I really think we're in clown world because of the position I'm in.
Cliffite here, be a Marxist for fuck sakes.
Watch the Finbol video and then come back.
It is an admissible argument to say that it was the Stalin factions moderate measures on the peasant question in the 30's that inevitably led to the Kulak uprising. The economic power of Kulaks lay entirely in their ability to produce more grain, a result of owenrship of lands and tools. This kind of class domination is mutually exclusive with socialist construction and not commiting to a programme of armed expropriations by the peasantry was a betrayal of the worker-peasant alliance. Going by pure Stats, the kolkhoz policies were a success in subverting the productive power of the Kulaks and sending them into the sperg of the century.
Or rather, in socialist construction, reinstating One man ownership in the factories, tying worker's means of subsistence to their employment status in singular enterprises, which consisted often of lodgings/towns and cities around factories, logging facilities, mines etc. set in place a dynamic by which workers must submit themselves to the discipline of their managers and bosses. This breaks the dynamic of soviet power, whilst the worker under the constitution was harder to fire, penal measures were common, threatening the worker and their families with downgraded worker status.
The penalties threatened the access to health, docked wages and participation in social life.
The survival of militant or rebellious workers and their families in a fledgling economic order were in the hands of isolated bosses who had the mandate to stay the discipline of the soviet. Noting also that the infrastructure for a mobile labor force was not in place at this point.
The reorganisation of the economy under Stalin, both spatially and judicially put down militant workers and in turn empowered layers of the deposed bourgeois and petty bourgoisie, the people who brown nosed their way into specialist positions, foremanships, soviet appointments, party membership and careerism. Worker militancy, has a conspicuous nature in the DOTP, it is hard to tell whether a militant worker is upholding the revolution or undermining it and as far as owners are concerned, it is definitely the latter. Soviet power holds worker's industrial action accountable to worker's and their interests, it is absolutely necessary to navigate a post-revolutionary society.
The too many various ways in which soviet power was undermined, either by what was arguably necessity in the civil war, and by the economism and class collaborationism that followed as the soviet republic was consolidated in the period of the NEP.
This had the double edged effect of availing the means of production to be worked outside of the near constant post-revolutionary antagonism, between the soviets, the workers and the government, specialists and the Trusts. But allowed the germs of bourgeois power to remain and to be consolidated into political power. Given the Death of scores of Cadre in the Civil war, this is exactly what happened.
At a cursory glance, Stalin was aware of this and so was Trotsky. My only critique of Trotsky was him painting Stalin as an architect of the ascendance of these layers. His faction was Party to the decisions that produced this, but not for the reasons the Kruschevite faction was. In fact I'd be bold enough to say they had each other backwards and ignored a more potent enemy, regardless of Trotsky's misgivings upto '33.
I don't have the time or patience to cover the mess that was purges and War period or even parse Trotsky and the fascists because fuck that. but given the dynamics set off early in the revolution, the important political conclusion to note is that the proletarian camp lost it's most important beachheads of political power in the soviet union.
Stalin may have tried to reverse the counter-revolutionary impulse, but he was too late, he was politically isolated and flailing in the dark landing more misses than hits, owing to the fact that key positions of power were 1. Already heavily influenced and stacked by the counter-revolutionary faction and 2. Had the entrenched judicial power to act independently of the party and worker's organisations during the purges and after the war.
So can we stop with the 'Stalin was an Authoritarian meanie' Or dealing in Abstract ahistoricals? We aren't liberals. There are critiques we can deal to Stalin and the CCCP and there are far better ones than the cursory overviews In this post. Acknowledge where proletarian power was won and where it was lost, that is where we can historically measure 'liberty'.