the state to wither away.

Actually, it accomplished the opposite, didn't it. The government actually grew, instead of disappeared. And what Preobrazhensky said was just a formality of what was already happening.

No, in fact Preobrazhensky had suggested the opposite of what actually happened. He proposed that, having successfully seized power on behalf of the proletariat, the Bolshevik party had fulfilled its historic mission and should therefore effectively disband itself by being absorbed into the Soviets (not the other way around). This would have led to the state 'withering away' and all power being in the hands of the workers' councils or 'soviets'. This would have made the Bolsheviks' slogan of "All power to the Soviets!" come true in reality, rather than remaining just an empty slogan. But the Civil War was still raging, and the Soviet Union was encircled on all sides by hostile capitalist powers. That was not the moment to encourage the state to wither away; it would have achieved nothing except the restoration of capitalism and the rule of the class enemy. Lenin therefore rejected Preobrazhensky's advice, and actually did the exact opposite - he absorbed the Soviets into the Party. It was workers' democracy which withered away, rather than the state.

[Attila The Nun]

Which is one of the reasons for the collectivisation of agriculture in the early 30s. The idea was to build vast 'factories' for 'manufacturing' grain in the countryside; the peasants and farm labourers would become rural 'workers' in the equivalent of 'food factories'. It was hoped that this would proletarianise them, and eradicate their petty-bourgeois tendencies. The result, it has to be said, fell far short of expectations. The Soviet Union ended up having to import grain from America at the height of the Cold War simply to feed its own people. All very embarrassing.

And it ended up failing, didn't it? Big government is hardly what you would call more efficient than big business (which is one of the many reasons why the US agricultural industry did so much better than the Soviet industry at the time)

No, in fact Preobrazhensky had suggested the opposite of what actually happened. He proposed that, having successfully seized power on behalf of the proletariat, the Bolshevik party had fulfilled its historic mission and should therefore effectively disband itself by being absorbed into the Soviets (not the other way around). This would have led to the state 'withering away' and all power being in the hands of the workers' councils or 'soviets'. This would have made the Bolsheviks' slogan of "All power to the Soviets!" come true in reality, rather than remaining just an empty slogan. But the Civil War was still raging, and the Soviet Union was encircled on all sides by hostile capitalist powers. That was not the moment to encourage the state to wither away; it would have achieved nothing except the restoration of capitalism and the rule of the class enemy. Lenin therefore rejected Preobrazhensky's advice, and actually did the exact opposite - he absorbed the Soviets into the Party. It was workers' democracy which withered away, rather than the state.

Exactly, democracy withered away because the one party enveloped it, which was inveitable because of the one party system.

[Potemkin]

And it ended up failing, didn't it? Big government is hardly what you would call more efficient than big business (which is one of the many reasons why the US agricultural industry did so much better than the Soviet industry at the time)

There was also the problem of the lower level of material development of Russian agriculture in 1917. There were already periodic famines in Tsarist Russia throughout the 19th century; I think the last major one was in 1893, although food shortages occurred regularly even up to 1917. America didn't have the same problems; they had a larger economic and technological base to build upon.

Exactly, democracy withered away because the one party enveloped it, which was inveitable because of the one party system.

It was by no means inevitable. In fact, the avowed aim of the Bolsheviks was to achieve a classless and stateless communist society, so the withering away of the state was their aim, not the withering away of democracy. They obviously failed in this aim.

[Attila The Nun]

There was also the problem of the lower level of material development of Russian agriculture in 1917. There were already periodic famines in Tsarist Russia throughout the 19th century; I think the last major one was in 1893, although food shortages occurred regularly even up to 1917. America didn't have the same problems; they had a larger economic and technological base to build upon.

And if Russia was to ever get as big of an economy as the US the last thing you would do would be to develop a centrist government-run economy.

It was by no means inevitable. In fact, the avowed aim of the Bolsheviks was to achieve a classless and stateless communist society, so the withering away of the state was their aim, not the withering away of democracy. They obviously failed in this aim.

So, they set up a huge government and wanted it to wither away? How naive are they?

[Potemkin]

And if Russia was to ever get as big of an economy as the US the last thing you would do would be to develop a centrist government-run economy.

