national oppression in the ussr

[kimberlysark]

Your Moscow Correspondant wrote this:

"Only socialist revolution and the brotherhood of nations that existed in the former Soviet Union can offer a way out of this nightmare of terrorism and war."

thats not true.

the russian bureaucracy under stalin oppresed smaller nations, ie ukraine. trotskyists actually supported critically any struggle by the ukraine bureucracy for independence on a socialist basis.

i think this paragraph is pro-stalinism. it needs correcting.


KS

[mrbojangles]

actually, i think i agree with this. what was the so-called brother hood of nations? Was it Stalin exterminating whole nations in the 1930s ie the inguish, chechens which is a huge cause of the current unrest we are seeing today? Or was it the USSR encroaching on the independance of (at various times) Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic etc?

[des-esseintes]

#1: Under Lenin and Trotsky there was indeed brotherhood of nations

#2: Under Post-Stalin Stalinism everywhere there was indeed brotherhood of nations as compared to what happened when the counter revolution came

[Paul]

here is a contribution to the debate


'This issue is obviously Woods and Grant’s theoretical Achilles heel. Woods spoke at a CWI International summer school in Belgium in 1988 where he stated that: "In 1917, the national question had been resolved by the Bolsheviks." This is a typical example of Woods’s penchant for hyperbole. The Russian Revolution and the democratic workers’ state which resulted from this achieved wonders in the sphere of the national question. But it did not "resolve" the national question, which would only have been possible over a fairly lengthy period of economic and cultural development, and in conjunction with the triumph of the world revolution. The collapse of Stalinism and, with it, the USSR resulted in an unprecedented explosion of national and ethnic issues, including the creation of numerous other nations who had felt imprisoned within the Stalinist ‘federation’, which was what the USSR was under Stalinism.'

from http://www.socialistworld.net

paul




'

[kimberlysark]

national oppresion wasn't 'instantly' abolished in 1917.

also after stalin the russian bureaucracy still remained the strongest.

i think that you are deluded and sewing illusions in stalinism.



KS

[des-esseintes]

Come on, I never said that national oppression didn't exist in the post-Stalin USSR. I said

'Under Post-Stalin Stalinism everywhere there was indeed brotherhood of nations as compared to what happened when the counter revolution came'

Krushchev "gave" a statue to the Ukrainian SSR that was called 'Mother Russia', a nationally oppressive gesture. They also put Lenin statues on top of mosques etc, and they invaded Eastern Europe many times. However Zhirinovsky didn't get 16% in the elections, a guy who claimed that the Baltic states were "in our way to the sea", and there were no nationalist anti-Russian terror bombings (that I know of). Same thing is seen in Yugoslavia. Tito's and Brezhnev's 'peaceful', 'secure', Stalinist regimes were indeed paradises when compared to the nineties, in both countries, and that's all I said, and I said nothing else.

"Woods spoke at a CWI International summer school in Belgium in 1988 where he stated that: "In 1917, the national question had been resolved by the Bolsheviks." This is a typical example of Woods’s penchant for hyperbole. The Russian Revolution and the democratic workers’ state which resulted from this achieved wonders in the sphere of the national question. But it did not "resolve" the national question, which would only have been possible over a fairly lengthy period of economic and cultural development, and in conjunction with the triumph of the world revolution"

Come on, seriously, how pedantic can you be. I honestly don't think that Alan Woods would disagree with your case, if you took this quote to him.

COME ON, YOU GET THE POINT THAT THE CORRESPONDENT WAS TRYING TO MAKE, HE WANTS AN END TO NATIONAL OPPRESSION.

[mir]

I agree with you, des-esseintes.  In many ways, a stalinist bureaucracy is alot better then what happened after the "fall of communism" in the late 80's and early 90's.  I think now with the mass unemployment in E. Europe and the CIS, alot of people are looking back to those times and it seems to me to be one big untapped resource that Marxists could go there and spread the truth about Marxism.  I mean, almost everywhere in E. Europe you go, especially South-East, ask them what has capitalism brought.  They will tell you unemployment, chaos, warfare, etc.  it's disgusting.  I believe that today, that is one of the best places to spread the teachings of Marx/Engels.

[kimberlysark]

say what you mean then!

i agree that the restoration of capitalism was a disaster.

it doesn't mean you should sew illusions in stalinism solving the national question however.

also socialist revolution isn't advanced communism. national tensions will only be truly resolved after decades or even centuries of communism.

you should seriously be more precise with language because people will get the wrong impression, like i did.

"Only socialist revolution and the brotherhood of nations that existed in the former Soviet Union can offer a way out of this nightmare of terrorism and war."

this is still wrong so maybe you should get a new moscow correspondant or at least sort them out!


all the best,



KS

[mir]

In the book "Marxism and the National Question," there is a part about languages.  It says there should not be an official language anywhere in the world, let the people speak what they wish and if they can't communicate with somebody, then find an interpreter.  Also, people shouldn't be forced to assimilate into another country, if they want to they can if not then they don't have to.

