Anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography

Sign up for free Log in. Anarchism or Socialism? Bookreader Item Preview. It appears your browser does not have it turned on. Please see your browser settings for this feature.

Anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography: Kindle Edition. ₹

EMBED for wordpress. Want more? Como todos los oportunistas, propagan la influencia burguesa dentro del movimiento obrero. Stalin, reviste dos formas: la forma evolutiva y la forma revolucionaria. Es monista puesto que concibe la naturaleza como un todo indivisible que se manifiesta bajo dos formas: la forma material y la forma ideal. El marxismo rechaza tanto el dualismo como el idealismo.

His postwar takeover of the countries of eastern Europe helped launch the cold war. At his death, Stalin received the funeral of a state hero and was buried next to Lenin in Moscow's Red Square. Inafter Nikita Khrushchev had denounced him and his policies, his body was moved to the cemetery for heroes near the Kremlin Wall. In Marchabout two years after Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva caused a sensation when she abandoned the U.

At the present time the development of productive forces is hindered by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work and augment the ranks of the working people; and this will greatly stimulate the development of the productive forces.

As regards men's "savage" sentiments and opinions, these are not as eternal as some people imagine; there was a time, under primitive communism, when man did not recognise private property; there came a time, the time of individualistic production, when private property dominated the hearts and minds of men; a new time is coming, the time of socialist production—will it be surprising if the hearts and minds of men become imbued with socialist strivings?

Does not being determine the "sentiments" and opinions of men? But what proof is there that the establishment of the socialist system is inevitable? Must the development of modern capitalism inevitably be followed by socialism?

Anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography: Resumen: Este artículo describe el

Or, in other words: How do we know that Marx's proletarian socialism is not merely a sentimental dream, a fantasy? Where is the scientific proof that it is not? History shows that the form of property is directly determined by the form of production and, as a consequence, a change in the form of production is sooner or later inevitably followed by a change in the form of property.

There was a time when property bore a communistic character, when the forests and fields in which primitive men roamed belonged to all and not to individuals. Why did communist property exist at that time? Because production was communistic, labour was performed in common, collectively—all worked together and could not dispense with each other.

A different period set in, the period of petty-bourgeois production, when property assumed an individualistic private character, when everything that man needed with the exception, of course, of air, sunlight, etc. Why did this change take place? Because production became individualistic; each one began to work for himself, stuck in his own little corner.

Finally there came a time, the time of large-scale capitalist production, when hundreds and thousands of workers gather under one roof, in one factory, and engage in collective labour. Here you do not see the old method of working individually, each pulling his own way—here every worker is closely associated in his work with his comrades in his own shop, and all of them are associated with the other shops.

It is sufficient for one shop to stop work for the workers in the entire plant to become idle. As you see, the process of production, labour, has already assumed a social character, has acquired a socialist hue. And this takes place not only in individual factories, but in entire branches of industry, and between branches of industry; it is sufficient for the railwaymen to go on strike for production to be put in difficulties, it is sufficient for the production of oil and coal to come to a standstill for whole factories and mills to close down after a time.

Clearly, here the process of production has assumed a social, collective character. As, however, the private character of appropriation does not correspond to the social character of production, as present-day collective labour must inevitably lead to collective property, it is self-evident that the socialist system will follow capitalism as inevitably as day follows night.

History teaches us that the class or social group which plays the principal role in social production and performs the main functions in production must, in the course of time, inevitably take control of that production. There was a time, under the matriarchate, when women were regarded as the masters of production. Why was this? Because under the kind of production then prevailing, primitive agriculture, women played the principal role in production, they performed the main functions, while the men roamed the forests in quest of game.

Then came the time, under the patriarchate, when the predominant position in production passed to men. Because under the kind of production prevailing at that time, stock-raising, in which the principal instruments of production were the spear, the lasso and the bow and arrow, the principal role was played by men. There came the time of large-scale capitalist production, in which the proletarians begin to play the principal role in production, when all the principal functions in production pass to them, when without them production cannot go on for a single day let us recall general strikesand when the capitalists, far from being needed for production, are even a hindrance to it.

What does this signify? It signifies either that all anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography life must collapse entirely, or that the proletariat, sooner or later, but inevitably, must take control of modern production, must become its sole owner, its socialistic owner. Modern industrial crises, which sound the death knell of capitalist property and bluntly put the question: capitalism or socialism, make this conclusion absolutely obvious; they vividly reveal the parasitism of the capitalists and the inevitability of the victory of socialism.

Proletarian socialism is based not on sentiment, not on abstract "justice," not on love for the proletariat, but on the scientific grounds referred to above. On this tangible, material fact. That does not mean, of course, that since anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography is decaying the socialist system can be established any time we like.