Well, the Soviet government didn't do too bad a job, considering the small material base they started from. Within just twenty years, Russia went from being a backward agrarian society of illiterate peasants to being a modern industrialised nation, capable of beating back the most advanced military machine that had ever existed, Hitler's Wehrmacht. What took America nearly two hundred years to achieve, the Soviet Union achieved in a tenth of the time. In the early stages of industrialisation, it is sometimes an advantage to have a state-led development. Germany followed the same route in the late 19th century, with similarly spectacular success. It's only in the English-speaking capitalist world that industrial development has occurred without significant state involvement. It's Britain and America which are exceptional in that respect, not Germany or Russia.

So, they set up a huge government and wanted it to wither away? How naive are they?

There were very good material and historical reasons for that. Without a powerful, centralised state, the Bolsheviks could not have won the Civil War, during the course of which the Western capitalist powers intervened and invaded Russia to aid the reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries. Furthermore, the working class were still a minority of the population, so their position as the ruling class could only be safeguarded by a strong workers' state until industrialisation led to their social as well as political hegemony. Furthermore, the Soviet Union was encircled by hostile capitalist nations bent on their destruction. They needed a strong state to safeguard the achievements of the Revolution. That didn't change the ultimate aim, thought - to achieve a communist society in which the state would wither away.

[Attila The Nun]

Well, the Soviet government didn't do too bad a job, considering the small material base they started from. Within just twenty years, Russia went from being a backward agrarian society of illiterate peasants to being a modern industrialised nation, capable of beating back the most advanced military machine that had ever existed, Hitler's Wehrmacht. What took America nearly two hundred years to achieve, the Soviet Union achieved in a tenth of the time. In the early stages of industrialisation, it is sometimes an advantage to have a state-led development. Germany followed the same route in the late 19th century, with similarly spectacular success. It's only in the English-speaking capitalist world that industrial development has occurred without significant state involvement. It's Britain and America which are exceptional in that respect, not Germany or Russia.

Well, first of all, Russia at the start of the revolution had been weakly industrializd, so they were not working from scratch. Also, the "industrial revolution" killed millions in the process from starvation and overworking. And Germany was not beaten by Soviet technology of economy, but by the Soviet winter. Had it not been for the harsh winter, Soviet Union would certainly have been taken over by the nazis.

There were very good material and historical reasons for that. Without a powerful, centralised state, the Bolsheviks could not have won the Civil War, during the course of which the Western capitalist powers intervened and invaded Russia to aid the reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries. Furthermore, the working class were still a minority of the population, so their position as the ruling class could only be safeguarded by a strong workers' state until industrialisation led to their social as well as political hegemony. Furthermore, the Soviet Union was encircled by hostile capitalist nations bent on their destruction. They needed a strong state to safeguard the achievements of the Revolution. That didn't change the ultimate aim, thought - to achieve a communist society in which the state would wither away.

Don't try to say that the socialists also did not want to destroy the capitalist rule over the world. The hostilities between capitalists and socialists have been the cause of both.

[Potemkin]

Well, first of all, Russia at the start of the revolution had been weakly industrializd, so they were not working from scratch. Also, the "industrial revolution" killed millions in the process from starvation and overworking. And Germany was not beaten by Soviet technology of economy, but by the Soviet winter. Had it not been for the harsh winter, Soviet Union would certainly have been taken over by the nazis.

The efforts of 'General Winter' certainly helped the Soviet Union in its struggle against Fascism. However, it was the sheer productive capacity of the Soviet economy and the sacrifice of tens of millions of Soviet troops and citizens which finally crushed the Nazi regime. Without the crash industrialisation programme of the 1920s and 30s, Hitler would have conquered the Soviet Union.

Don't try to say that the socialists also did not want to destroy the capitalist rule over the world. The hostilities between capitalists and socialists have been the cause of both.

True, but it was the capitalists who started the hostilities by their brutal exploitation of the toiling masses during the industrial revolution, for their own private profit. This exploitation continues to the present day, though its main focus has shifted to the 'developing' nations of the world.