Now, before in the Soviet Union there was a process of russification during stalin and periodically after him, but it wasn't as bad as after the counter-revolution.  In fact, KS, I think you are exaggerating the oppresion.  It's a fact that only AFTER the fall of stalinism, the war in Moldova erupted between Slavs and Romanians, the Tajikistan civil war, the peace between Azeris and Armenians was broken in 1988 (a little before the collapse), oppresion of Russians in the Baltics (before, however, Russians used to oppress the Baltic people but not to the same degree), Chechnya, Dagestan, and dictators in Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan.  All of this the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought, not to mention the widespread unemployment.

[Frederik]

I think it is a very interesting discussion. It is a very important subject, and it is absolutely necessary for a revolutionary marxist tendency to have a correct position on the national question and stalinism.

I know some yugoslav youngsters here in Denmark (from Serbia, but they are always refering to Yugoslavia). They see all the former Yugoslav countries as one, and they are really disgusted about the splitting up of Yugoslavia and the imperialist intervention - they are especially angry with the US imperialism. Of course I cannot say if this is a common attitude among Yugoslav youth, but I think that it is widely spread. If you ask them what capitalism has brougt, they will most definitely answer "war, nationalism, unemployment, poverty and humiliation". It is clear that the split up of Yugoslavia was a criminal act backed by imperialism (and some ultra-left sects!)

On the other hand it is important to say that Titoism is not a solution, as it is a form of proletarian bonapartism, ie. stalinism. But I think that a lot of people who come from a titioist tradition see themselves as opposed to stalinism because of the split between stalinist Russia and Tito's Yugoslavia. I think that these people may be open towards revolutionary marxism-leninism, ie. trotskyism because of the internationalist outlook, the opposition to stalinism and the denounciation of imperialism that these ideas represent.

The counter-revolution in Central and Eastern Europe is not just a theoretical question. It has big consequenses for ordinary workers and youth. I talked with a guy from the former GDR, and his attitude was quite clear: Stalinism was bad and bureaucratic, but capitalism is even worse! He talked about his friends who are taking big studies, but the only job they might get (if they are lycky!) is as tourist guides in holidays.

Recently I went to Poland, and the most striking about Polish youth is that they have absolutely no faith in a future for themselves. Polish youth are very kind, humourous and friendly people, but if you talk to them about the future, they just say that it will be very bad. There has been an explotion in the abuse of drugs among those youngsters. I talked to a guy who said that first and foremost, capitalism has brought unemployment, drug abuse and prostitution. I think this is reaaly sick, and the situation in those countries is a clear answer to those who preaches the "blessings" of the "market economy".

About the stalinist-nationalist policies in the USSR, it is important to say, that the terrible consequenses was predicted by Trotsky already in 1924, when Stalin put forward the infamous "theory" on "socialism in one country".

[mir]

Frederik,
Many of the Yugoslav people I know abroad in the US mostly, don't know the situation at all, they are still angry at this group or that group and they fail to see that Yugoslav unity is essential for progress.  I guess it's better in W. Europe for a variety of reasons, including being able to travel back and forth easily.  These "americanized" Yugoslavs are pathetic, they don't even refer to themselves as "yugoslavs" at all.  Let them die there in a foreign land.  Only those with the will, spirit, and intelligence can bring forth the revolution.  As for the situation in E. Europe, many networks are now not afraid to show average people saying it was better under "communism."  People didn't have much but at least they had more!

[igor_r]

Of course, there were national contradictions. My grandfather, remembers, that people at the street named him dirty kike many times. Russians in national republics behaved as conquerors. My mother who lived the majority of her life in Ukraine, don't speak ukrainian. Its a a principle, she says.

[the_sociallist]

Ig, that's ok. My great grandparents came from the Kiev, Ukraine and didn't speak Ukranian. They spoke Yedish and Russian.

[kimberlysark]

what is the book 'marxism and the national question' like? who is it by?

i know that national oppression/conflict is worse now after return of capitalism, however it doesnt change the fact that i was right to point out that the USSR wasn't perfect - national oppresion still existed. you shouldn't glorify it or ignore the reality. that all i was saying. you should make it clear in your articles.

all the best,



KS

[igor_r]

Originally posted by the_sociallist
Ig, that's ok. My great grandparents came from the Kiev, Ukraine and didn't speak Ukranian. They spoke Yedish and Russian.

OK, Kiev, in that time was russian speaking. My mother is from ukrainian speakng region. Russians behaved in this way everywhere: in Estonia, Georgia etc.