Only Anarchists and other petty-bourgeois ideologists think that. The socialist ideal is not the ideal of all classes. It is the ideal only of the proletariat; not all classes are directly interested in its fulfilment the proletariat alone is so interested. This means that as long as the proletariat constitutes a small section of society the establishment of the socialist system is impossible.

The decay of the old form of production, the further concentration of capitalist production, and the proletarianisation of the majority in society—such are the conditions needed for the achievement of socialism. But this is still not enough. The majority in society may already be proletarianised, but socialism may still not be achievable.

This is because, in addition to all this, the achievement of socialism calls for class consciousness, the unity of the proletariat and the ability of the proletariat to manage its own affairs. In order that all this may be acquired, what is called political freedom is needed, i. But political freedom is not equally ensured everywhere. Therefore, the conditions under which it is obliged to wage the struggle: under a feudal autocracy Russiaa constitutional monarchy Germanya big-bourgeois republic Franceor under a democratic republic which Russian Social-Democracy is demandingare not a matter of indifference to the proletariat.

Political freedom is best and most fully ensured in a democratic republic, that is, of course, in so far as it can be ensured under capitalism at all. Therefore, all advocates of proletarian socialism necessarily strive for the establishment of a democratic republic as the best "bridge" to socialism. That is why, under present conditions, the Marxist programme is divided into two parts: the maximum programme, the goal of which is socialism, and the minimum programmethe object of which is to lay the road to socialism through a democratic republic.

What must the proletariat do, what path must it take in order consciously to carry out its programme, to overthrow capitalism and build socialism? The answer is clear: the proletariat cannot achieve socialism by making peace with the bourgeoisie — it must unfailingly take the path of struggle, and this struggle must be a class struggle, a struggle of the entire proletariat against the entire bourgeoisie.

Either the bourgeoisie and its capitalism, or the proletariat and its socialism! That must be the basis of the proletariat's actions, of its class struggle. But the proletarian class struggle assumes numerous forms. A strike, for example — whether partial or general makes no difference — is class struggle. Boycott and sabotage are undoubtedly class struggle.

Meetings, demonstrations, activity in public representative bodies, etc. All these are different forms of the same class struggle.

Anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography: For many years, study of the

We shall not here examine which form of struggle is more important for the proletariat in its class struggle, we shall merely observe that, in its proper time and place, each is undoubtedly needed by the proletariat as essential means for developing its class consciousness and organisation; and the proletariat needs class consciousness and organisation as much as it needs air.

It must also be observed, however, that for the proletariat, all these forms of struggle are merely preparatory means, that not one of them, taken separately, constitutes the decisive means by which the proletariat can smash capitalism. Capitalism cannot be smashed by the general strike alone: the general strike can only create some of the conditions that are necessary for the smashing of capitalism.

It is inconceivable that the proletariat should be able to overthrow capitalism merely by its activity in parliament: parliamentarism can only prepare some of the conditions that are necessary for overthrowing capitalism. What, then, is the decisive means by which the proletariat will overthrow the capitalist system? Strikes, boycott, parliamentarism, meetings and demonstrations are all good forms of struggle as means for preparing and organising the proletariat.

Anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography: Born into an immigrant

But not one of these means is capable of abolishing existing inequality. All these means must be concentrated in one principal and decisive means; the proletariat must rise and launch a determined attack upon the bourgeoisie in order to destroy capitalism to its foundations. This principal and decisive means is the socialist revolution.

The socialist revolution must not be conceived as a sudden and short blow, it is a prolonged struggle waged by the proletarian masses, who inflict defeat upon the bourgeoisie and capture its positions. And as the victory of the proletariat will at the same time mean domination over the vanquished bourgeoisie, as, in a collision of classes, the defeat of one class signifies the domination of the other, the first stage of the socialist revolution will be the political domination of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, capture of power by the proletariat—this is what the socialist revolution must start with. This means that until the bourgeoisie is completely vanquished, until its wealth has been confiscated, the proletariat must without fail possess a military force, it must without fail have its "proletarian guard," with the aid of which it will repel the counter-revolutionary attacks of the dying bourgeoisie, exactly as the Paris proletariat did during the Commune.

The socialist dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to enable the proletariat to expropriate the bourgeoisie, to enable it to confiscate the land, forests, factories and mills, machines, railways, etc. This, then, is the principal and decisive means by which the proletariat will overthrow the present capitalist system. The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands. From this general principle emerge all the other views on tactics. Strikes, boycott, demonstrations, and parliamentarism are important only in so far as they help to organise the proletariat and to strengthen and enlarge its organisations for accomplishing the socialist revolution.

Thus, to bring about socialism, the socialist revolution is needed, and the socialist revolution must begin with the dictatorship of the proletariat, i. But to achieve all this the proletariat must be organised, the proletarian ranks must be closely-knit and united, strong proletarian organisations must be formed, and these must steadily grow.

