When you got nothing better to say, don't say anything at all but STALIN STALIN! [Archive]

Charles Xavier

6th April 2009, 17:15

I am curious why when some people offer absolutely nothing on topic to the discussion, they mention Stalin?

I am wondering why Stalin is so popular, even today, in several threads, they range in a wide variety of topics it ends up with one or more people loading the thread with a discussion about Stalin? Why is Stalin so popular for the Ultra-left? How is he relevant to modern day politics? Why is he brought up in every discussion even ones you wouldn't think Stalin would get in to?

I think its a case of intentional thread derailment, ones argument fails, turn it into a debate about Stalin? Its a catchall word that describes everything. Anything someone doesn't like, Stalin is obviously behind it.

I mean the current economic crisis, Stalin seems to be behind it because we have discussions on the economic crisis and the debate turns into one about Stalin or Political parties or so many other topics.

I mean Stalin seems to be the only acceptable way someone can derail discussion on this forum. Why is it acceptable? I mean if one was to engage in a respectable debate, it should be on the topic at hand and not go off into tangents.

Apparently I too am Stalin, when someone doesn't agree with me I am a Stalinist. Doesn't matter that I haven't read anything written by Stalin, or that I don't agree with some things Stalin did. I however am a little more critical of what I'm told about Stalin, does that mean unwavering support for Stalin, no of course not, but I recognize the fact that its metaphysical to attribute everything that went well or wrong in the soviet union to one person, its not materialist. Its movements and workers who put the leadership into power, it determined its policies and it executed the activities.

This is a political question too. Eurocommunism, Gorbachev, is an example of where real life politics descend into such a mess, Using valid criticism to perform an ulterior agenda rather than engage in a correct criticism.

Matina

6th April 2009, 17:47

Thanks for this Tupac. I fully agree on this. I hate brainwashed liberals who are like "OMG STALIN IZ A MONSTURR" .Unfortunately a lot of people here are liberals in their criticism of Stalin.
Personally when I criticize Stalinism, I don't use bourgeois propaganda. I was arguing with the leader of the Communist Party who is a pro-Stalinist, two days ago in an event. I never mentioned anything about "killing million(z)" etc., the only thing I mentioned was the Two Stage Theory, which is a very mechanistic and vulgar application of the Marxist method and led to the betrayals of various revolutions. We can have a discussion on that in the theory section if you'd like.

Another criticism I have on Stalinism is the lack of workers democracy and the persecution of the left-Opposition.

Another criticism I have is the ultra-left term he took in Germany 1933, which we can also deal with in another thread. I have many other criticisms. None of them involve however the idiotic liberal accusations that you hear by many in the "left". They sound like hysterical babies, crying over Stalin, when they can't counter the arguments of educated Stalinists.

Pogue

6th April 2009, 18:00

What debate? Why is it that you guys can't simply accept that he was a tyrant? He killed communists themselves, for christs sake.

You accuse us of listening to 'bourgeois propoganda', and then you go and quote Stalinist propoganda.

hugsandmarxism

6th April 2009, 18:04

Oh boy, this is going to get some flames...

Anyhow, I'm in agreement with Tupac Amaru II, and respectfully Disagree with Matina's position (but love her for it nonetheless :)). We cannot allow ourselves to be hamstrung by this pointlessness. We have enough to worry about without beating this dead horse.

Charles Xavier

6th April 2009, 18:04

Dear god, the man died ears ago, and you're still going on about him. Thats the most pathetic thing. Perhaps why we constantly criticise him in our 'liberal' manner is because he was someone who had to be criticised, because as is historical consensus except with deluded Stalinoid fanboys, he was a dictator, a murderer and a counter-revolutionary.

And Tupac Amaru II, please stop making these threads where you basically whinge about how the forum is oppressing you, because its getting boring.

Yours truly

Some Liberal

You didn't read the thread did you?

What debate? Why is it that you guys can't simply accept that he was a tyrant? He killed communists themselves, for christs sake.

You accuse us of listening to 'bourgeois propoganda', and then you go and quote Stalinist propoganda.

Yes but what does threads about political parties and the economic crisis always end up with a debate about Stalin? Leave the Stalin debates to the Stalin debates.

Dimentio

6th April 2009, 18:13

6th April 2009, 18:26

The funny thing about this thread is that the main post, while decrying the constant invocation of Stalin, is ENTIRELY ABOUT STALIN. And the single "tag" is... "stalin"! :laugh:

apathy maybe

6th April 2009, 18:33

The problem is that liberals "like yourself" (note the quotation marks), don't criticize Stalinism as a theory, but merely Stalin as a person. This is an anti-scientific way of criticizing.

Whenever people "like you" engage in discussion with Stalinists like Tupac, cannot make arguments against the Stalinist theory and resort into propagating bourgeois propaganda in order to get yourself out of the debate.

Well, if it is an anarchist making a point about Stalin, it needs hardly be said that we will attack the actions of the person. After all, if Stalinists are correct, then Stalinism is merely a continuation of Leninism (and there are plenty of anarchist critiques of the actions of Lenin and co). If Stalinism doesn't really have any theory, then what to attack? If Stalinism is a real, solid, independent theory, then it falls to the same critiques anarchists make of all other statist theories.