[Attila The Nun]

The efforts of 'General Winter' certainly helped the Soviet Union in its struggle against Fascism. However, it was the sheer productive capacity of the Soviet economy and the sacrifice of tens of millions of Soviet troops and citizens which finally crushed the Nazi regime. Without the crash industrialisation programme of the 1920s and 30s, Hitler would have conquered the Soviet Union.

Are you kidding me? Stalinization crippled the Soviet military. They had numbers, but they were undersupplied, using technology dated back to the first world war, and had a severe lack of leadership. "General Winter" did all the heavy work. HAd it not been for that, Moscow would have been taken over, as well as Stalingrad, and Leningrad.

True, but it was the capitalists who started the hostilities by their brutal exploitation of the toiling masses during the industrial revolution, for their own private profit. This exploitation continues to the present day, though its main focus has shifted to the 'developing' nations of the world.

And this magically chanaged to change once Lenin came into power? No, the abuse still did happen under the socialist control, only now it had the pretty little marxist label on it. Nothing changed, but at least with capitalist reform you can improve conditions and pay.

[Potemkin]

Are you kidding me? Stalinization crippled the Soviet military. They had numbers, but they were undersupplied, using technology dated back to the first world war, and had a severe lack of leadership. "General Winter" did all the heavy work. HAd it not been for that, Moscow would have been taken over, as well as Stalingrad, and Leningrad.

I'm no fan of Stalin - I regard him as the arch betrayer of the Revolution and a mass-murdering tyrant - but the achievements of industrialisation in the 1930s were real. They were the achievements of the Soviet people themselves rather than Stalin, but they were real achievements and without them Hitler could never have been defeated. And 'General Winter' may have helped save Moscow, but he didn't win the Battle of Stalingrad, or the battle of Kursk, nor did he capture Berlin. The Soviet people, and the Soviet productive capacity, did that.

And this magically chanaged to change once Lenin came into power? No, the abuse still did happen under the socialist control, only now it had the pretty little marxist label on it. Nothing changed, but at least with capitalist reform you can improve conditions and pay.

One thing that changed in Russia after October 1917 was that the professions were thrown open for the working class. A man whose parents and grandparents had been factory workers and peasants could become a doctor or a nuclear physicist or even the leader of his nation. Compare that with Britain at the same period, where an aristocratic and privileged bourgeois class kept a stranglehold on the professions and the educational system, excluding the "lower orders" from achieving educational or professional advancement. October 1917 was a great victory for the working class and a defeat for the gang of parasites and exploiters we call the 'ruling class'. It shattered the old system of class privilege forever and created a society of equal citizens who fought side by side to defeat Hitler's fascist hordes. You may see that as a bad thing, but I do not.

[Attila The Nun]

I'm no fan of Stalin - I regard him as the arch betrayer of the Revolution and a mass-murdering tyrant - but the achievements of industrialisation in the 1930s were real. They were the achievements of the Soviet people themselves rather than Stalin, but they were real achievements and without them Hitler could never have been defeated. And 'General Winter' may have helped save Moscow, but he didn't win the Battle of Stalingrad, or the battle of Kursk, nor did he capture Berlin. The Soviet people, and the Soviet productive capacity, did that.

But what wore down the German army to give them the time to win the Battle of Stalingrad, but what kept the nazis from rolling right into Moscow when they were 15 miles away? And what gave the Soviets even the chance of giving an offense? The winter! It was the winter that saved them!

One thing that changed in Russia after October 1917 was that the professions were thrown open for the working class. A man whose parents and grandparents had been factory workers and peasants could become a doctor or a nuclear physicist or even the leader of his nation. Compare that with Britain at the same period, where an aristocratic and privileged bourgeois class kept a stranglehold on the professions and the educational system, excluding the "lower orders" from achieving educational or professional advancement. October 1917 was a great victory for the working class and a defeat for the gang of parasites and exploiters we call the 'ruling class'. It shattered the old system of class privilege forever and created a society of equal citizens who fought side by side to defeat Hitler's fascist hordes. You may see that as a bad thing, but I do not.

And the US wasn't doing this for years? More than once had a man gone from rags to riches under the US flag.