Chart a third school of Soviet communism besides Stalinism and Trotskyism

HelloThere

HelloThere

Wanted to say Bukharinism. But anyway, if the "Workers' Opposition" had won the power struggle against Lenin the Soviet Union could have become a syndicalist-socialist democracy.
 

Sam R.

Non trot LO (POUM), ultraleftism (Pankhurst), KAPD and Pannekoek, Bordiga, IWW/OBU remnants.

It’s almost as if communism was a multitendential international movement locally moulded by local circumstance prior to 1917
 
Neoteros

Neoteros

HelloThere said:
Wanted to say Bukharinism. But anyway, if the "Workers' Opposition" had won the power struggle against Lenin the Soviet Union could have become a syndicalist-socialist democracy.
Click to expand...

Lenin is the worst possible thing that could've ever happened to socialism, Marx being a close second.
 

David T

The Leningrad (Zinoviev) Opposition before it aligned itself with the Trotskyists? (It had no chance of coming to power by "legal" means, given how Stalin had packed the Party Congress, but apparently at first Dzerzhinsky sympathized with it and Frunze was reported to have such sympathies as well, and if the former had not abandoned Zinoviev and Kamenev and if Frunze had been in better health, the support of the GPU and the Red Army might prove decisive...) https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dzerzhynski-ousts-stalin-1925.436552/#post-16485633
 
Gukpard

Gukpard

Strategos' Risk said:
Bukharinism, unfortunately, is not an option.

Could there have been any school of Marxist thought rooted in the immediate post-Lenin figures? Or do we have to wait until Khrushchev's time at least to get more types of communism?
Click to expand...

Maybe if the brazilian communist intentona succeds in 1936 you could see a new brand of communism to rise here since Prestes broke with Stalininsm as soon Stalin body was cold. It could be a more religious kind of communism as Brazil had a strong christian culture at the time. If this happens it would actually improve the image of communism on the world, as they could argue "Do you see? The USSR is a bad case of communism, the brazilian one is better!"
 

Carl Schwamberger

Maos divergences reached back to the 1920s. His theories and practice of the Peasants Revolution was a fundamental departure that led to all sorts of other differences as time passed.
 

Johnrankins

Gukpard said:
Maybe if the brazilian communist intentona succeds in 1936 you could see a new brand of communism to rise here since Prestes broke with Stalininsm as soon Stalin body was cold. It could be a more religious kind of communism as Brazil had a strong christian culture at the time. If this happens it would actually improve the image of communism on the world, as they could argue "Do you see? The USSR is a bad case of communism, the brazilian one is better!"
Click to expand...

That is assuming that it is. It begs the question is Communism workable at all? It seems to run against human nature as why should someone strive at something if they aren't rewarded for it? An even bigger problem is the "pricing problem" . The pricing problem is simply this , you can't come even close to an efficient economy without setting accurate prices and a modern economy is far too huge to set them all correctly.

A modern country like the US or Japan has literally millions of products and services that need pricing. Free economies are efficient at that as you only have to worry about your direct input prices. For example if something is made out of steel you don't have to calculate how the price of coal will effect the price of steel, that is the steel companies worry. All you have to worry about is the price of steel itself. All prices thus adjust more or less automatically as everyone adjusts their prices to reflect their input costs and sales. A Communist government has to worry about the input costs of everything because it owns everything. Which makes pricing almost impossible. The USSR often used US market prices to set its prices which is clumsy but it gets it somewhat close quickly.
 
HelloThere

HelloThere

Johnrankins said:
That is assuming that it is. It begs the question is Communism workable at all? It seems to run against human nature as why should someone strive at something if they aren't rewarded for it?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't work be rewarded unter socialism? Under socialism the workers get what they created. In capitalism the capitalists get what the workers made.

Edit: I heavily think this borders current politics. If you don't think Communism can work maybe this is the wrong discussion.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Strategos' Risk said:
Bukharinism, unfortunately, is not an option.

Could there have been any school of Marxist thought rooted in the immediate post-Lenin figures? Or do we have to wait until Khrushchev's time at least to get more types of communism?
Click to expand...
In the early days people talked about three factions in the party. There was Trotsky's left wing faction (which probably was the least influential of them, Trotsky did not have many allies), The Centrist faction consisting of Stalin, Kamenev and Zinioviev and the Right Wing faction led by Bukharin and Rykov. So there already were three ideas on how Communism should develop.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
HelloThere said:
Under socialism the workers get what they created
Click to expand...
Socialist Automobile Assemblers aren't paid in Cars
Socialist Farmers aren't paid in Grain.

If they were, it would be one huge regression to Bartering.

Which happened as some Communist Countries broke down, Factory#524 had made too many 15mm Nuts, and then needed to trade for what they actually needed.


Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Yes? Well, socialism is exactly the reverse.

--Len Deighton
 
TripleCitizen

TripleCitizen

HelloThere said:
Why shouldn't work be rewarded unter socialism? Under socialism the workers get what they created. In capitalism the capitalists get what the workers made.
Click to expand...
Under socialism the workers get what the other workers/the state decide they should get. Under capitalism the capitalists reward the workers for what they make and ideally compete with other capitalists for the workers with pay and benefits. It really isn’t all that different other then the lack of options in one system compared to another.
 

Johnrankins

There is also the "Free Rider" problem when it is very difficult to fire somebody. Worker A works hard while Worker B slacks off because he isn't making more money if he works hard and it is very difficult to fire him. After this Worker A is likely to feel like a chump and starts slacking off too. Socialism tends to have this problem because most of the types of Socialism guarantee employment and equalize pay.
 

NiGHTS

Twin City Lines said:
That's about like saying: "Saint Peter is the worst possible thing that could've ever happened to Christianity, Jesus Christ being a close second."
Click to expand...
I mean, there were lots of socialists before Marx. He didn't invent it. You can have Socialism without Marx, but you can't have Christianity without Christ. I think a better comparison would be Saint Peter to Lenin, and Marx to Paul.
 
Salvador79

Salvador79

NiGHTS said:
I mean, there were lots of socialists before Marx. He didn't invent it. You can have Socialism without Marx, but you can't have Christianity without Christ. I think a better comparison would be Saint Peter to Lenin, and Marx to Paul.
Click to expand...
Comparing Marx to Paul makes sense, but I think a better analogy for Lenin would be to Constantine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top