I appreciate the recommendation, comrade, though unfortunately I can't find it in English (yet). You can see my frustration, given that most books written by communists are not available in English, be they Chinese, Russian, etc.

As for the 1930s famine, indeed. The liberal narrative is that "Stalin targeted Ukrainian nationalists in a terror-famine," but of course this runs counter to the fact that the USSR needed grain both to industrialize and feed its people.

Interesting commentary on the purges, I had not seen that theory before.

Sholokhov, in essence, blackmailed Stalin. He told Stalin that if he did not take action, he would describe everything that was taking place in the collective farms at the local level in his future book.

Thanks for sharing!

Makes sense!

All of this suggests that Stalin was open to criticism—that it was possible to argue with him.

According to the memoirs of a certain Marshal—I’ve forgotten exactly which one—during the war, when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow, Stalin and Georgy Zhukov got into such a heated argument during a meeting in the Kremlin that they ended up screaming at one another. This occurred precisely when a fateful decision had to be made.

In light of this, how can Stalin possibly be considered a dictator?

Furr actually uses Zhukov in his "Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform" (part one | part two) with something very like what Sedan is saying about the constitution (although I only started on part one, barely got a few pages in, curse of wanting to check the sources)

Oh, neat! Thanks for checking! Sedan has a lot of intriguing information that I'm upset isn't available in English (even if the Moon landing claims make me skeptical of other claims).

Yep, Stalin was far more collaborative than the west paints him as.

I appreciate the recommendation, comrade, though unfortunately I can’t find it in English (yet).

Specifically for our conversation, I would like to briefly introduce you—in outline form—to the contents of Yuri Nikolayevich Zhukov’s book, The Flip Side of NEP (Обратная Сторона НЭПа):

Crisis Phenomena: According to the researcher, the partial return to market mechanisms did not lead to the long-awaited economic boom; instead, it triggered a protracted economic crisis.

Political Struggle: The transition to the NEP (New Economic Policy) exacerbated latent conflicts within the USSR’s party elite (during the 1923–1925 period), resulting in a fierce struggle for power.

Social Stratification: Economic liberalization led to the rapid enrichment of a narrow social stratum—the "NEPmen"—a situation that stood in stark contrast to the dire plight of the majority of workers and peasants.

As you can see, there exists a radically different perspective on the events of that era. Zhukov is an archivist; his work relies primarily on archival documents. In his books, every claim is substantiated by the figures and statistical indicators of those years, which form the core of the economic analysis within his work. The political struggle is evidenced in the minutes of party meetings, while social stratification is clearly visible in criminal police reports. One such report, for instance, describes the formation of a student gang in Moscow that specialized in robbing NEPmen. A great number of such motley gangs sprang up, triggering a rampant surge in crime.

Indeed, we know that between 1919 and 1921, "War Communism" was implemented at the behest of Trotsky. Both Trotsky and Lenin indulged in fantasies of a global revolution; they fully expected that a wave of socialist revolutions would erupt across Europe at any moment, and that the Red Army would immediately rush to their aid. Consequently, the army was effectively transformed into a "labor army."

It was a truly terrible time for the workers and peasants. Soldiers were not demobilized from the army; instead, they remained under barracks conditions, working in factories and receiving no wages—only food and clothing. Yet, even these basic necessities the state was unable to provide in sufficient quantities. As the situation deteriorated, unrest and strikes began to erupt in the factories; workers refused to work. Measures had to be taken.
To breathe some fresh life into the economy, War Communism was abolished and the NEP was introduced; however, as it turned out, this dawn was short-lived. As for the notion that the NEP was actually effective in the USSR—that was a myth later inflated by Gorbachev in order to push through his own hare-brained ideas.

I don't think there is any reason to doubt his data. If he were distorting the facts, it would have come to light long ago—he has been publishing on this subject since 1995.

He is currently the most authoritative and widely recognized expert in Russia regarding the Stalin era—and beyond—at least within certain progressive circles. In these circles, everything has long since been double-checked.

even if the Moon landing

This is far from being just my opinion here.

You’ve probably read the interview with Stalin conducted by the "Tucker Carlson of his day," haven't you? ... )))

In 1934, Herbert Wells traveled to Moscow and interviewed Stalin. This was a time when Stalin was personally orchestrating the genocide of the Ukrainian people; he barely had time to wash his hands—they were perpetually stained with blood.... ))))

And what did Wells have to say after that interview?

