Thanks for sharing this old material. That kind of analysis led China to invade Vietnam, but the Vietnamese kicked their butts.

An alternative view, to which I continue to subscribe, was developed by Leon Trotsky in his book THE REVOLUTION BETRAYED, published in 1936. I believe that it constitutes a Marxist analysis of the class nature of the Soviet State. While too long to read completely online (where is is now available), I believe it would merit a careful study by serious students of these matters. He starts with an assessments of the many accomplishments made by the USSR, then argues how many, but not all, were lost. Ultimately, Trotsky's argument that the USSR would collapse and be led back to capitalism by a wing of the Soviet bureaucracy, proved to be utterly precient and 100% on target. Of how many authors can such a claim be reasonably made?

Though no longer calling myself, nor thinking of myself as a Trotskyist, I still feel that the Old Man's works provide much food for thought and many useful reference points, even after all these years.

Take a look at the book, whose full text is posted:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm

Walter writes:

<blockquote>"That kind of analysis led China to invade Vietnam, but the Vietnamese kicked their butts."</blockquote>

On the contrary: China (in 1979) had discarded both Mao's analysis of capitalist restoration <em>and</em> his strategic approach to Vietnam.

The people who carried off that invasion of Vietnam were precisely those labeled "capitalist roaders" in the Maoist analysis.

I've been looking for this book for ages! Большой, большой, большой cпасибо!

I have part of this work, it's labeled "Part II: The Question is Joined". Its only about 90 pages if anyone wants me to scan it and someone else can convert it to PDF format...

Sorry,if I am repeating myself over and over again but the issue of Socialism v.Social Imperialism requires not only a thorough study but a very strong defence of the contribution of Com. Stalin in defending Leninism.

Khruschev must be refuted by thoroughly putting forward the struggle within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that won power for the revisionist clique. Com Mao defended Stalin as a great Marxist Leninist who committed gross errors.Mao asserted that Stalin erred in handling the contradictions within a Socialist Society improperly and for vilating democratic centralism.

However we can never forget his great contribution in building a Socialist Society and winning the World War against all odds. Stalin was surrounded by enemy forces all over and unlike China later had no support from anyone.

The R.C.P. whatever its positive contribution erred by blaming Stalin on incorrect questions, like his leadership in the War against fascism. Kasama went one step above by reducing many positive policies of Com.Stalin as un -Leninist and virtually evaluate Maoism as counter to Stalinism. In fact today the forces like R.I.M are infected by this very trend. Remember it was because of the Socialist U.S.S.R.that the Chinese Revolution triumphed and a Socialist State built.

Kasama makes serious errors by it's erroneous understanding of the Chinese foreign policy in the Socialist era of 1956-1976 ,where it considers various aspects of the C.C.P.'s line as erroneous, or capitulationist.Remember Mao built relations with U.S.A.in 1971 for sheer tactical reasons, and only recognized the American state,supporting all liberation Struggles.

The 3 worlds theory was never propounded by Com Mao and was creation of Deng Xiaoping. I recommend readers to read the writings of Com.Harbhajan Sohi of India in the early 1980's, ,where he refutes the theory of 3 worlds ,defends the Maoist foreign policy and condemns the Teng-Hua clique. These writings are a major defence of proletarian Internationalism.

Communist Revolutionaries have to come out in defence of the Leninist concept of the proletarian party as the vanguard and not vacillate.In that light all the negative trends like multi-party system etc have to be fought against tooth and nail. Com.Lenin,Stalin and Mao made immortal contributions towards developing the headquarters of the proletarian party.Only by positively defending them can Social Imperialism be thouroughly refuted.Let us remember what havoc the Kruschevite foreign policy did to the struggles in Vietnam,Palestine,South Africa and the saving of China as a Socialist base.

The current Kasama evaluation virtually treat Stalin as a semi- revisionist and do not defend his immortal contributions. I suggest readers to read George Thompson's writings and in recent months those of Joseph Ball, who superbly refutes the slandering of Com.Stalin. I appreciate the work of Kasama or Single Spark but feels it has to correct such errors to put the proletarian revolutionary movement on it's feet.

worth reading: <a href="/http://bigflameuk.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/episodes-in-big-flame-history-no-25-state-collectivism/" rel="nofollow">Century of the Unexpected: A New Analysis of Soviet Type Societies</a> by John Fantham/Moshe Machover (1979)

@Harsh Thakor:

Excessive attachment to the reputation of dead politicians is not helpful in the scientific analysis of the transformation of production relations.

