DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3322--------------------------------------------------
Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: National Bolshevik
Date: November 4, 2012, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Συνομιλία
του Ι. Β.
Στάλιν με
τον G. Wells, το 1934.
Είναι πολύ
σημαντική
γιατί ο
σύντροφος
Στάλιν
δίνει
σωστές
γραμμές και
απαντήσεις
που
οριοθετούν
καθαρά τη
διαφορά
μεταξύ της
πραγματικά
φιλολαϊκής
ιδεολογίας
του
Κομμουνισμού,
και των
δήθεν
φιλολαϊκών
ημιμέτρων
του
Κεϊνσιανισμού
που
έμπαιναν
τότε σε ισχύ
στην
Αμερική του
Ρούσβελτ.
Wells : I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing
to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long
conversation with President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain
what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to ask you what you
are doing to change the world. . .
Stalin : Not so very much.
Wells : I wander around the world as a common man and, as a
common man, observe what is going on around me.
Stalin : Important public men like yourself are not "common
men". Of course, history alone can show how important this or
that public man has been; at all events, you do not look at the
world as a "common man."
Wells : I am not pretending humility. What I mean is that I try
to see the world through the eyes of the common man, and not as
a party politician or a responsible administrator. My visit to
the United States excited my mind. The old financial world is
collapsing; the economic life of the country is being
reorganized on new lines. Lenin said : "We must learn to do
business, learn this from the capitalists."
Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the
spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in
the United States is a profound reorganisation, the creation of
planned, that is, socialist, economy. You and Roosevelt begin
from two different starting points. But is there not a relation
in ideas, a kinship of ideas, between Moscow and Washington? In
Washington I was struck by the same thing I see going on here;
they are building offices, they are creating a number of state
regulation bodies, they are organising a long-needed Civil
Service. Their need, like yours, is directive ability.
Stalin : The United States is pursuing a different aim from that
which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R.
The aim which the Americans are pursuing, arose out of the
economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans
want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private
capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They
are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by
the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in
place of the old, destroyed economic basis, an entirely
different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the
Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce
these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of
the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system.
They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably
lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at
best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganisation of society,
not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to
anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its excesses.
Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are
reorganising society; objectively, however, they are preserving
the present basis of society.
That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganisation of
society.
Nor will there be planned economy. What is planned economy? What
are some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish
unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving
the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain
minimum.
But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete
abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army
of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the
labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Here you have
one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society.
Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in
those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses
of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion
of production under capitalism takes place for entirely
different motives, that capital flows into those branches of
economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never
compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a
lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the
people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without
abolishing the principle of private property in the means of
production, it is impossible to create planned economy.
Wells : I agree with much of what you have said.
But I would like to stress the point that if a country as a
whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the
government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to
apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be
abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word,
will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt's
"New Deal" is most powerful, and in my opinion they are
socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the
antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present
circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the
constructive forces.
Stalin : In speaking of the impossibility of realising the
principles of planned economy while preserving the economic
basis of capitalism, I do not in the least desire to belittle
the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative,
courage and determination. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as
one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the
contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like, once
again, to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned
economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism, does
not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities,
talent and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the
circumstances are unfavourable, the most talented captain cannot
reach the goal you refer to. .
Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually,
step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the
goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the
word, is not precluded. .
But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some
extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of
capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the
principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very
well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the
contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something
serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably
suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large
enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All
these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet,
all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of
skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are
not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the
private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must
not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.
The State is an institution that organises the defence of the
country, organises the maintenance of "order"; it is an
apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not
deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the
latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the
State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear
that in spite of all his energies and abilities, Roosevelt will
not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal.
Perhaps, in the course of several generations it will be
possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think
that even this is not very probable. .
Wells : Perhaps, I believe more strongly in the economic
interpretation of politics than you do. Huge forces driving
towards better organisation, for the better functioning of the
community, that is, for socialism, have been brought into action
by invention and modern science. Organisation, and the
regulation of individual action, have become mechanical
necessities, irrespective of social theories. If we begin with
the State control of the banks and then follow with the control
of transport, of the heavy industries of industry in general, of
commerce, etc., such an all-embracing control will be equivalent
to the State ownership of all branches of national economy. This
will be the process of socialisation. Socialism and
individualism are not opposites like black and white. .
There are many intermediate stages between them. .
There is individualism that borders on brigandage, and there is
discipline and organisation that are the equivalent of
socialism. The introduction of planned economy depends, to a
large degree, upon the organisers of economy, upon the skilled
technical intelligentsia, who, step by step, can be converted to
the socialist principles of organisation. And this is the most
important thing. Because organisation comes before socialism. It
is the more important fact. .