"I confess that I approached Stalin with a certain degree of suspicion and prejudice. In my mind, I had constructed an image of a very cautious, inwardly focused fanatic—a despot, envious and suspicious, a monopolizer of power. I expected to encounter a ruthless, cruel doctrinaire and a self-satisfied Georgian highlander whose spirit had never fully escaped the confines of his native mountain valleys... All the vague rumors, all the suspicions—for me, they ceased to exist forever after I had spoken with him for just a few minutes. I have never met a man more sincere, decent, and honest; there is nothing dark or sinister about him, and it is precisely these qualities that explain his immense power in Russia. Before our meeting, I assumed he held his position most likely because he was feared; now, however, I understand that he is not feared—he is trusted."

H.G. Wells

1934

Can you imagine just how cunning and insidious one would have to be to so thoroughly pull the wool over Wells's eyes?...... )))))

And this is all the more remarkable given that Wells actually disagreed with Stalin on many points.

Wells also met with Lenin, though he wasn't particularly fond of him.

Perhaps that was because, at that time, the results of the socialist revolution were not yet visible—only the revolution itself... the grain requisitioning and "War Communism." Whereas by the time he met with Stalin, there were already concrete results...

I'm aware others believe this too, but it's not really taken seriously around the world.

I’m not talking about the whole world; I’m talking about Russia. Here, people simply don’t trust Americans—especially in such a murky affair.

But I won't be able to prove anything to you... and you won't be able to prove anything to me, either.

I sent my last post to the wrong place.

Yep, I've read the interview!

The NEP did achieve its desired effect of socializing the means of production and centralizing them. This is why it was employed. Of course, it also came with new stratification and new problems, but so too did collectivization. Further, we can see in China that the NEP-style socialist market economy is remarkably effective at developing the productive forces.

Is the NEP the only way? No. Is planned economy from the outset the only way? Also no.

The NEP did achieve its desired effect of socializing the means of production and centralizing them.

I already told you that I completely agree with this. If it hadn't been for the NEP, civil war would have broken out again. The factories were then partially returned to the hands of their former owners. And what's most interesting is that many of these owners, after the NEP was abolished, remained at the factories, not as owners, but as directors. Many small entrepreneurs emerged, and the workers were pacified.

As for the peasants, problems began immediately. Peasants in the USSR at that time were divided into three categories: "poor peasants," "middle peasants," and "kulaks." The kulaks immediately seized the initiative, began exploiting the poor, and engaged in usury. They felt like local princes in the villages. The poor were their farmhands, the middle peasants their debtors. "Kulak" in English means fist. This person holds the entire peasant community in his fist. This term emerged after Stolypin's reforms.

Kulaks and middle peasants refused to sell grain to the state because the market price was much higher than the state price. Italian barges were docked in Crimea, transporting grain to Europe.

I observed something similar during perestroika, when the market price was several times higher than the state price. When store shelves were empty, but the market was a paradise of abundance.

You probably remember those students who robbed the NEPmen in the 1920s. You're talking to one of them now, but I'm from the 1990s, when, as a university student, I was underfed, starving, and didn't even always have enough money for public transportation. I didn't have decent clothes. For the first time in my life, I understood what hunger was.

Every morning, looking out the tram window at the luxurious boutique windows and expensive cars, I was filled with hatred for these people! Fierce hatred!!! I turned to crime. That fucking NEP ruined my entire life, because it all ended with me going to prison. And you can't imagine how many millions of lives like mine have been ruined! Just like that, in an instant!

Just like in the 1920s and 1990s in the USSR, both NEPs smoothly transitioned from the intelligentsia into criminals, and from traders and speculators into the ruling class, so now we're smoothly transitioning from dialectics to Freudian psychoanalysis. For me, the NEP isn't the New Economic Policy; for me, the NEP is childhood trauma.

Yes, this is a subjective opinion, of course. It's my opinion and that of many millions of others like me. Those who rebelled against injustice. Rebelled in a strange way, but rebelled! Probably because I was hungry.

We are now talking about the dark side of the NEP, no matter what the NEP is, red, white or green, the side effect of the NEP is the same everywhere.

The NEP in the 1920s is not the same as the 90s Shock Doctrine. The former was a progressive move towards socialism, under a dictatorship of the proletariat. The latter was a regressive move to abolish socialism, under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. These are from entirely different contexts, and equating them is metaphysical, not dialectical, as the results are entirely different due to existing in entirely different contexts.

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about!

Yes, I did speak about different contexts as well. But the result is the same—regardless of which "NEP" it happens to be, and no matter what it is called: Perestroika, Glasnost, or "Pepsi and McDonald's." The Shock Doctrine is what it is called now; back then, Gorbachev dubbed it the New NEP.

A chasm is forming between the classes—one that widens with every passing year. What we are currently witnessing in China is the consequence of the NEP.