The most widespread, mass organisations are trade unions and workers' co-operatives mainly producers' and consumers' co-operatives. The object of the trade unions is to fight mainly against industrial capital to improve the conditions of the workers within the limits of the present capitalist system. The object of the co-operatives is to fight mainly against merchant capital to secure an increase of consumption among the workers by reducing the prices of articles of prime necessity, also within the limits of the capitalist system, of course.

The proletariat undoubtedly needs both trade unions and co-operatives as means of organising the proletarian masses. Hence, from the point of view of the proletarian socialism of Marx and Engels, the proletariat must utilise both these forms of organisation and reinforce and strengthen them, as far as this is possible under present political conditions, of course.

But trade unions and co-operatives alone cannot satisfy the organisational needs of the militant proletariat. This is because the organisations mentioned cannot go beyond the limits of capitalism, for their object is to improve the conditions of the workers under the capitalist system. The workers, however, want to free themselves entirely from capitalist slavery, they want to smash these limits, and not merely operate within the limits of capitalism.

Hence, in addition, an organisation is needed that will rally around itself the class-conscious elements of the workers of all trades, that will transform the proletariat into a conscious class and make it its chief aim to smash the capitalist system, to prepare for the socialist revolution. This Party must be a class party, and it must be quite independent of other parties—and this is because it is the party of the proletarian class, the emancipation of which can be brought about only by this class itself.

This Party must be a revolutionary party—and this because the workers can be emancipated only by revolutionary means, by means of the socialist revolution. This Party must be an international party, the doors of the Party must be open to all class-conscious proletarians—and this because the emancipation of the workers is not a national but a social question, equally important for the Georgian proletarians, for the Russian proletarians, and for the proletarians of other nations.

Hence, it is clear, that the more closely the proletarians of the different nations are united, the more thoroughly the national barriers which have been raised between them are demolished, the stronger will the Party of the proletariat be, and the more will the organisation of the proletariat in one indivisible class be facilitated. Hence, it is necessary, as far as possible, to introduce the principle of centralism in the proletarian organisations as against the looseness of federation — irrespective of whether these organisations are party, trade union or co-operative.

It is also clear that all these organisations must be built on a democratic basis, in so far as this is not hindered by political or other conditions, of course. What should be the relations between the Party on the one hand and the co-operatives and trade unions on the other? Should the latter be party or non-party? The answer to this question depends upon where and under what conditions the proletariat has to fight.

At all events, there can be no doubt that the friendlier the trade unions and co-operatives are towards the socialist party of the proletariat, the more fully will both develop. And this is because both these economic organisations, if they are not closely connected with a strong socialist party, often become petty, allow narrow craft interests to obscure general class interests and thereby cause great harm to the proletariat.

It is therefore necessary, in all cases, to ensure that the trade unions and co-operatives are under the ideological and political influence of the Party. Only if this is done will the organisations mentioned be transformed into a socialist school that will organise the proletariat—at present split up into separate groups—into a conscious class.

Such, in general, are the characteristic features of the proletarian socialism of Marx and Engels. First of all we must know that proletarian socialism is not simply a philosophical doctrine. It is the doctrine of the proletarian masses, their banner; it is honoured and "revered" by the proletarians all over the world. Consequently, Marx and Engels are not simply the founders of a philosophical "school"—they are the living leaders of the living proletarian movement, which is growing and gaining strength every day.

Whoever fights against this doctrine, whoever wants to "overthrow" it, must keep all this well in mind so as to avoid having his head cracked for nothing in an unequal struggle. Messieurs the Anarchists are well aware of this. That is why, in fighting Marx and Engels, they resort to a most unusual and, in its way, a new weapon. What is this new weapon?

A new investigation of capitalist production? A refutation of Marx's Capital? Of course not! Or perhaps, having armed themselves with "new facts" and the "inductive" method, they "scientifically" refute the "Bible" of Social-Democracy — the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels? Again no! Then what is this extraordinary weapon? It is the accusation that Marx and Engels indulged in "plagiarism"!

Would you believe it? It appears that Marx and Engels wrote nothing original, that scientific socialism is a pure fiction, because the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels was, from beginning to end, "stolen" from the Manifesto of Victor Considerant. This is quite ludicrous, of course, but V. Cherkezishvili, the "incomparable leader" of the Anarchists, relates this amusing story with such aplomb, and a certain Pierre Ramus, Cherkezishvili's foolish "apostle," and our homegrown Anarchists repeat this "discovery" with such fervour, that it is worth while dealing at least briefly with this "story.

Consequently, the Manifesto of Marx and Engels—that Bible of legal revolutionary democracy—is nothing but a clumsy paraphrasing of V. Considerant's Manifesto. Marx and Engels not only appropriated the contents of Considerant's Manifesto but even. This is repeated by our Anarchists in Nobati, Musha, 11 Khma, 12 and other papers. Thus it appears that scientific socialism and its theoretical principles were "stolen" from Considerant's Manifesto.