Without organisation the socialist idea is a mere idea. .
Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable
contrast between the individual and the collective, between the
interests of the individual person and the interests of the
collective. There should be no such contrast, because
collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual
interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot
abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society
alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than
that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests
of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable
contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny
the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the
capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?
On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the
banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in
colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests,
their striving after profits.
They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to
subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we
have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns
neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to
live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks
the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How
can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far
as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of
conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as
experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in
the United States better than I do as I have never been there
and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have
some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience
tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the
interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the
capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his
place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents
go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not
protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the
president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?
Wells : I object to this simplified classification of mankind
into poor and rich. Of course there is a category of people
which strive only for profit. But are not these people regarded
as nuisances in the West just as much as here? Are there not
plenty of people in the West for whom profit is not an end, who
own a certain amount of wealth, who want to invest and obtain a
profit from this investment, but who do not regard this as the
main object? They regard investment as an inconvenient
necessity. Are there not plenty of capable and devoted
engineers, organisers of economy, whose activities are
stimulated by something other than profit? In my opinion there
is a numerous class of capable people who admit that the present
system is unsatisfactory and who are destined to play a great
role in future socialist society. During the past few years I
have been much engaged in and have thought of the need for
conducting propaganda in favour of socialism and cosmopolitanism
among wide circles of engineers, airmen, military technical
people, etc. It is useless to approach these circles with
two-track class war propaganda. These people understand the
condition of the world. They understand that it is a bloody
muddle, but they regard your simple class-war antagonism as
nonsense.
Stalin : You object to the simplified classification of mankind
into rich and poor. Of course there is a middle stratum, there
is the technical intelligentsia that you have mentioned and
among which there are very good and very honest people. Among
them there are also dishonest and wicked people, there are all
sorts of people among them, But first of all mankind is divided
into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to
abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the
antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from
the fundamental fact. I do not deny the existence of
intermediate middle strata, which either take the side of one or
the other of these two conflicting classes, or else take up a
neutral or semi-neutral position in this struggle. But, I
repeat, to abstract oneself from this fundamental division in
society and from the fundamental struggle between the two main
classes means ignoring facts. The struggle is going on and will
continue. The outcome will be determined by the proletarian
class, the working class.
(συνεχίζεται)
#Post#: 3323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: National Bolshevik
Date: November 4, 2012, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells : But are there not many people who are not poor, but who
work and work productively?
Stalin : Of course, there are small landowners, artisans, small
traders, but it is not these people who decide the fate of a
country, but the toiling masses, who produce all the things
society requires.
Wells : But there are very different kinds of capitalists. There
are capitalists who only think about profit, about getting rich;
but there are also those who are prepared to make sacrifices.
Take old Morgan for example. He only thought about profit; he
was a parasite on society, simply, he merely accumulated wealth.
But take Rockefeller. He is a brilliant organiser; he has set an
example of how to organise the delivery of oil that is worthy of
emulation. Or take Ford. Of course Ford is selfish. But is he
not a passionate organiser of rationalised production from whom
you take lessons? I would like to emphasise the fact that
recently an important change in opinion towards the U.S.S.R. has
taken place in English speaking countries. The reason for this,
first of all, is the position of Japan and the events in
Germany. But there are other reasons besides those arising from
international politics. There is a more profound reason namely,
the recognition by many people of the fact that the system based
on private profit is breaking down. Under these circumstances,
it seems to me, we must not bring to the forefront the
antagonism between the two worlds, but should strive to combine
all the constructive movements, all the constructive forces in
one line as much as possible. It seems to me that I am more to
the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer
to its end than you think.
Stalin : In speaking of the capitalists who strive only for
profit, only to get rich, I do not want to say that these are
the most worthless people, capable of nothing else. Many of them
undoubtedly possess great organising talent, which I do not
dream of denying. We Soviet people learn a great deal from the
capitalists. And Morgan, whom you characterise so unfavourably,
was undoubtedly a good, capable organiser. But if you mean
people who are prepared to reconstruct the world, of course, you
will not be able to find them in the ranks of those who
faithfully serve the cause of profit. We and they stand at
opposite poles. You mentioned Ford. Of course, he is a capable
organiser of production. But don't you know his attitude to the
working class?
Don't you know how many workers he throws on the street? The
capitalist is riveted to profit; and no power on earth can tear
him away from it. Capitalism will be abolished, not by
"organisers" of production not by the technical intelligentsia,
but by the working class, because the aforementioned strata do
not play an independent role. The engineer, the organiser of
production does not work as he would like to, but as he is
ordered, in such a way as to serve the interests of his
employers. There are exceptions of course; there are people in
this stratum who have awakened from the intoxication of
capitalism. The technical intelligentsia can, under certain
conditions, perform miracles and greatly benefit mankind. But it
can also cause great harm. We Soviet people have not a little
experience of the technical intelligentsia.
