http://liberationschool.org/

What to make of this outfit? It looks pretty good, 'user friendly', self-professed Marxist-Leninist , but doncha know I miss things sometimes... They mention neither Stalin nor Trotsky and for that matter I've hardly seen 'communism' so far but not seen reference to spontaneous revolution but rather to party building. So they're being canny, which I got mixed feelings about. And their plate is a bit full.

So what am I missing here?

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is an offshoot of the World Workers Party and thus twice removed Trotskyists, this bears great scrutiny, the devil may indeed be in the details.

Offices on West Coast, Northeast & Midwest but nothing in the South, closest contacts in B'more & Houston. Looks like they've been around since 2006.

Not advocating anything, just scouting out the landscape.

http://liberationschool.org/what-is-the-real-legacy-of-the-soviet-union-an-overview/


Challenges faced by revolution

First of all, they had to defend their new state against not only the internal counterrevolutionary armies— called the “White” armies of the old landlords and capitalists—but also against 14 invading imperialist armies, including that of the United States.

The Bolsheviks, led by V.I. Lenin, had to begin building a new economic system under conditions of a near total economic blockade imposed by the capitalist world.

The years of war and deprivation took an enormous toll on the Communist Party and the working class as a whole, a toll that severely weakened the revolutionary leadership, led to later problems and eventually the fall of the USSR.

But contrary to the bourgeois presentation of a failed economic system, the Soviet planned economy—the first time in history there ever was a planned economy—showed the immense potential of socialism.

Gains showed potential of socialism

From being the least developed of the big European countries at the time of the revolution, 40 years later the Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the world, trailing only the United States. It was the most rapid economic development ever, by any country.

This was accomplished despite the fact that after barely a decade of initial rapid development in the 1930s, two-thirds of its industry and much of its agriculture was destroyed by the Nazi invasion beginning in 1941. It was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the Nazi war machine and destroyed it—but at a cost of 27 million killed. The U.S. death toll in World War II was about 400,000—a huge toll itself but about 1.5 percent of Soviet deaths.

Before the revolution, most of the population went through life without ever seeing a doctor. In 1966, a leading U.S. medical journal, the American Journal of Public Health, wrote of “life expectancy doubling in the last 50 years. …At present time, the Soviet Union graduates annually about as many physicians as there were in whole Russian Empire before the First World War. Of all the physicians in the world today, more than one in five is Soviet … while only 1 person in 14 in the world today is a Soviet citizen.” Not only that, but none of those doctors—three-quarters of whom were women—paid a penny for their education, nor did anyone else in any field of work. Every person was guaranteed a job, housing, health care, childcare and education as well as the right to a one-month annual paid vacation, pensions and cultural pursuits.

Full equality for women was a basic principle of the Soviet state. Special measures were taken to ensure equal representation at various levels of the workforce, and discrimination on the basis of gender was constitutionally banned. Women received at least a year of paid maternity leave.

The Soviet Union showed the superiority of a socialist, planned economy by eliminating unemployment, something no capitalist country has been able to achieve. The key to ending unemployment was doing away with the capitalist system and its built-in boom-and-bust cycle.

(My bolding.)

There is some crawfishing here. The unconditional support for the Soviet Union and the lavish praise for its economic and social development is not very Trottish, but the complete absence of any mention of Stalin (where it is impossible NOT to mention him) is suspect. Also this "toll that severely weakened the revolutionary leadership, led to later problems and eventually the fall of the USSR" really smacks of, if not Trotskyist ideology, at least a blatant revisionism. In one breath they say that the "revolutionary leadership" was weakened, and in the next, that that leadership led the greatest economic/industrial/agricultural development in history and then defeated Nazi Germany almost single-handedly. That is some weak-ass leadership, huh?

So, these folks are being cagy. Either they're Trots who understand that no one wants anything to do with them - or - they are "modern" commies who are running from Stalin. Either way, they got some 'splanin' to do.

I know a bit about them. Brian Becker is on tv as a guest occasionally, normally on the more obscure channels. Possibly appeared on RT ? (not sure). Probably find youtubes of him.

A few people locally voted for their ticket in the last presidential election in 2012.

