Chart a third school of Soviet communism besides Stalinism and Trotskyism

I think by the time of Lenin's death most of the institutional problems with the Soviet Union that culminated in Stalin had been put into place. You can suggest a lot of reasons for why that might have been the case ranging from the poor choices of the Bolsheviks to the unfavourable conditions of an isolated and backward region. It wasn't set in stone that this was the inevitable result but certainly Stalin and his coterie had a significant administrative and institutional power to prevent any other competitor from emerging successfully. The general trends beyond Trotsky seem to be covered already: a left wing tendency emerging from the likes of the Worker's Opposition and the Democratic Centralists and the like, a centralist grouping around the Leningrad group, a right wing group around the supporters of the NEP. Not many other directions it could reasonably shift towards.
 
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.

In the early days after the Bolshevik Revolution, they experimented with payment in kind and barter instead of having money. That didn't last long....
 
You mispelled saul/paul mate.

My reference to Saint Peter comes from the Catholic doctrine that Peter was the first pope. I'm aware that real history doesn't back that view. However, using Christianity as a metaphor for Communism yields:

Jesus Christ = Karl Marx
Saint Peter = Vladimir Lenin
Martin Luther = Leon Trotsky
Michael Cerularius = Mao Tse-Tung
 
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.

This was less of a problem in Stalin's day because many industries paid by piecework.
 
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.

This thread is about *Soviet* Socialism, which couldn't have existed without Marx.
 
That and shove you in the Gulag or shoot you for wrecking if you don't make quota.

Positive incentives were the norm. Which was easy because the base grade workers pay and commodity availability were n- over starvation to prevent more Ural Siberian actions. This is, in fact, more monstrous than shootings. (Andrle, Fitzpatrick).
 
Positive incentives were the norm. Which was easy because the base grade workers pay and commodity availability were n- over starvation to prevent more Ural Siberian actions. This is, in fact, more monstrous than shootings. (Andrle, Fitzpatrick).

They were the norm but the Stalinist Government was certainly not above shooting people if they thought it was necessary to increase production.
 
Sultan-Galievism? To quote a post of mine from some months back:

***

Actually, what is popularly associated with "Maoism" (though Mao himself always paid at least lip service to the hegemony of the proletariat, and it was in fact the Comintern that initiated the CCP's turn to the countryside) seems to have been anticipated by Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirsaid_Sultan-Galiev a Tatar Communist and for a while a protégé of Stalin's. Richard Pipes summarizes his career as follows:

"The treatment of Asians by pro-Bolshevik Russians led the most prominent Soviet Muslim Communist to revise the orthodox Marxist theory of class struggle. The Tatar Mirza Sultan-Galiev was in his youth a teacher in the reformed schools. In late 1917 he went over to the Communists and made a rapid career as Stalin's protégé in the Commissariat of Nationalities. In articles published toward the end of 1919 in the official organ of his Commissariat, Sultan-Galiev argued that it was a fundamental mistake to rely on the West to bring about a global revolution because the weakest link in the chain of imperialism lay in Asia. This view was tolerable to the Kremlin since it did not contradict Lenin's theory of imperialism. But Sultan-Galiev did not stop there, and broadened his ideas into a full-fledged heresy in which some historians see an anticipation of Maoism. He developed doubts whether even if the revolution in the industrialized countries were to succeed, it would improve the condition of colonial peoples. The Western working class was interested not in abolishing colonialism but in turning it to its own advantage. 'We assert,' he is quoted as saying,

'that the formula that offers the replacement of the worldwide dictatorship of one class of European society (the bourgeoisie) with another (the proletariat), that is, with another European class, will not bring about a major change in the social life of the oppressed element of mankind. At any rate, such a change, even if it were to occur, would be not for the better but for the worse.... In contradistinction to this we advance another thesis: that the material premises for the social transformation of mankind can be created only through the establishment of the dictatorship of the colonies and semi-colonies over the metropolitan areas.'

"To implement his ideas, Sultan-Galiev called for the creation of a 'Colonial International' to counterbalance the Communist International, dominated by Europeans; he also urged the establishment of a Muslim Communist Party. For these ideas, in April 1923 he was expelled from the Party and imprisoned on charges of forming an illegal nationalistic organization. L. Kamenev called him the earliest victim of a Stalinist purge. Released after he had 'repented,' he was rearrested in 1928 and perished either in the 1930s or during World War II..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=pfNEY931UzYC&pg=PA157
https://books.google.com/books?id=pfNEY931UzYC&pg=PA158

Leszek Kolakowski writes in Main Currents of Marxism that "The episode is worth remembering on account of the striking resemblance between Sultan-Galiyev's ideas and subsequent Maoist doctrine, or some ideologies of the 'Muslim socialist' type." https://books.google.com/books?id=qUCxpznbkaoC&pg=PA804

This certainly suggests the Islamic world as a likely site for the emergence of an "anti-European" "Third World"-oriented Communist movement. Maybe even more plausibly than China, since in the Muslim world the resentment of Europe also had a religious dimension, which had its effects even on atheistic communists.
 
Top