After the October Revolution, a certain section of the technical
intelligentsia refused to take part in the work of constructing
the new society; they opposed this work of construction and
sabotaged it.
We did all we possibly could to bring the technical
intelligentsia into this work of construction; we tried this way
and that. Not a little time passed before our technical
intelligentsia agreed actively to assist the new system. Today
the best section of this technical intelligentsia are in the
front rank of the builders of socialist society. Having this
experience we are far from underestimating the good and the bad
sides of the technical intelligentsia and we know that on the
one hand it can do harm, and on the other hand, it can perform
"miracles." Of course, things would be different if it were
possible, at one stroke, spiritually to tear the technical
intelligentsia away from the capitalist world. But that is
utopia.
Are there many of the technical intelligentsia who would dare
break away from the bourgeois world and set to work
reconstructing society? Do you think there are many people of
this kind, say, in England or in France? No, there are few who
would be willing to break away from their employers and begin
reconstructing the world.
Besides, can we lose sight of the fact that in order to
transform the world it is necessary to have political power? It
seems to me, Mr. Wells, that you greatly underestimate the
question of political power, that it entirely drops out of your
conception.
What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do
if they are unable to raise the question of seizing power, and
do not possess power? At best they can help the class which
takes power, but they cannot change the world themselves. This
can only be done by a great class which will take the place of
the capitalist class and become the sovereign master as the
latter was before. This class is the working class. Of course,
the assistance of the technical intelligentsia must be accepted;
and the latter in turn, must be assisted. But it must not be
thought that the technical intelligentsia can play an
independent historical role. The transformation of the world is
a great, complicated and painful process. For this task a great
class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.
Wells : Yes, but for long voyages a captain and navigator are
required.
Stalin : That is true; but what is first required for a long
voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An
idle man, Wells : The big ship is humanity, not a class.
Stalin : You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption
that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are
many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the
bourgeoisie.
Wells : I remember the situation with regard to the technical
intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical
intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do
and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his
opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the
least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a
superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality
has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly
never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in
it. Recently I was dining with the Royal Society, our great
English scientific society. The President's speech was a speech
for social planning and scientific control. Thirty years ago,
they would not have listened to what I say to them now. Today,
the man at the head of the Royal Society holds revolutionary
views and insists on the scientific reorganisation of human
society. Mentality changes. Your class-war propaganda has not
kept pace with these facts.
Stalin : Yes, I know this, and this is to be explained by the
fact that capitalist society is now in a cul-de sac. The
capitalists are seeking, but cannot find a way out of this
cul-de-sac that would be compatible with the dignity of this
class, compatible with the interests of this class. They could,
to some extent, crawl out of the crisis on their hands and
knees, but they cannot find an exit that would enable them to
walk out of it with head raised high, a way out that would not
fundamentally disturb the interests of capitalism. This, of
course, is realised by wide circles of the technical
intelligentsia. A large section of it is beginning to realise
the community of its interests with those of the class which is
capable of pointing the way out of the cul-de-sac.
Wells : You of all people know something about revolutions, Mr.
Stalin, from the practical side. Do the masses ever rise? Is it
not an established truth that all revolutions are made by a
minority?
Stalin : To bring about a revolution a leading revolutionary
minority is required; but the most talented, devoted and
energetic minority would be helpless if it did not rely upon the
at least passive support of millions.
Wells : At least passive? Perhaps sub-conscious?
Stalin : Partly also the semi-instinctive and semiconscious, but
without the support of millions, the best minority is impotent.
Wells : I watch communist propaganda in the West and it seems to
me that in modern conditions this propaganda sounds very
old-fashioned, because it is insurrectionary propaganda.
Propaganda in favour of the violent overthrow of the social
system was all very well when it was directed against tyranny.
But under modern conditions, when the system is collapsing
anyhow, stress should be laid on efficiency, on competence, on
productiveness, and not on insurrection.
It seems to me that the insurrectionary note is obsolete. The
communist propaganda in the West is a nuisance to
constructive-minded people.
Stalin : Of course the old system is breaking down and decaying.
That is true. But it is also true that new efforts are being
made by other methods, by every means, to protect, to save this
dying system.
You draw a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate.
You rightly state that the old world is breaking down.