Considerant, who died inwas a disciple of the utopian Fourier and remained an anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography Utopianwho placed his hopes for the "salvation of France" on the conciliation of classes. Karl Marx, who died inwas a materialist, an enemy of the Utopians. He regarded the development of the productive forces and the struggle between classes as the guarantee of the liberation of mankind.

The theoretical basis of scientific socialism is the materialist theory of Marx and Engels. From the standpoint of this theory the development of social life is wholly determined by the development of the productive forces. If the feudal-landlord system was superseded by the bourgeois system, the "blame" for this rests upon the development of the productive forces, which made the rise of the bourgeois system inevitable.

Or again: if the present bourgeois system will inevitably be superseded by the socialist system, it is because this is called for by the development of the modern productive forces. Hence the historical necessity of the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. Hence the Marxist proposition that we must seek our ideals in the history, of the development of the productive forces and not in the minds of men.

Does V. Considerant's Democratic Manifesto say anything of the kind? Did Considerant accept the materialist point of view? We assert that neither Cherkezishvili, nor Ramus, nor our Nobatists quote a single statement, or a single word from Considerant's Democratic Manifesto which would confirm that Considerant was a materialist and based the evolution of social life upon the development of the productive forces.

On the contrary, we know very well that Considerant is known in the history of socialism as an idealist utopian see Paul Louis, The History of Socialism in France. What, then, induces these queer "critics" to indulge in this idle chatter? Why do they undertake to criticise Marx and Engels when they are even unable to distinguish idealism from materialism?

Is it only to amuse people? The tactical basis of scientific socialism is the doctrine of uncompromising class struggle, for this is the best weapon the proletariat possesses. The proletarian class struggle is the weapon by means of which the proletariat will capture political power and then expropriate the bourgeoisie in order to establish socialism.

Such is the tactical basis of scientific socialism as expounded in the Manifesto of Marx and Engels. Is anything like this said in Considerant's Democratic Manifesto? Did Considerant regard the class struggle as the best weapon the proletariat possesses? As is evident from the articles of Cherkezishvili and Ramus see the above-mentioned symposiumthere is not a word about this in Considerant's Manifesto — it merely notes the class struggle as a deplorable fact.

As regards the class struggle as a means of smashing capitalism, Considerant spoke of it in his Manifesto as follows :. The three classes which represent them have 'common interests'; their function is to make the machines work for the capitalists and for the people. Before them. All classes, unite! Considerant proclaimed in his Democratic Manifesto.

What is there in common between these tactics of class conciliation and the tactics of uncompromising class struggle advocated by Marx and Engels, whose "anarquismo y socialismo stalin biography" call was : Proletarians of all countries, unite against all anti-proletarian classes? Why, then, do Messieurs Cherkezishvili and their foolish anarquismo y socialismo stalin biographies talk this rubbish?

Do they think we are dead? Do they think we shall not drag them into the light of day?! And lastly, there is one other interesting point. Considerant lived right up to He published his Democratic Manifesto in At the end of Marx and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto. After that the Manifesto of Marx and Engels was published over and over again in all European languages.

Everybody knows that the Manifesto of Marx and Engels was an epoch-making document. Nevertheless, nowhere did Considerant or his friends ever state during the lifetime of Marx and Engels that the latter had stolen "socialism" from Considerant's Manifesto. Is this not strange, reader? What, then, impels the "inductive" upstarts — I beg your pardon, "scholars"—to talk this rubbish?

In whose name are they speaking? Are they more familiar with Considerant's Manifesto than was Considerant himself? Or perhaps they think that V. Considerant and his supporters had not read the Communist Manifesto? But enough. Enough because the Anarchists themselves do not take seriously the Quixotic crusade launched by Ramus and Cherkezishvili: the inglorious end of this ridiculous crusade is too obvious to make it worthy of much attention.

The Anarchists suffer from a certain ailment: they are very fond of "criticising" the parties of their opponents, but they do not take the trouble to make themselves in the least familiar with these parties. We have seen the Anarchists behave precisely in this way when "criticising" the dialectical method and the materialist theory of the Social-Democrats see Chapters I and II.

They behave in the same way when they deal with the theory of scientific socialism of the Social-Democrats. Let us, for example, take the following fact. Who does not know that fundamental disagreements exist between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Social-Democrats? Who does not know that the former repudiate Marxism, the materialist theory of Marxism, its dialectical method, its programme and the class struggle—whereas the Social-Democrats take their stand entirely on Marxism?

These fundamental disagreements must be self-evident to anybody who has heard anything, if only with half an ear, about the controversy between Revolutsionnaya Rossiya the organ of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Iskra the organ of the Social-Democrats.