To quote Mao:

<blockquote>"Yesterday a comrade said that one couldn't go wrong if one followed a certain individual. By "a certain individual," he meant me. This statement needs modification. One should follow and yet not follow. An individual is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Follow him when he is right and do not follow him when he is wrong. One must not follow without discrimination."</blockquote>

I second the suggestion of "Century of the Unexpected" by Moshe Machover. He also has good pieces about Palestine and thoughts concerning socialist democracy.

"Excessive attachment to the reputation of dead politicians is not helpful in the scientific analysis of the transformation of production relations.

To quote Mao:"

Not to be a douche, but look at this irony.

@Jack
No worries, the irony was fully intended.

The first essay that argues the USSR is imperialist is the most ridiculous crap imaginable. Not only is it based completely on figures most found bogus even in the 80s, the whole thesis is based on the idea that trade is a sort of zero-sum game, where if the USSR somehow made a profit, it must have ‘exploited’ the partnet in question. Nothing could be more stupid and anti-Marxist.

The simple fact of the matter is the ‘data’ is mostly cooked Western bullshit about estimates of how allegedly shitty Soviet goods (mostly weapons) were, and how the third-world was getting hoodwinked for buying the much cheaper AK-47s instead of the much more expensive American arms. When the author actually bothers to talk about loans given by the USSR, he is forced to admit the official rate is enormously lower (2-2.5% instead of the West’s 8%), but then dismisses this by citing some book which makes notes of some complaints about various repayment terms. It’s a total crock of shit!

The reality is that Soviet intervention in the world was the most progressive thing happening at the time. Chinese intervention, even while Mao was alive, is mostly a disgrace. The Soviet-social imperialism thesis is non-sense.

I got the quote from here (though I think the English translation has been published a few other places)
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_10.htm
Its not in the official "Selected Works" but I was under the impression that most of the unofficial stuff circulated in Red Guard publications etc was largely valid.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NmYvD2KmABcJ:www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_10.htm+An+individual+is+sometimes+right+and+sometimes+wrong+site:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_10.htm&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a

Some more old works refuting the Restoration-thesis:

Socialism in the Soviet Union, by Jonathan Arthur, 1977

Is the Red Flag Flying?: The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today, Albert Szymanski, 1979

The Myth of Capitalism Reborn: A Marxist Critique of Theories of Capitalist Restoration in the USSR, Michael Goldfield and Melvin Rothenberg, 1980

The Socialist Road: Character of Revolution in the US and Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union and China, Jerry Tung, 1981

There's an interesting piece on the socialist roots and how it spread to Eastern Europe and China in a film about Joseph Stalin's daughter, "Svetlana About Svetlana" - saw it on AMAZON. Alliluyeva talks about socialism and China. One of the facts that's not proven or disclosed any information is that the Socialist Revolution in Russia was sponsored by the Germans and later turned out to be a threat to them.

&gt; One of the facts that’s not proven or disclosed any information is that the Socialist Revolution in Russia was sponsored by the Germans and later turned out to be a threat to them.

That sounds more like a reference to Lenin's trip in the sealed train back to Russia, courtesy of the German General Staff. It's not really accurate to speak of the Bolshevik Revolution having been "sponsored" by anyone, since there wasn't really anything to sponsor. Russians were tired of the war and any moderately effective who came out against the war could be guaranteed to overthrow the government. But Lenin's return trip to Russia was certainly important in letting him organize the revolution, and that was given to him by the Kaiser. Of course, Lenin had always intended to begin stirring revolution in Germany as soon as he gained power in Russia so it's not surprising that this would later be considered a threat.

Any chance of getting .pdf of these uploaded for consideration as part of the debate?



<blockquote>Maoismo said
December 27, 2010 at 7:40 pm

Some more old works refuting the Restoration-thesis:

Socialism in the Soviet Union, by Jonathan Arthur, 1977

Is the Red Flag Flying?: The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today, Albert Szymanski, 1979

The Myth of Capitalism Reborn: A Marxist Critique of Theories of Capitalist Restoration in the USSR, Michael Goldfield and Melvin Rothenberg, 1980

The Socialist Road: Character of Revolution in the US and Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union and China, Jerry Tung, 1981</blockquote>

Hey guys, did Volume 2 come out yet or not?