But you are wrong in thinking that it is breaking down of its
own accord. No, the substitution of one social system for
another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It is
not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle, it is a
process connected with the clash of classes. Capitalism is
decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree which
has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of
its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social
system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a
cruel struggle, a life and death struggle. And every time the
people of the new world came into power they had to defend
themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore the
old power by force; these people of the new world always had to
be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the attacks of
the old world upon the new system.
Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is
breaking down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord.
Take Fascism for example.
Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the
old system by means of violence. What will you do with the
fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will
have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least
idealise the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do
not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old
world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the
old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the
Communists say to the working class : Answer violence with
violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from
crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on
the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you
see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system
for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process,
but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists
cannot ignore facts.
Wells : But look at what is now going on in the capitalist
world. The collapse is not a simple one; it is the outbreak of
reactionary violence which is degenerating to gangsterism. And
it seems to me that when it comes to a conflict with reactionary
and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law,
and instead of regarding the police as the enemy they should
support them in the fight against the reactionaries. I think
that it is useless operating with the methods of the old
insurrectionary socialism.
Stalin : The Communists base themselves on rich historical
experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not
voluntarily abandon the stage of history.
Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did
not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it
not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?
Wells : Cromwell acted on the basis of the constitution and in
the name of constitutional order.
Stalin : In the name of the constitution he resorted to
violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some
and beheaded others!
Or take an example from our history. Was it not clear for a long
time that the tsarist system was decaying, was breaking down?
But how much blood had to be shed in order to overthrow it?
And what about the October Revolution? Were there not plenty of
people who knew that we alone, the Bolsheviks, were indicating
the only correct way out?
Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had decayed?
But you know how great was the resistance, how much blood had to
be shed in order to defend the October Revolution from all its
enemies, internal and external.
Or take France at the end of the eighteenth century.
Long before 1789 it was clear to many how rotten the royal
power, the feudal system was. But a popular insurrection, a
clash of classes was not, could not be avoided. Why? Because the
classes which must abandon the stage of history are the last to
become convinced that their role is ended. It is impossible to
convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the
decaying edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved.
That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means
to save their existence as a ruling class.
Wells : But there were not a few lawyers at the head of the
Great French Revolution.
Stalin : Do you deny the role of the intelligentsia in
revolutionary movements? Was the Great French Revolution a
lawyers' revolution and not a popular revolution, which achieved
victory by rousing vast masses of the people against feudalism
and championed the interests of the Third Estate? And did the
lawyers among the leaders of the Great French Revolution act in
accordance with the laws of the old order? Did they not
introduce new, bourgeois revolutionary laws?
The rich experience of history teaches that up to now not a
single class has voluntarily made way for another class. There
is no such precedent in world history. The Communists have
learned this lesson of history. Communists would welcome the
voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But such a turn of
affairs is improbable; that is what experience teaches. That is
why the Communists want to be prepared for the worst and call
upon the working class to be vigilant, to be prepared for
battle. Who wants a captain who lulls the vigilance of his army,
a captain who does not understand that the enemy will not
surrender, that he must be crushed? To be such a captain means
deceiving, betraying the working class. That is why I think that
what seems to you to be old-fashioned is in fact a measure of
revolutionary expediency for the working class.
Wells : I do not deny that force has to be used, but I think the
forms of the struggle should fit as closely as possible to the
opportunities presented by the existing laws, which must be
defended against reactionary attacks. There is no need to
disorganise the old system because it is disorganising itself
enough as it is. That is why it seems to me insurrection against
the old order, against the law, is obsolete; old-fashioned.
Incidentally, I deliberately exaggerate in order to bring the
truth out more clearly. I can formulate my point of view in the
following way :
first, I am for order; second, I attack the present system in so
far as it cannot assure order; third, I think that class war
propaganda may detach from socialism just those educated people
whom socialism needs.
Stalin : In order to achieve a great object, an important social
object, there must be a main force, a bulwark, a revolutionary
class. Next it is necessary to organise the assistance of an
auxiliary force for this main force; in this case this auxiliary
force is the Party, to which the best forces of the
intelligentsia belong. Just now you spoke about "educated
people." But what educated people did you have in mind? Were
there not plenty of educated people on the side of the old order
in England in the seventeenth century, in France at the end of
the eighteenth century, and in Russia in the epoch of the
October Revolution? The old order had in its service many highly
educated people who defended the old order, who opposed the new
order. Education is a weapon the effect of which is determined
by the hands which wield it, by who is to be struck down.
Of course, the proletariat, socialism, needs highly educated
people. Clearly, simpletons cannot help the proletariat to fight
for socialism, to build a new society. I do not underestimate
the role of the intelligentsia; on the contrary, I emphasize it.
The question is, however, which intelligentsia are we
discussing?