The fact that sometimes certain anarchists are too lazy to repeat the same old anarchist critiques of Statism, doesn't mean that those critiques don't exist, and are still valid, and apply in the case of Stalin just as much as in any other case.

But yeah, it's easy to attack Stalin and Co as individuals, 'cause they were fucking maniacs!

Communist Theory

6th April 2009, 18:37

"Off to the gulags with you!"
That's the Stalinist theory of Communism.

Matina

6th April 2009, 18:38

Well, if it is an anarchist making a point about Stalin, it needs hardly be said that we will attack the actions of the person.That is not the scientific way of criticism. Face it, the course of history cannot be determined by one person, acting in a vacuum. History is determined by the material processes and the objective conditions in that period, through the medium of the class struggle. Stalinism came about due to those exact material processes and was not the invention of one man, Stalin, which liberals call "OMG A TYRANT" .

Of course many anarchists (unfortunately), for opportunist reasons, as well as due to the fact that many(not all) come from a petit bourgeois backround from a first world nation, have this tendency of propagating bourgeois propaganda. The same thing can be true for some "trotskyists". I really like the BProudhon quote in my signature by the way. You should read it.

But yeah, it's easy to attack Stalin and Co as individuals, 'cause they were fucking maniacs!Thank you for confirming what I said in my previous post. No militant will take this seriously in a debate by the way. Only a middle-class, American kiddo, who went over to leftism cuz of RATM.

GracchusBabeuf

6th April 2009, 18:42

As many of the Anti-revisionists here must have been suspecting, I confess that I really am really a capitalist liberal and I just love demonizing Stalin and the Soviet Union.:thumbup1::thumbup: Which way to the gulags please?:D

P.S. In before trash.

Charles Xavier

6th April 2009, 18:46

This is not a debate of whether Stalin is good or bad, this is a debate on why Stalin is brought up in every conservation. Is it legitimate or derailment?

apathy maybe

6th April 2009, 18:49

That is not the scientific way of criticism. Face it, the course of history cannot be determined by one person, acting in a vacuum. History is determined by the material processes and the objective conditions in that period, through the medium of the class struggle. Stalinism came about due to those exact material processes and was not the invention of one man, Stalin, which liberals call "OMG A TYRANT" .
Duh. Which makes Stalin lovers absurd.

Thank you for confirming what I said in my previous post. No militant will take this seriously in a debate by the way. Only a middle-class, American kiddo, who went over to leftism cuz of RATM.

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted that... Of course though, you'll note a "and Co" there as well. I wasn't attacking Stalin as an individual (I'm not falling for the mistake you mentioned in the first paragraph). I was attacking the entire governance superstructure of the Soviet Union. See, while Stalin was the General Secretary, there were a lot of other people in the Central Committee, and the Politburo part thereof.

Mentioning "middle-class" as if it meant much, "American" as if it was the default and de-facto nationality (lots of folks on RevLeft are from Europe (including the UK and Ireland) and Australia), and "kiddo" as if it were an insult, well all that detracts from your argument.

Then again, you didn't define "militant", my guess is that a "militant" is someone who is a member of a top down party? Nah, that was a cheap jab. But I'm also guess that the vast majority of workers are not militant. Are they just indifferent to the whole "Stalin man or beast?" question? Because I know a few who would accept the anarchist line a fuck quicker than the generic Stalinist line (or even a more complicated non-Stalinist Anti-Revisionist line).

This is not a debate of whether Stalin is good or bad, this is a debate on why Stalin is brought up in every conservation. Is it legitimate or derailment?
Well, seriously, I haven't noticed it. Maybe if you could link to some threads? 'Cause if it only comes up in threads you are participating in, maybe there is a link?

Matina

6th April 2009, 18:57

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted that... Of course though, you'll note a "and Co" there as well. I wasn't attacking Stalin as an individual (I'm not falling for the mistake you mentioned in the first paragraph). I was attacking the entire governance superstructure of the Soviet Union. See, while Stalin was the General Secretary, there were a lot of other people in the Central Committee, and the Politburo part thereof.

Ok thanks for the clarification, but not even the Politburo or the bureaucrats in general were maniacs. They were acting under the influence of their own interests. In the same way Hitler was not a maniac, but was acting on the interest of German Capitalism and Imperialism.

Mentioning "middle-class" as if it meant much, "American" as if it was the default and de-facto nationality (lots of folks on RevLeft are from Europe (including the UK and Ireland) and Australia), and "kiddo" as if it were an insult, well all that detracts from your argument.

My bad. I just wanted to give a classical example of the type. I should have said " Young person from an advanced capitalist country, who belongs in the petit-bourgeoisie". Although I admit its a big generalization.