They are heavily involved with ANSWER and do have some analysis on the web in various places. Don't personally know much about the split.

The years of war and deprivation took an enormous toll on the Communist Party and the working class as a whole, a toll that severely weakened the revolutionary leadership, led to later problems and eventually the fall of the USSR.

Possible he is including WWII/Great Patriotic War in there, as it is phrased vaguely. There is a theory that the "Class of '36/37" was still so prominent decades later because of the fact that an entire generation was immolated by the war. Mostly this is used as a thinly veiled excuse to take potshots at the aging Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, et al and the fact that Gorbachev was seen as a "young buck" reformer.

And, yes, pretty sure PSL is of that "tradition" that tries to explain the fall of the SU as a "fall from grace" in daemonic terms

Possible he is including WWII/Great Patriotic War in there, as it is phrased vaguely. There is a theory that the "Class of '36/37" was still so prominent decades later because of the fact that an entire generation was immolated by the war. Mostly this is used as a thinly veiled excuse to take potshots at the aging Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, et al and the fact that Gorbachev was seen as a "young buck" reformer.[/B]

It does lead around to "the Stalin question" (da-da-da-dum). My first reaction is to defend Uncle Joe at every turn. He is simply too large a positive presence in Soviet history - hell, world history - to let philistines run him down. But, since the ALL POWERFUL USA has effective labelled him (and libeled him) a "murdering dictator", it appears to be a losing battle. I don't mind, too much, losing battles (lost a bunch), as long as the war goes well. I don't know what the value is to various stands and adherence to truth - I tend to place a lot a value there, but I can be wrong.

It does lead around to "the Stalin question" (da-da-da-dum). My first reaction is to defend Uncle Joe at every turn. He is simply too large a positive presence in Soviet history - hell, world history - to let philistines run him down. But, since the ALL POWERFUL USA has effective labelled him (and libeled him) a "murdering dictator", it appears to be a losing battle. I don't mind, too much, losing battles (lost a bunch), as long as the war goes well. I don't know what the value is to various stands and adherence to truth - I tend to place a lot a value there, but I can be wrong.

It may or may not be important in itself to defend "Stalin's honor" but it is very important that we defend the gains of the world's first socialist state which, as you say, are inextricably tied to Joseph Stalin's time as leader of the SU (and the world communist movement). Every attempt to sully+vilify Stalin is a transparent attempt to invalidate and vilify socialism. That can't be let go unchallenged -- ESPECIALLY since it invariably turns into a defense and closet rehabilitation of the Nazis, their ideology, and Hitler personally.

Arguing over Stalin's methods only need extend to the practical results -- for example, there was no Fifth Column in Russia and there was no large scale dissension in the ranks of the military command during the war. And, of course, final victory.

Whether or not Stalin was a nice guy I'm less concerned about.

Of course, that stills leave the hotly contested process of "Destalinization" which was viewed by many (including Mao..) as a massive mistake for precisely this reason -- it essentially hands the enemy their propaganda readymade and when stripped of all nuance, it appears to disavow the entire historical period -- including the countless victories, large and small.

It does lead around to "the Stalin question" (da-da-da-dum). My first reaction is to defend Uncle Joe at every turn. He is simply too large a positive presence in Soviet history - hell, world history - to let philistines run him down. But, since the ALL POWERFUL USA has effective labelled him (and libeled him) a "murdering dictator", it appears to be a losing battle. I don't mind, too much, losing battles (lost a bunch), as long as the war goes well. I don't know what the value is to various stands and adherence to truth - I tend to place a lot a value there, but I can be wrong.

A: "Communism is bad because Stalin was a murderous dictator who slaughtered millions of people for the sake of Socialism!"

B: "And the United States and its allies don't slaughter millions of people for the sake of Capitalism?"

A: "But see, Capitalism is better than Socialism!"

B: "Says who?"

A: "Says economists!"

B: "And those economists don't have ideological and material incentives for defending Capitalism?"

A: "No, of course not, because they use MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. They are perfectly objective and impartial!"

B: "So what good things has Capitalism done?"

A: "It has created a lot of wealth!"

B: "Wealth...for whom? And at what cost, and to whom?"

A: "....that is a question only a COMMIE would ask!"

B: "You don't say..."