Because there are different kinds of intelligentsia.
(συνεχίζεται)
#Post#: 3324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: National Bolshevik
Date: November 4, 2012, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells : There can be no revolution without a radical change in
the educational system. It is sufficient to quote two examples:
The example of the German Republic, which did not touch the old
educational system, and therefore never became a republic; and
the example of the British Labour Party, which lacks the
determination to insist on a radical change in the educational
system.
Stalin : That is a correct observation.
Permit me now to reply to your three points.
First, the main thing for the revolution is the existence of a
social bulwark. This bulwark of the revolution is the working
class.
Second, an auxiliary force is required, that which the
Communists call a Party. To the Party belong the intelligent
workers and those elements of the technical intelligentsia which
are closely connected with the working class. The intelligentsia
can be strong only if it combines with the working class.
If it opposes the working class it becomes a cipher.
Third, political power is required as a lever for change. The
new political power creates the new laws, the new order, which
is revolutionary order.
I do not stand for any kind of order. I stand for order that
corresponds to the interests of the working class. If, however,
any of the laws of the old order can be utilised in the
interests of the struggle for the new order, the old laws should
be utilised.
I cannot object to your postulate that the present system should
be attacked in so far as it does not ensure the necessary order
for the people.
And, finally, you are wrong if you think that the Communists are
enamoured of violence. They would be very pleased to drop
violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the
working class. But the experience of history speaks against such
an assumption.
Wells : There was a case in the history of England, however, of
a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the
period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence
was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth
century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered
power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support
of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to
the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.
Stalin : But you have imperceptibly passed from questions of
revolution to questions of reform. This is not the same thing.
Don't you think that the Chartist movement played a great role
in the Reforms in England in the nineteenth century?
Wells : The Chartists did little and disappeared without leaving
a trace.
Stalin : I do not agree with you. The Chartists, and the strike
movement which they organised, played a great role; they
compelled the ruling class to make a number of concessions in
regard to the franchise, in regard to abolishing the so-called
"rotten boroughs," and in regard to some of the points of the
"Charter."
Chartism played a not unimportant historical role and compelled
a section of the ruling classes to make certain concessions,
reforms, in order to avert great shocks. Generally speaking, it
must be said that of all the ruling classes, the ruling classes
of England, both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, proved to
be the cleverest, most flexible from the point of view of their
class interests, from the point of view of maintaining their
power. Take as an example, say, from modern history, the general
strike in England in 1926. The first thing any other bourgeoisie
would have done in the face of such an event, when the General
Council of Trade Unions called for a strike, would have been to
arrest the trade union leaders.
The British bourgeoisie did not do that, and it acted cleverly
from the point of view of its own interests.
I cannot conceive of such a flexible strategy being employed by
the bourgeoisie in the United States, Germany or France. In
order to maintain their rule, the ruling classes of Great
Britain have never foresworn small concessions, reforms. But it
would be a mistake to think that these reforms were
revolutionary.
Wells : You have a higher opinion of the ruling classes of my
country than I have. But is there a great difference between a
small revolution and a great reform? Is not a reform a small
revolution?
Stalin : Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the
masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial
reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing
social-economic system.
Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are
necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the
essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference
of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible
to describe any reform as revolution. That is why we cannot
count on the change of social systems taking place as an
imperceptible transition from one system to another by means of
reforms, by the ruling class making concessions.
Wells : I am very grateful to you for this talk which has meant
a great deal to me. In explaining things to me you probably
called to mind how you had to explain the fundamentals of
socialism in the illegal circles before the revolution. At the
present time there are only two persons to whose opinion, to
whose every word, millions are listening : you, and Roosevelt.
Others may preach as much as they like; what they say will never
be printed or heeded.
I cannot yet appreciate what has been done in your country; I
only arrived yesterday. But I have already seen the happy faces
of healthy men and women and I know that something very
considerable is being done here. The contrast with 1920 is
astounding.
Stalin : Much more could have been done had we Bolsheviks been
cleverer.
Wells : No, if human beings were cleverer. It would be a good
thing to invent a five-year plan for the reconstruction of the
human brain which obviously lacks many things needed for a
perfect social order.
(Laughter.)
Stalin : Don't you intend to stay for the Congress of the Soviet
Writers' Union?
Wells : Unfortunately, I have various engagements to fulfil and
I can stay in the USSR only for a week.
I came to see you and I am very satisfied by our talk. But I
intend to discuss with such Soviet writers as I can meet the
possibility of their affiliating to the PEN club. This is an
international organisation of writers founded by Galsworthy;
after his death I became president. The organisation is still
weak, but it has branches in many countries, and what is more
important, the speeches of the members are widely reported in
the press. It insists upon this free expression of opinion -
even of opposition opinion.