Then again, you didn't define "militant", my guess is that a "militant" is someone who is a member of a top down party? Nah, that was a cheap jab. But I'm also guess that the vast majority of workers are not militant. Are they just indifferent to the whole "Stalin man or beast?" question? Because I know a few who would accept the anarchist line a fuck quicker than the generic Stalinist line (or even a more complicated non-Stalinist Anti-Revisionist line)

Haha! I am not a Stalinist. I am a trotksyist. I am just against the liberal criticism of Stalin, which materialists should not use.

apathy maybe

6th April 2009, 19:07

Ok thanks for the clarification, but not even the Politburo or the bureaucrats in general were maniacs. They were acting under the influence of their own interests. In the same way Hitler was not a maniac, but was acting on the interest of German Capitalism and Imperialism.
Actually, I'm not convinced Hitler wasn't a maniac, same with Stalin, see, even though history is not made by individuals, individuals are still sane or insane as individuals.

My bad. I just wanted to give a classical example of the type. I should have said " Young person from an advanced capitalist country, who belongs in the petit-bourgeoisie". Although I admit its a big generalization.
Very big. Even saying "petit-bourgeoisie", 'cause like, unless you accept that owning shares makes you a member of that class, most folks aren't in that class at all. Middle-class is a better generalisation.

Haha! I am not a Stalinist. I am a trotksyist. I am just against the liberal criticism of Stalin, which materialists should not use.
I didn't say you were a Stalinist. Still, again, the anarchist critique is more believable than most Trot critiques I've seen. (And, you didn't answer my question, what is a militant?)

GracchusBabeuf

6th April 2009, 19:15

Keep heading north comrade. Never stop.You mean the Gulags are in heaven? Hmm.... no wonder the Soviet Union was a workers paradise where workers were sent regularly to "heaven" by the Soviet commisar-angels.:thumbup:

Communist Theory

6th April 2009, 19:17

Actually I was talking about Siberia but call it what you want Heaven wait what?! What is this heaven you talk about? please convert me.

Charles Xavier

6th April 2009, 19:18

http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=1064749

Look how popular stalin is?

Theres been 500 threads that Stalin is involved in since mid november

Matina

6th April 2009, 19:21

Actually, I'm not convinced Hitler wasn't a maniac, same with Stalin, see, even though history is not made by individuals, individuals are still sane or insane as individuals.

Individuals are hard to characterize as sane or insane. Especially due to the fact that history is written by the victors.
There is no concrete proof that Hitler or Stalin were insane. There is proof that they acted due to class forces opposed to those of the proletariat and its interests. Which is a materialists approach rather than a liberal/idealist.

Very big. Even saying "petit-bourgeoisie", 'cause like, unless you accept that owning shares makes you a member of that class, most folks aren't in that class at all. Middle-class is a better generalisation.

Middle class=petit bourgeoisie in my books (The relationship towards the means of production is the basic definition (albeit "cut down") of class for leftists. But anyways I won't disagree in a minor point and derail this interesting discussion:lol:

I didn't say you were a Stalinist. Still, again, the anarchist critique is more believable than most Trot critiques I've seen.

Uhh. That's your opinion. My opinion is that many anarchist critiques, mostly base themselves on the essentialist view of "statism". Even though if I agreed with anarchists on statism, I would still point out to them that there is almost no materialist analysis on why "Stalin and Co" assended to power.

On the other hand, Trotsky as well as other "Trotskyists" explain very well, using historical materialism, what led to the degeneration of the USSR. As a materialist, I am not satisfied at all by the anarchist analysis.

(And, you didn't answer my question, what is a militant?) __________________

For me, a militant is what I see in protests, discussions etc. Workers, students etc. who have adhere or have discovered communism etc. but they are kind of confused. So they tend to have Stalinist-Maoist-Trotksyist-Pol Potist etc. mixtures on their ideology. I come in contact with those types most of the time. Excuse me for not including anarchists in my "definition" of a militant, because I rarely see them.

Those who I see are people wearing rags, with out of the customary hair, smelly clothes and usualy drugged or drunk, completely isolated from the rest of the people. I know that this is not the general definition of an anarchist and most are "everyday" people, but only those kinds of anarchists exist here. So I don't bother talking to them. They usualy have (A) shirts and scream fuck the police, fuck the government etc. They are not really militants imo.

Communist Theory

6th April 2009, 19:24

Middle class=petit bourgeoisie in my books.

How do you define middle class?
My civics teacher told me that middle class people could lose their jobs and live the same lifestyle for a year without a job. But that sounds pretty off.

Matina

6th April 2009, 19:29

How do you define middle class?
My civics teacher told me that middle class people could lose their jobs and live the same lifestyle for a year without a job. But that sounds pretty off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class#Marxist

too lazy to type :)

Dimentio

6th April 2009, 19:32

Oh Stalin, give me strength!

Stalin is, to my experience, mostly brought up by marxist-leninists of the Stalin variety in completely unrelated threads. Then a flamefest usually begins. Then, these Stalinists start threads about why everything here circulates around Stalin, and accuses all non-Stalinists to be obsessed by Stalin.

http://flashyourstache.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/stalin.jpg

Charles Xavier

6th April 2009, 23:46

This is about people using Stalin or the Soviet Union or whatever to derail discussions. Going off topic on purpose when ones argument falls flat.