You claim that the process in China is now reversing. Okay—I won't dispute that; I will simply observe.

I will reply to your other posts later.

It must be said that Gorbachev comparing the destruction of socialism and adoption of mass liberalization is not the same as the NEP. With China, we can see that while problems do arise, so too has massive expansion in industrial capacity, quality of life, and an undermining of imperialism. All either of us can do is watch, and try to change our own countries to socialism.

It must be said that Gorbachev comparing the destruction of socialism and adoption of mass liberalization is not the same as the NEP.

The legalization of cooperatives during the era of M.S. Gorbachev represented an attempt to salvage the USSR's deficit-ridden economy. The leadership drew upon the Leninist experience of the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s, permitting market elements while preserving the fundamental principles of socialism.

Gorbachev did not, initially, intend for the collapse of the USSR or a transition to capitalism! The entire initiative was conceived along the lines of the NEP!

https://csruso.ru/publicistika/njep-i-gorbachevshhina/

to change our own countries to socialism.

That is a utopia, Comrade—in the near future.

Regardless of Gorbachev's intentions, a transition from an advanced planned economy to more marketization, without retaining strong state control and unified political power, created weaknesses that do not exist in China's move from a newly industrializing, largely agrarian economy to a socialist market economy with strong political unity. These are not the same. There are similarities, of course, but the unique differences are the determining factor in why Gorbachev's reforms failed while the socialist market economy is succeeding.

As for the adoption of socialism in the near future being Utopian, I disagree. Optimistic, certainly. Impossible? No. Perhaps this is simply because I have never lived in an area that has lost its socialist past, but rather than pessimism, I have only revolutionary optimism for the future. If we do not achieve socialism in the coming crisis in imperialism, then we will see immense barbarism.

These are not the same. There are similarities, of course, but the unique differences are the determining factor in why Gorbachev’s reforms failed while the socialist market economy is succeeding.

The reality here is far more prosaic: Gorbachev had no clear plan or strategy—indeed, there was absolutely no preparation whatsoever. Everything was literally being improvised on the fly. At the outset of Perestroika, no one was even contemplating capitalism or the dissolution of the USSR.

Gorbachev’s reforms were doomed from the start. And when the USSR eventually collapsed, its industrial sector crumbled right along with it, simply because all the factories within the Soviet Union were inextricably interconnected. Imagine an assembly line, but on the scale of ten separate enterprises: the factories scattered across the various republics were not self-sufficient; rather, they were entirely interdependent.

Comrade, I never claimed that the situation here was identical to what occurred in China—those are two distinct scenarios. I was merely discussing the general consequences that tend to arise from such processes. It is all relative.

Deng built; Gorbachev dismantled.

The United States sought to dismantle the USSR, not to foster its development—as was the case with China. This remained true whether the figure in charge was Khrushchev or Gorbachev.

As for the adoption of socialism in the near future being Utopian, I disagree.

From now on, I’m going to call you an idealist, Comrade... )))

For something like that to happen, society needs to be primed. Or do you think everyone is as understanding and knowledgeable as you are? In the West, no one has the faintest idea what socialism actually is. To them, socialism is something terrifying. If Trump calls Biden a communist, you can imagine what the average person in the U.S. thinks of communists.

For this to come to pass, socialist ideas need to be in vogue. Throughout almost the entire 19th century, the progressive intelligentsia debated the possibility of a socialist revolution; yet it was only a hundred years later—after a great deal of trial and error—that something of that nature actually took hold in the world in earnest.

As I see it, we are currently only in the nascent stages—a time when the socialist movement is just beginning to emerge globally—standing in opposition to a capitalism that has already passed through the stage of militarism, which Lenin identified as the final phase of advanced capitalism. Western capitalism is now smoothly transitioning into a phase of degradation—something, in fact, that we are witnessing with our own eyes right now. An era of chaos has dawned. Consequently, alternatives will be explored in the future, and that is when socialism may well prove to be exactly what is needed.

Perhaps this is simply because I have never lived in an area that has lost its socialist past, but rather than pessimism, I have only revolutionary optimism for the future.

Drawing upon my own personal experience, it seems to me that it takes at least one generation of young people to reformat the collective consciousness of a nation.

First and foremost, an educational reform must be implemented.

Now, tell me, Comrade: how exactly could such an educational reform be brought about in the United States in the near future?

Only through revolution. Do you want a revolution? I wouldn't advise it! And in that scenario, it is highly unlikely that the United States would retain its integrity; instead, it would likely fragment into smaller pieces.

The legislative framework in the U.S. is structured in such a way that, if approached gradually, change is possible without a revolution. However, that "gradual approach" could easily drag on for a hundred years... Above all, a leader must emerge—someone who can rally the people behind them, someone in whom the public places its trust.