I hope to discuss this point with Gorky. I do not know if you
are prepared yet for that much freedom here.
Stalin : We Bolsheviks call it "self-criticism." It is widely
used in the USSR. If there is anything I can do to help you I
shall be glad to do so.
Wells : (Expresses thanks.)
Stalin : (Expresses thanks for the visit.)
#Post#: 3327--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: FringeElements
Date: November 4, 2012, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Εξαιρετικός
συγγραφέας
επιστημονικής
φαντασίας ο
H.G.Wells. Έχω
διαβάσει το
διασημότερό
του Time Machine και το
The War of the Worlds. Το
δεύτερο μου
άρεσε
περισσότερο.
Φαμπιανός
σε όλη του
την ζωή. Στα
στερνά του
βίου του
αυτομόλησε -
κλασική
περίπτωση -
και
προσχώρησε
στους
εργατικούς,
το
αντίστοιχο
των πασόκων
της
Βρετανίας.
Με άλλα
λόγια καμία
σχέση με
φιλελεύθερο,
πόσο μάλλον
με
παλαιοελευθεριακό
φασιστορασιαλιστή
αναρχοκαπιταλιστή.
#Post#: 3332--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: beton arme
Date: November 5, 2012, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Πολλή πλάκα
έχει στην
αρχή που
πάει ο Wells να
τον
καλοπιάσει
με
γλειψίματα
και δήθεν
κάνει τον
"ταπεινό", και
ο Στάλιν τον
γειώνει
αμέσως.
--- Quote ---
> Wells : I wander around the world as a common man and, as a
common man, observe what is going on around me.
>
> Stalin : Important public men like yourself are not "common
men". Of course, history alone can show how important this or
that public man has been; at all events, you do not look at the
world as a "common man."
--- End Quote ---
Όχι
γαλιφιές
στον
πατερούλη,
ΞΕΡΕΙ ΠΟΥ
ΜΕΝΕΙΣ.
#Post#: 3333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: National Bolshevik
Date: November 5, 2012, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FringeElements link ---
>
>
παλαιοελευθεριακό
φασιστορασιαλιστή
αναρχοκαπιταλιστή.
>
--- End Quote ---
καλά, αυτή η
μπούρδα
μόνο εσύ
είσαι σε όλο
τον πλανήτη,
κανένας
άλλος. Για
τον Γουέλς
εγώ είπα ότι
είναι
Κεϊνσιανός,
που
εντάσσεται
στο
φιλελευθερισμό,
πώς να το
κάνουμε
δηλαδή.
Βέβαια για
σένα και ο
κεϊνσιανισμός
είναι
κομμουνισμός,
όπως και
όλες οι
άλλες
ιδεολογίες.
#Post#: 3335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: FringeElements
Date: November 5, 2012, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
O Ρόθμπαρντ
(ήταν) και ο
Ρόκγουελ
είναι
ΠΕΦΡΑΚ, δεν
είμαι μόνος
μου. Και ο
Βαρουφάκης
είναι
κεϋνσιανός,
αυτό δεν τον
κάνει
φιλελεύθερο.
Και ο Χίτλερ
ήταν
κεϋνσιανός
HTML http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hitlers-economics.html.<br
/>Εσύ
νομίζεις
ότι όποιος
δεν θέλει
πλήρη
κρατικό
έλεγχο
είναι
φιλελεύθερος.
Έτσι όμως
και ο Λένιν
είναι
φιλελεύθερος.
Ο πλήρης
κρατικός
έλεγχος
οδηγεί πίσω
στην
αφρικανική
τροφοσυλλεκτική
κοινωνία
και η
πραγματικότητα
επιβάλλει
σε όλα τα
σοσιαλιστικά
κινήματα
όταν γίνουν
κυβέρνηση
να
συμβιβαστούν
με ένα
ποσοστό
ελευθερίας
στους
πολίτες.
Όσοι δεν
συμβιβάστηκαν
αρκετά, ΕΣΣΔ,
Κίνα, Β.Κορέα,
επλήγησαν
από λιμούς,
πράγμα
εξαιρετικά
νορμάλ για
την
αφρικανική
τροφοσυλλεκτική
κοινωνία.
#Post#: 3338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: National Bolshevik
Date: November 5, 2012, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FringeElements link ---
>
> O Ρόθμπαρντ
(ήταν) και ο
Ρόκγουελ
είναι
ΠΕΦΡΑΚ, δεν
είμαι μόνος
μου. Και ο
Βαρουφάκης
είναι
κεϋνσιανός,
αυτό δεν τον
κάνει
φιλελεύθερο.