GracchusBabeuf

6th April 2009, 23:49

What am I? Protestent, Lutheran, Morman, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox. Or shall I say the Archangel Gabriel visited me in a dream and told me where to find the Holy Grail but I am the only one that can see it so you must declare me your religious leader?Stalin had all of them purged. We worship the almighty Stalin now ;)

Communist Theory

6th April 2009, 23:51

What ever happened to comrade Trotsky?

manic expression

7th April 2009, 00:12

This is about people using Stalin or the Soviet Union or whatever to derail discussions. Going off topic on purpose when ones argument falls flat.

To be honest, I think this happens quite a bit, far more than it should. "Stalinist" gets tossed around for no reason, and the result is usually the end of rational discussion. However, not everyone is guilty, and I think those most responsible show themselves to be politically unsophisticated when they do it.

LOLseph Stalin

7th April 2009, 03:47

This is about people using Stalin or the Soviet Union or whatever to derail discussions. Going off topic on purpose when ones argument falls flat.

It seems the word "Stalinist" is used as an insult more than anything. Most discussions begin constructive, but as soon as somebody disagrees with something they begin throwing the term "Stalinist" out there. I really don't see too much of a problem with that as i'm sure many Anti-Revisionists may use the term "Trot" as an insult. It's the same kind of thing. I do however agree that maybe Stalin doesn't need to come up in every single conversation although he played a huge role in Soviet Politics. He laid part of the base for many people's politics here so they may not know otherwise but to refer back to him. It's also like people referring back to Marx and Lenin's or even Trotsky's politics.

Glorious Union

7th April 2009, 03:54

I officially make a new rule similar to Godwin's Law.

GU's rule: "As a RevLeft discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Stalin approaches 1."

And, for those who don't know:
Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet) discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Dimentio

7th April 2009, 14:43

It seems the word "Stalinist" is used as an insult more than anything. Most discussions begin constructive, but as soon as somebody disagrees with something they begin throwing the term "Stalinist" out there. I really don't see too much of a problem with that as i'm sure many Anti-Revisionists may use the term "Trot" as an insult. It's the same kind of thing. I do however agree that maybe Stalin doesn't need to come up in every single conversation although he played a huge role in Soviet Politics. He laid part of the base for many people's politics here so they may not know otherwise but to refer back to him. It's also like people referring back to Marx and Lenin's or even Trotsky's politics.

The problem is why stalinists are so sensitive about being called stalinists?

It usually begins like this.

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *long argument*

Some anarchist/trotskyite/whatever troll: HAHAHA, UR STALINIST

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

I don't understand why the stalinists even care. It is not like Stalin actually is actual nowadays.

ZeroNowhere

7th April 2009, 19:35

Of course Stalin converts healthy Revleft threads to degenerated Revleft threads. This is due to the fact that you didn't go off-topic to discuss Trotsky or Lenin instead.

Edit: It was going to be said anyways. Other things that lead to degeneration of Revleft threads include misusing the word 'liberal', and Jacob Richter posting (:P).

Charles Xavier

7th April 2009, 19:49

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1931/stalina.jpg

Thats awesome

frozencompass

7th April 2009, 19:58

It's amazing how this thread, which started like "Don't make debates about Stalin to derail threads", has been derailed by a debate about Stalin.

Oh dear, trolling has evolved greatly since the old days.

Decolonize The Left

7th April 2009, 20:05

Charles Xavier

7th April 2009, 20:22

I find it terribly ironic that in order to complain about individuals invoking Stalin when unnecessary in various threads, you have created an entire thread to discuss Stalin and his appearance in various threads.

You really didn't need to make this thread, the answer to your question is terribly simple.

Stalin is invoked constantly when discussing theories such as communism because Stalin is the primary figurehead of one of the only semi-successful revolutions which adopted the name 'communist.' Given that it is easier to resort to 'big man theory' then analyze historical and material circumstance, is it any wonder that he keeps popping up?

Why do capitalists speak of Adam Smith? Why do Americans idealize Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln? Etc... it's all the same. Now please, close this thread.

- August

Well I think its a discussion about historical reductionism, its easy to criticize everything with this catch all word Stalin, and say those revolutions were all stalinist, but really have you really understood the revolution in Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Angola, Korea, China and Cuba? Which of their policies were that of "Stalinism"? What is the difference between Lenin and Stalin, is there one? I mean these are topics that are quickly dismissed. and degenerate. I mean I have gotten 12 thank yous from the first page, I think there is a number of comrades here who think its ridicilious to use the catch all term Stalinism and disregard it instead of engage in meaningful discourse.

I mean I really struggle on a thread about the communist party of Canada to get through this whole discussion on Stalin, when Stalin has absolutely nothing to do with the communist party of canada. But they throw out the term Stalinist! and talk about alledged soviet repression of jews instead of the topic at hand.

I think it is clear a lot of comrades here are saying, we bare as much responsibility of the actions of the soviet union and stalin as your ordinary catholic does for the spanish inquistion.