I look through my microscope, yet I cannot find even the faintest semblance of such a leader in the United States—not even at the cellular level.

If we do not achieve socialism in the coming crisis in imperialism, then we will see immense barbarism.

I have already realized, Comrade, that you are a fervent activist of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, I am not—I merely observe... )))

I have lost hope, Comrade, that truth can ever triumph over capital, for there is no justice in this world. At least I won't see this...

I do want a revolution. I agree with you that it is necessary, and I believe that the United States, as a settler-colony, will also need to be decolonized and destroyed. The national project in the United States is from the indigenous nations and the colonized peoples living inside it, not the settler populations. This is incredibly difficult, I am fully aware, but it is also not impossible. Imperialism is rapidly crumbling, and as Lenin said, there are decades where nothing happens and weeks where decades happen. Change is slow, then rapid as it leaps.

It's true that the US Empire has no solid organization. However, it is also true that there is a clear rise in militant activism and a need for such organization. We are not in the same era. It will not happen tomorrow, but it will happen, as the need is there.

I do want a revolution.

You are not the first person I’ve encountered on Western forums who holds such an opinion. On Reddit, you get banned for expressing views like that. And in Russia—a country that supposedly has no indigenous peoples—Platoshkin was nearly thrown in prison for holding just such an opinion.

The national project in the United States is from the indigenous nations and the colonized peoples living inside it

I understand you—you believe that the wave of protests will originate from indigenous peoples. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, that could be a real force.

We are not in the same era. It will not happen tomorrow, but it will happen, as the need is there.

This will happen when that force is able to stand up to the system. This can occur only amidst the ruins of capitalism. For now, however, it is nowhere on the horizon.

For the time being, capitalism maintains a firm grip on its positions.

Building a revolutionary party and momentum takes time. Capitalism does not however have an iron grip, at least not in the US. It is getting desperate, and is striking out as the spoils of imperialism and neocolonialism dry up.

Everything depends on the path China chooses when it becomes a hegemon! A great deal hinges on that.

China does not desire to be a hegemon, this is why they are pushing for multipolarity.

Sorry, Comrade, but you’re probably mistaken here...

You only have to look at how China conducts its foreign policy.

Take the relationship between China and Russia: Xi acts like a predator. Do you see what I mean? China dictates harsh terms. There is no question of an equal partnership—and there never will be. Xi acts from a position of strength. I also dislike the fact that China has moved into Siberia and is logging the protected Ussuri forests. I could show you a petition from the Ussuri people asking the state to put a stop to this outrage. I don't like that China is building a chemical plant on the shores of Lake Baikal that will pollute the lake. Let them build that crap back home. China has completely pushed out Russian cars; some auto giants went bankrupt and are now forced to switch to manufacturing Chinese vehicles, which undermines Russia's industrial potential and drags it into deeper dependence on China. Recently, the presence of Chinese companies in Russia has increased tenfold. It’s expansionism, Comrade! Domestic manufacturers are being squeezed out.

Thank God that Chinese factories in Russia have to follow the Russian Labor Code—people are forbidden from working more than eight hours a day. We certainly don't need any "Chinese miracles" here!!

Do you seriously think that this kind of Chinese foreign policy allows its partners to feel like equals?

I was only talking about Russia; I didn't even mention Africa...

When you consider—as you well know—that the Chinese are ardent nationalists, a certain picture of the future begins to emerge.

But in any case: a Chinese hegemon is far better than a US hegemon. By the way, I came across an interesting article:

https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/north-korea-economy-success-e80f7062

But honestly, whenever I see something positive written in the West about North Korea or China, it immediately puts me off. It makes me feel like there’s a catch.

China isn't acting as a predator. They prop up cooperative agreements and don't take away the autonomy from countries they deal with. Your only points here seem to be vibes, as well as the fact that China respects Russian labor laws. Neither of these point to ambitions of hegemony.

As for the DPRK, the WSJ still has their classic spin on it, but frankly the progress of the DPRK in recent years is undeniable, and the press profits from getting engagement. Reporting on the DPRK making progress is making some waves.

China isn’t acting as a predator.

I’m setting everything else aside and focusing solely on the Russia-China relationship.

Let me give you one example: when sanctions were imposed on Russia’s oil and gas sector, China agreed to buy more energy resources from Russia but demanded the price be lowered to match what Russian domestic consumers pay. Even Belarus pays more for Russian energy.

That is precisely the sticking point right now regarding the construction of the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline.