Και ο Χίτλερ
ήταν
κεϋνσιανός
HTML http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hitlers-economics.html.<br
/>Εσύ
νομίζεις
ότι όποιος
δεν θέλει
πλήρη
κρατικό
έλεγχο
είναι
φιλελεύθερος.
Έτσι όμως
και ο Λένιν
είναι
φιλελεύθερος.
Ο πλήρης
κρατικός
έλεγχος
οδηγεί πίσω
στην
αφρικανική
τροφοσυλλεκτική
κοινωνία
και η
πραγματικότητα
επιβάλλει
σε όλα τα
σοσιαλιστικά
κινήματα
όταν γίνουν
κυβέρνηση
να
συμβιβαστούν
με ένα
ποσοστό
ελευθερίας
στους
πολίτες.
Όσοι δεν
συμβιβάστηκαν
αρκετά, ΕΣΣΔ,
Κίνα, Β.Κορέα,
επλήγησαν
από λιμούς,
πράγμα
εξαιρετικά
νορμάλ για
την
αφρικανική
τροφοσυλλεκτική
κοινωνία.
>
--- End Quote ---
Nαι, όλοι οι
κεϊνσιανοί
δέχονται
τον
καπιταλισμό,
και όποιος
αφήνει την
παραμικρή
οικονομική
ελευθερία
στα
καπιταλιστικά
γουρούνια,
είναι λίγο ή
πολύ
φιλελεύθερος.
Και ναι
βλακάκο, η
ΝΕΠ στην
ΕΣΣΔ
θεωρείται
περίοδος
φιλελευθερισμού
αν δεν το
ξέρεις.
Ωραία
παραδείγματα
φέρνεις για
παιδί 5
χρονών.
Λιμοί και
πλημμύρες
που στην
Κίνα
συνέβαιναν
στον ίδιο
μεγάλο
βαθμό και
πριν τον
Κομμουνισμό,
επειδή έτσι
είναι το
φυσικό
κλίμα εκεί.
Στην ΕΣΣΔ
από το 1917 ως το
1991 δεν έγινε
απολύτως
ΚΑΜΙΑ
πολύνεκρη
φυσική
καταστροφή,
επειδή
υπήρχε κάτι
που λέγεται
ΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΣ
ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ, τον
οποίο τα
νεοφιλελεύθερα
σκουπίδια
σαν κι εσένα
θέλουν να
καταργήσουν
παντού και
να τον
αντικαταστήσουν
με το νόμο
της
ζούγκλας
του κάθε
ατομικιστή
καπιταλιστή.
Εκεί να δεις
λιμούς και
καταποντισμούς,
και φυσικά
αφού δε θα
υπάρχει
κεντρικός
έλεγχος,
ούτε θα
προλαμβάνονται
οι
καταστροφές
ούτε θα
επουλώνονται.
Κάτι σαν την
Αμερική του
Μπους, όπου
περνάει
ένας
τυφώνας από
τη Νέα
Ορλεάνη,
πεθαίνουν
στο καπάκι 500.000
κόσμος και
στη
συνέχεια
πεθαίνουν
και άλλοι 500.000
επειδή αντί
για
κεντρική
διοίκηση
υπάρχουν
χίλιες
διαφορετικές
μορφές
εξουσίας με
περιορισμένη
δύναμη. Και
καμιά 5-10
εκατομμύρια
μένουν
άστεγοι. Και
γαμώ τις
κοινωνίες
ονειρεύονται
τα σκυλιά
του
καπιταλισμού.
Γι' αυτό ΚΑΛΑ
ΕΚΑΝΕ Ο
ΣΤΑΛΙΝ ΚΑΙ
ΤΟΥΣ ΘΕΡΙΖΕ
ΧΩΡΙΣ ΕΛΕΟΣ,
ΚΑΙ ΕΠΡΕΠΕ
ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΕΙΧΕ
ΠΕΘΑΝΕΙ
ΠΟΤΕ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ
ΜΗΝ ΕΙΧΕ
ΑΦΗΣΕΙ
ΚΑΝΕΝΑΝ
ΑΠΑΝΘΡΩΠΟ
ΚΑΠΙΤΑΛΙΣΤΗ
ΖΩΝΤΑΝΟ.
#Post#: 3340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: FringeElements
Date: November 5, 2012, 8:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: National Bolshevik link ---
>
> Στην ΕΣΣΔ
από το 1917 ως το
1991 δεν έγινε
απολύτως
ΚΑΜΙΑ
πολύνεκρη
φυσική
καταστροφή,
επειδή
υπήρχε κάτι
που λέγεται
ΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΣ
ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ
>
--- End Quote ---
Η επίσημη
προπαγάνδα
του
παραπετάσματος
για το
Γολοντομόρ
είναι
ακριβώς
αυτό που λες
"πολύνεκρη
φυσική
καταστροφή".