And it doesn't mean we agree or disagree with Stalin, we are saying it is irrelevant. Socialism in one country has nothing to do with Canada, it is not the policy of the communist party of canada nor the policy of anyone, it is this magical tool brought in by people who run out of steam and want to degenerate discussion to cover up what they don't understand.

Decolonize The Left

7th April 2009, 20:35

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I agree with you that Stalin's name is abused in almost every sense by almost every sect of every ideology. I was merely saying that this is to be expected.

- August

Dimentio

7th April 2009, 21:25

Well I think its a discussion about historical reductionism, its easy to criticize everything with this catch all word Stalin, and say those revolutions were all stalinist, but really have you really understood the revolution in Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Angola, Korea, China and Cuba? Which of their policies were that of "Stalinism"? What is the difference between Lenin and Stalin, is there one? I mean these are topics that are quickly dismissed. and degenerate. I mean I have gotten 12 thank yous from the first page, I think there is a number of comrades here who think its ridicilious to use the catch all term Stalinism and disregard it instead of engage in meaningful discourse.

I mean I really struggle on a thread about the communist party of Canada to get through this whole discussion on Stalin, when Stalin has absolutely nothing to do with the communist party of canada. But they throw out the term Stalinist! and talk about alledged soviet repression of jews instead of the topic at hand.

I think it is clear a lot of comrades here are saying, we bare as much responsibility of the actions of the soviet union and stalin as your ordinary catholic does for the spanish inquistion.

And it doesn't mean we agree or disagree with Stalin, we are saying it is irrelevant. Socialism in one country has nothing to do with Canada, it is not the policy of the communist party of canada nor the policy of anyone, it is this magical tool brought in by people who run out of steam and want to degenerate discussion to cover up what they don't understand.

That is simply because western communists who actually want to make a change and not necessarily be ideologically pure are desperate to disassociate themselves from Stalin, whose reputation in the western world is screwed beyond saving. So, it is not condescending or naïve to not support Stalin. It is required to not support him in order to get an impact upon western society and actually attract people.

It is insane to support Stalin not because he was a totalitarian megalomaniac, but because 95% of westerners consider him to have been a totalitarian megalomaniac. If Euro-communism and the 1968 movement had not appeared, revleft today would most likely only have had anarchist members, and your (stalin-supporting marxist-leninists) numbers would be even smaller.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th April 2009, 21:48

Why are we discussing this mass murderer and destroyer of the Bolshevik Party?

Would we allow Nazis to defend Hitler?

Charles Xavier

7th April 2009, 22:28

Why are we discussing this mass murderer and destroyer of the Bolshevik Party?

Would we allow Nazis to defend Hitler?

Someone completely misses the point of the thread. That is absolutely what we are not discussing, we are discussing people using Stalin to derail discussions on topics that have nothing to do with Stalin.

That is simply because western communists who actually want to make a change and not necessarily be ideologically pure are desperate to disassociate themselves from Stalin, whose reputation in the western world is screwed beyond saving. So, it is not condescending or naïve to not support Stalin. It is required to not support him in order to get an impact upon western society and actually attract people.

It is insane to support Stalin not because he was a totalitarian megalomaniac, but because 95% of westerners consider him to have been a totalitarian megalomaniac. If Euro-communism and the 1968 movement had not appeared, revleft today would most likely only have had anarchist members, and your (stalin-supporting marxist-leninists) numbers would be even smaller.

Well thats not the quite point I'm trying to make. But in here I think you touched apon a very important question, right-opportunism, condemning something not because its right but because its popular. And Eurocommunism seems to come out of that, using the fear and lack of understanding around stalin to not merely condemn stalin, but to actually dismantle a socialist program in the communist party and towards a reformist one. I don't understand the point you are trying to make on how eurocommunism had saved support for Marxism-Leninism as it is an abandonment of Marxism-Leninism rather than a clear criticism of Stalin.

The point I was trying to make is that its being used when arguments are made on various other topics as a way to cover up and derail the arguments into a debate on the pros and cons of Stalin.

In the topic "Am I a member of a bourgeiosie party?" several attempts at this were maded on the forth page to make it a debate on the soviet union rather than on the topic on hand.

Dimentio

8th April 2009, 21:51

Someone completely misses the point of the thread. That is absolutely what we are not discussing, we are discussing people using Stalin to derail discussions on topics that have nothing to do with Stalin.

Well thats not the quite point I'm trying to make. But in here I think you touched apon a very important question, right-opportunism, condemning something not because its right but because its popular. And Eurocommunism seems to come out of that, using the fear and lack of understanding around stalin to not merely condemn stalin, but to actually dismantle a socialist program in the communist party and towards a reformist one. I don't understand the point you are trying to make on how eurocommunism had saved support for Marxism-Leninism as it is an abandonment of Marxism-Leninism rather than a clear criticism of Stalin.

The point I was trying to make is that its being used when arguments are made on various other topics as a way to cover up and derail the arguments into a debate on the pros and cons of Stalin.

In the topic "Am I a member of a bourgeiosie party?" several attempts at this were maded on the forth page to make it a debate on the soviet union rather than on the topic on hand.