Putin is resisting for the time being, but I think that sooner or later, Xi will force him to cave—or at least that’s how it looks to me.

In essence, it’s blackmail—coming at a time when Putin has nowhere else to sell his energy resources but China.

Right, they aren't predators; they’re angels with wings and halos... )))

It’s the same story with the logging China is doing in the protected Ussuri region. Under the Russian Constitution, all natural resources belong to the people of Russia, not China! China fells the timber in Russia and immediately ships it back to China. Doesn't that remind you a lot of the resource deal between Trump and Zelenskyy?

Please read this carefully, Comrade. This is an Irkutsk publication, not the BBC. I highly recommend you go there—it’ll be a real eye-opener!

https://irkutskmedia.ru/news/658607/

Just don't give me that double-standard routine again, Comrade.

They prop up cooperative agreements and don’t take away the autonomy from countries they deal with.

And who told you that a hegemon necessarily seizes foreign lands?

"A hegemon (from the Ancient Greek hēgemōn — leader, commander) is a state, political party, social class, or individual that possesses unquestionable superiority, exercises power, and dictates the rules."

In case you didn't know, after the 1917 revolution, the entire proletariat in the USSR was referred to as the hegemon. There are different kinds of hegemons, Comrade!

As for the DPRK, the WSJ still has their classic spin on it, but frankly the progress of the DPRK in recent years is undeniable, and the press profits from getting engagement. Reporting on the DPRK making progress is making some waves.

Let's hope for the best! I have no issues with North Korea; they are true friends!

China isn't an angel, but it isn't a predator either. Of course China will leverage positions to their advantage, all countries act in their self-interest, it just so happens that as China is a socialist country it is self-intetested in positive collaboration and anti-imperialism. This does not mean they will deliberately accept deals they can benefit more from.

China is a socialist country

I thought we had agreed that China has not yet built socialism.

Yes, I agree with you that Lenin allocated a great deal of time to the transitional period, but Stalin proved otherwise.

China isn’t an angel, but it isn’t a predator either.

Yes, not entirely a predator—I agree. It’s very simple: China will cease to be a predator once it completely eradicates the capitalists within its own country.

We seem to have agreed on that point too, Comrade. The question is whether China will manage to do so before it becomes a hegemon—or rather, to put it in terms that are clearer to you, before it becomes the one dictating the rules of the game. That is what worries me.

This does not mean they will deliberately accept deals they can benefit more from.

This does not mean they will deliberately accept deals they can benefit more from.

We disagree on what constitutes socialism. China has a dictatorship of the proletariat and public ownership is the principal aspect of their economy, therefore it is socialist. It's more "classically Marxist," as it focuses on collectivization of the large and developed industry and does not impose collectivization on small industry that can still be socialized via marketization. Competition and markets stitch together production, a dictatorship of the proletariat can transition this towards large and collectivized industry.

In that sense, it is already not a predator. It is well on the socialist road, and while it has capitalists, they do not form a coherent political body.

We disagree on what constitutes socialism.

Yes, I base my argument on the Soviet model, while you base yours on the Chinese one.

The prevailing view is that the Chinese model is superior because it survived.

This leads us to a simple conclusion: there were things Mao managed to do that Stalin did not—actions that ultimately prevented the system's collapse.

Mao built a rigid vertical power structure that has withstood Western attacks to this day; China held firm thanks to the foundations Mao laid.

In that sense, it is already not a predator.

Let’s break it down.

The fact is, the USSR did not engage in classic private foreign direct investment (FDI) because it lacked a market economy. Instead, it implemented large-scale state programs of economic and technical assistance. The USSR signed agreements with 37 countries and built around 600 industrial, energy, and infrastructure facilities.

That is what foreign economic relations between the USSR and other countries looked like—taking Africa as an example.

African nations did not pay in cash; instead, they used a barter system, supplying the USSR with goods produced in Africa that were unavailable in the Soviet Union. Similar economic arrangements existed with Cuba and the Warsaw Pact countries. Settlements were calculated using a notional unit of account.

Furthermore, the USSR exported socialism to each of these countries and subsequently provided unwavering support for that political system.

As for China: in my view, as long as capitalism remains a factor in foreign economic relations, that "aquarium" will be teeming with sharks! And it goes without saying—it is a rhetorical question—that those sharks couldn't care less about socialism.

It is well on the socialist road, and while it has capitalists, they do not form a coherent political body.

I know you're an optimist, Comrade—I'm not arguing with you!

You're incorrect here, I do not base my understanding of socialism on China. I base my understanding of socialism on Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and view both the USSR and PRC as examples of socialism successfully established. Their differences are due to their different circumstances. The simple conclusion you lay out for me does not exist.