Όπως και να
το πάρουμε, η
πείνα στην
ΕΣΣΔ ήταν
παντού.
Φαίνεται,
στην
καλύτερη,
για σένα,
περίπτωση, ο
σοσιαλισμός
είναι το
τελευταίο
στάδιο των
μετεωρολογικά
ευέξαπτων
περιοχών.
Αν λες για
τον Κατρίνα,
ο Κατρίνα
χτύπησε
μαύρους. Η
Νέα Ορλεάνη
ανέκαθεν
ήταν
επικίνδυνη
πολιτεία
και εκεί
έμεναν όσοι
δεν είχαν
μυαλό και
όσοι
ένιωθαν
ασφάλεια
από την fema. Η fema
εγγυάται τα
σπίτια των
υπανθρώπων
και έτσι
τους
επιδοτεί να
πάνε να
μένουν εκεί
πέρα. Άρα και
κρατική
παρεμβατικότητα
και
σοσιαλισμός
έφεραν την
Καταστροφή
του Κατρίνα.
Τώρα όσον
αφορά τους
αριθμούς
παραπέμπω
τον
αναγνώστη
σε καμία wiki να
δούμε πόσα
πιθήκια
πέθαναν,
γιατί εσύ,
είναι
σίγουρο,
ψάχνεις για
μαλάκες,
αλλά ο
κόσμος
πρέπει να
ξεφύγει
μόνος του, ως
άτομο, από
την μαλακία,
μέσω της
ηθικής
προσωπικής
αναζήτησης.
Ωραίο όνομα
πάντως. Είχα
γνωρίσει
ένα μουνί
Κατρίνα
(ελληνοαυστραλέζα)
και τα είχα
δει όλα.
Υπέροχο
μωρό.
#Post#: 3344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Μαρξισμός
εναντίον
φιλελευθερισμού
DIR By: National Bolshevik
Date: November 5, 2012, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FringeElements link ---
>
> [quote author=National Bolshevik
link=topic=374.msg3338#msg3338 date=1352117883]
> Στην ΕΣΣΔ
από το 1917 ως το
1991 δεν έγινε
απολύτως
ΚΑΜΙΑ
πολύνεκρη
φυσική
καταστροφή,
επειδή
υπήρχε κάτι
που λέγεται
ΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΣ
ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ
>
--- End Quote ---
Η επίσημη
προπαγάνδα
του
παραπετάσματος
για το
Γολοντομόρ
είναι
ακριβώς
αυτό που λες
"πολύνεκρη
φυσική
καταστροφή".
Όπως και να
το πάρουμε, η
πείνα στην
ΕΣΣΔ ήταν
παντού.
Φαίνεται,
στην
καλύτερη,
για σένα,
περίπτωση, ο
σοσιαλισμός
είναι το
τελευταίο
στάδιο των
μετεωρολογικά
ευέξαπτων
περιοχών.
Αν λες για
τον Κατρίνα,
ο Κατρίνα
χτύπησε
μαύρους. Η
Νέα Ορλεάνη
ανέκαθεν
ήταν
επικίνδυνη
πολιτεία
και εκεί
έμεναν όσοι
δεν είχαν
μυαλό και
όσοι
ένιωθαν
ασφάλεια
από την fema. Η fema
εγγυάται τα
σπίτια των
υπανθρώπων
και έτσι
τους
επιδοτεί να
πάνε να
μένουν εκεί
πέρα. Άρα και
κρατική
παρεμβατικότητα
και
σοσιαλισμός
έφεραν την
Καταστροφή
του Κατρίνα.
Τώρα όσον
αφορά τους
αριθμούς
παραπέμπω
τον
αναγνώστη
σε καμία wiki να
δούμε πόσα
πιθήκια
πέθαναν,
γιατί εσύ,
είναι
σίγουρο,
ψάχνεις για
μαλάκες,
αλλά ο
κόσμος
πρέπει να
ξεφύγει
μόνος του, ως
άτομο, από
την μαλακία,
μέσω της
ηθικής
προσωπικής
αναζήτησης.
Ωραίο όνομα
πάντως. Είχα
γνωρίσει
ένα μουνί
Κατρίνα
(ελληνοαυστραλέζα)
και τα είχα
δει όλα.
Υπέροχο
μωρό.
[/quote]
Α, σε
παρακαλώ. Η
Κατρίνα
χτύπησε
μαύρους, και
το
Γολοντομόρ
χτύπησε
κουλάκους.
Έχεις
κανένα
πρόβλημα
εσύ με αυτό;
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page