Euro-communists provide a recruiting ground for marxist-leninists. If the marxist-leninist large parties had'nt become euro-communist, they would have been obliterated today. Had about 0,2% of the electorate.

The establishment of euro-communism was a direct effect of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia year 1968.

Charles Xavier

8th April 2009, 22:03

Euro-communists provide a recruiting ground for marxist-leninists. If the marxist-leninist large parties had'nt become euro-communist, they would have been obliterated today. Had about 0,2% of the electorate.

The establishment of euro-communism was a direct effect of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia year 1968.

Well lets take a look, there are two major Marxist-Leninist parties in Western Europe, Greece(not sure why its considered western when its in the balkan) and Portugal who reject Eurocommunism.

The eurocommunists represent an abandonment of Marxism-Leninism in favour of reformism and social democracy.They used criticism of the Soviet Union and Stalin, which I'm not denying there was very real reasons to be critical of them, and instead of addressing the criticisms head on, they used it as a cover to abandon from their program a real call for socialism, in favour of social democracy. It was used as an excuse to abandon marxism rather than show themselves as critics of what was going on.

This is pure right opportunism, they have shown themselves to be class callaborators. And I'm not denying they are on the left but they are certainly not Marxists.

Those criticism the social-democratic character of the party are told they are stalinists or other catch all words. They have abandoned a revolutionary road in favour of an electoral road. They will be absolutely inable to cope in a revolutionary situation, they are a politically comprised mass party.

Das war einmal

8th April 2009, 22:17

That is simply because western communists who actually want to make a change and not necessarily be ideologically pure are desperate to disassociate themselves from Stalin, whose reputation in the western world is screwed beyond saving. So, it is not condescending or naïve to not support Stalin. It is required to not support him in order to get an impact upon western society and actually attract people.

It is insane to support Stalin not because he was a totalitarian megalomaniac, but because 95% of westerners consider him to have been a totalitarian megalomaniac. If Euro-communism and the 1968 movement had not appeared, revleft today would most likely only have had anarchist members, and your (stalin-supporting marxist-leninists) numbers would be even smaller.

Same goes for Lenin nowadays. You know they actually started on all communists. So in order to get an impact upon western society and actually attract people, we have to condemn all communists.

Dimentio

8th April 2009, 22:55

Same goes for Lenin nowadays. You know they actually started on all communists. So in order to get an impact upon western society and actually attract people, we have to condemn all communists.

Why not?

Charles Xavier

8th April 2009, 23:13

Why not?

Whats the point of being a communist party when you don't act like a communist party. Join a social democratic one instead.

Bilan

9th April 2009, 00:03

Whats the point of being a communist party when you don't act like a communist party. Join a social democratic one instead.

Acting like (as opposed to being?) a communist does not necessitate watering down, or being sympathetic to someone who identified as communist.
That isn't what communism is. It's not a history tournament, where the winner gets a free ticket to the museum.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th April 2009, 00:25

TAII:

Someone completely misses the point of the thread. That is absolutely what we are not discussing, we are discussing people using Stalin to derail discussions on topics that have nothing to do with Stalin.

I see your optician's appointment is long overdue (even though it's your thread!), since this thread's title is:

When you got nothing better to say, don't say anything at all but STALIN STALIN!

I followed that advice and did not say anything at all but "Stalin Stalin!"

I said:

Why are we discussing this mass murderer and destroyer of the Bolshevik Party?

Would we allow Nazis to defend Hitler?

Doesn't even look like "Stalin Stalin!"

Maybe I don't understand dialectics...:(

Charles Xavier

9th April 2009, 02:49

Acting like (as opposed to being?) a communist does not necessitate watering down, or being sympathetic to someone who identified as communist.
That isn't what communism is. It's not a history tournament, where the winner gets a free ticket to the museum.

I would have no problem with Eurocommunists if it was simply anti-Stalin. I have a problem with eurocommunism because it is economism, reformism, and revisionism, It is a rejection of marxism. They are communists in name only. Fighting against Stalinism was used more for dismantling a socialism than an actual fight against Stalin.

TAII:

I see your optician's appointment is long overdue (even though it's your thread!), since this thread's title is:

I followed that advice and did not say anything at all but "Stalin Stalin!"

I said:

Doesn't even look like "Stalin Stalin!"

Maybe I don't understand dialectics...:(
Why do you resort to flaming instead of contributing to the discussion?

Black Dagger

9th April 2009, 04:33

What does this thread have to do with the learning forum? This forum is not a platform members to whinge about the posting styles or tactics of other members, but "[a] place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues". I understand your frustration but this is not appropriate for the learning forum in any way whatsoever. It's a political rant with a clearly subjective orientation and lacking in any kind of genuine sense of enquiry.

Moved to chit-chat.

GracchusBabeuf

9th April 2009, 04:59

Doesn't not talking about Stalin imply a censorship of Stalin and his crimes? Is RevLeft going to be censored for offensive material against Stalin now? Why are some so afraid of discussing Stalin and what he meant for communism?

Blackscare

9th April 2009, 05:02

I suggest (now that this thread is in chit chat, I have no problem linking to another thread), that you all settle the hostilities by voting for whoever you think would win in a cage match:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cage-match-makhno-t105986/index.html?t=105986

Right now, Makhno and Stalin are neck and neck, but I think you all know who'll win :D

Makhno! :p

Bright Banana Beard

9th April 2009, 05:17

i suggest (now that this thread is in chit chat, i have no problem linking to another thread), that you all settle the hostilities by voting for whoever you think would win in a cage match:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cage-match-makhno-t105986/index.html?t=105986

right now, makhno and stalin are neck and neck, but i think you all know who'll win :d

makhno! :p

stalin stalin!

LOLseph Stalin

9th April 2009, 05:30

I have a problem with eurocommunism because it is economism, reformism, and revisionism, It is a rejection of marxism.

Wait, no. It's the Stalinists rejecting Marxism.

Angry Young Man

9th April 2009, 11:37

The funny thing about this thread is that the main post, while decrying the constant invocation of Stalin, is ENTIRELY ABOUT STALIN. And the single "tag" is... "stalin"! :laugh:

Fixed that for you.

Angry Young Man

9th April 2009, 13:33

:O Somebody changed my tag! I only put on nob cheese! Now it just looks vulgar. Mine was subtle. Only a complete retard would find the new one funny! Well, there's only one thing I can do.

Charles Xavier

9th April 2009, 14:04

This does not belong in chit chat why are you guys trying to destroy this thread so bad? This is a political question on using Stalin and the Soviet Union to dismantle a socialist program, or deep discussion. Shame on you black daggar This is quite insulting that someone changed the tags. Why is the administrative staff so deeply into derailing this thread which is a thread against derailing threads? Its almost ironic.

Those here that are participating in the derailment of the discussion since its been moved to chitchat please restrain yourself. This isn't a spam thread that Black Daggar seemly wants to make it into.

It seems this forum has become a platform for personal agendas of various moderators. I request humbly that the thread be returned to where it belongs. This is a political question, this is a political question that several communist parties went through, using Stalin as a way to dismantle a socialist program to avoid discussion on such a move to social democracy in the socialist movement. Not a spam question. This is the second time there has been meddling in this thread. There is mature discussion going on alongside a group of flamers.

If it does not belong in Learning, put it into politics.

I suggest (now that this thread is in chit chat, I have no problem linking to another thread), that you all settle the hostilities by voting for whoever you think would win in a cage match:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cage-match-makhno-t105986/index.html?t=105986 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../cage-match-makhno-t105986/index.html?t=105986)

Right now, Makhno and Stalin are neck and neck, but I think you all know who'll win :D

Makhno! :p

Please dont engage in the spam that the administrative staff seems to encourage.

Wait, no. It's the Stalinists rejecting Marxism.

Comrade,

You are declaring that Eurocommunism is not reformist? Please clarify your position. Because Eurocommunism has rejected key marxist concepts, has white washed marx, and they used the name and adversary towards Stalin and the Soviet Union to channel their parties into Reformist parties.

Charles Xavier

9th April 2009, 17:03

What about the fact the Soviet Union practiced state capitlism not Communism.

So because they practiced "State capitalism" it is acceptable to embrace reformism? It is acceptable to talk about Stalin when one's agrument fails on another topic.

Like when we have a discussion on the national question, someone doesn't have an answer, they say "YOUR WRONG BECAUSE STALIN!" then proceeds into an argument on whether stalin was good or bad.

apathy maybe

9th April 2009, 17:18

It isn't spam if it's in shit chat!

STALIN SUCKS! STALIN IS DEAD, LONG DIE STALIN!

STALIN = NOB CHEESE (I don't even know that is...)

dez

9th April 2009, 17:39

The funny thing about this thread is that the main post, while decrying the constant invocation of Stalin, is ENTIRELY ABOUT STALIN. And the single "tag" is... "stalin"! :laugh:

I think that it is intentional.
The simple mentioning of the word stalin is enough for a lot of liberals to ignore the content of the thread and go OMG STALIN EBIL STALIN STALIN STALIN EBIL.

Mentioning "middle-class" as if it meant much, "American" as if it was the default and de-facto nationality (lots of folks on RevLeft are from Europe (including the UK and Ireland) and Australia), and "kiddo" as if it were an insult, well all that detracts from your argument.

He could very well have used raging-RATM-listening-western-teenager.

I officially make a new rule similar to Godwin's Law.

GU's rule: "As a RevLeft discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Stalin approaches 1."

And, for those who don't know:
Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet) discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

And the glorious rule is born.

The problem is why stalinists are so sensitive about being called stalinists?

It usually begins like this.

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *long argument*

Some anarchist/trotskyite/whatever troll: HAHAHA, UR STALINIST

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

Stalin Fan-boy/Fan-girl: *RAGE & RANT"

I don't understand why the stalinists even care. It is not like Stalin actually is actual nowadays.

Possibly the problem is not with the usage of the term stalinist per se, but the derailment of the thread and the usage of perceved ad hominems as a way to trash a discussion one has nothing to contribute to.

I find it terribly ironic that in order to complain about individuals invoking Stalin when unnecessary in various threads, you have created an entire thread to discuss Stalin and his appearance in various threads.

You really didn't need to make this thread, the answer to your question is terribly simple.

Stalin is invoked constantly when discussing theories such as communism because Stalin is the primary figurehead of one of the only semi-successful revolutions which adopted the name 'communist.' Given that it is easier to resort to 'big man theory' then analyze historical and material circumstance, is it any wonder that he keeps popping up?

Why do capitalists speak of Adam Smith? Why do Americans idealize Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln? Etc... it's all the same. Now please, close this thread.

- August

Im sorry, I discuss capitalism a lot and I dont see adam smith or washington popping up half as much as stalin does here. And by that logic, marx/engels should pop up a little more than stalin, no?

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I agree with you that Stalin's name is abused in almost every sense by almost every sect of every ideology. I was merely saying that this is to be expected.

- August

Like ad hominems are expected to pop up in any heated discussion, but were they in the right place from scratch?

That is simply because western communists who actually want to make a change and not necessarily be ideologically pure are desperate to disassociate themselves from Stalin, whose reputation in the western world is screwed beyond saving. So, it is not condescending or naïve to not support Stalin. It is required to not support him in order to get an impact upon western society and actually attract people.

It is insane to support Stalin not because he was a totalitarian megalomaniac, but because 95% of westerners consider him to have been a totalitarian megalomaniac. If Euro-communism and the 1968 movement had not appeared, revleft today would most likely only have had anarchist members, and your (stalin-supporting marxist-leninists) numbers would be even smaller.

Alternate history is a *****.
Most marxist-leninists I know hate euro communism with a passion, and despite the appearance of that ideology have managed to organize movements with a certain sense.

Euro-communists provide a recruiting ground for marxist-leninists. If the marxist-leninist large parties had'nt become euro-communist, they would have been obliterated today. Had about 0,2% of the electorate.

The establishment of euro-communism was a direct effect of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia year 1968.

Here, euro-communism degenerated the biggest communist party into a minor party and a center-right populist party.
Call that recruiting ground.

Hoxhaist

9th April 2009, 17:40

Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism plain and simple. It is an opportunistic betrayal of fundamental guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism that seeks to curry the favour of reactionaries and the consent of capitalists. Social Democracy, Trotskyism, and Bernsteinism are the product of counter-revolutionary intimidation of spineless "communists" who still clamor for approval from the class enemy. Of course STALIN is reviled in Western bourgeois circles because he is the enemy of all that capitalism/imperialism stands for, and what more he was successful in crushing them in the USSR and building a successful socialist state

Angry Young Man

9th April 2009, 20:36

It isn't spam if it's in shit chat!

STALIN SUCKS! STALIN IS DEAD, LONG DIE STALIN!

STALIN = NOB CHEESE (I don't even know that is...)

It's smegma: smelly stuff you get when you don't keep your willy clean.

Charles Xavier

9th April 2009, 20:59

It's smegma: smelly stuff you get when you don't keep your willy clean.

Please don't spam. It is Black Daggar who wants you to spam.

Angry Young Man

9th April 2009, 21:07

I was telling someone what smegma is. He didn't know. I was doing a service.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th April 2009, 22:02

TAII:

Why do you resort to flaming instead of contributing to the discussion?

1) You have a very odd idea what constitutes 'flaming'.

2) I admit, what I did was way worse than Stalin's ordering the deaths of tens of thousands of communists -- I am thoroughly ashamed of myself. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/tongue/tongue0015.gif

3) We could say the same of you and your response to my demolition of dialectics in the Philosophy section (and elsewhere).

Cumannach

9th April 2009, 23:36

When some people are arguing against a political position or line, and they can't back up their opposition to it, and are losing the argument, they will bring up the fact that a similar analogous line was taken by the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership, even if the comparison is incredibly obscure or dubious. This then allows them to dismiss the line out of hand without having to make a reasoned argument against it. They were stuck and unable to make a reasoned argument to oppose the particular line, so Stalin is their get out, their escape button from reasoned discussion. This summoning up of the evil Stalin prevents them from losing face and looking stupid, because the mere mention of Stalin's name turns logic and reasoning into hysterical emotion and liberal moralizing. So whoever supports such and such a line is a supporter of mass murder and genocide and evil in general, hence they can be dismissed along with the line. Never mind proof, evidence, reason, logic or rational discussion. According to the dogma, Stalin, and anything connected with him, are wrong, and even more, are so wrong, they demand outbursts of hate and vitriole at their mere mention, regardless of where the logic or evidence stand. It's a faith-based world view.

I have no problem with people bringing up Stalin if it's relevant as long as they make reasoned arguments and quote sources on points of dispute in the discussion. Generally, almost nobody does this, and most of the few that do fail so miserably it's laughable, because most of what people think they know about Stalin, and desperately want to know, is wildly out of touch with historical reality.