Did Stalin have some good ideas?

[Revy]

Regardless of what he did, is there anything he wrote that is redeemable?

[RedArmyUK]

Regardless of what he did, is there anything he wrote that is redeemable?

God knows if he wrote the order to kill anyone from the SS,, but it was one of the better things he did.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Regardless of what he did, is there anything he wrote that is redeemable?

1) His Georgian preface to Kautsky's The Driving Forces and Prospects of the Russian Revolution (1907):

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PKP07.html

2) Marxism and the National Question (1913):

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm

3) Post-revolution aggravation of dem Klassenkampf (but as a transition to the lower phase of communism, not "along with the development of socialism" that is usually interpreted as being directly under that phase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravation_of_class_struggle_under_socialism))

4) Parts of the Programme of the Communist International (if he indeed co-authored that work) that are indeed better than Trotsky's critique or even his Transitional Programme:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/index.htm

5) Reiteration of Kautsky's merger formula in even parts of the infamous Short Course (as noted by historian Lars Lih, he himself did write the parts about the early history):

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/HCPSU39i.html


But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin's What Is To Be Done?

The historic significance of this celebrated book lies in the fact that in it Lenin:

1) For the first time in the history of Marxist thought, laid bare the ideological roots of opportunism, showing that they principally consisted in worshipping the spontaneous working-class movement and belittling the role of Socialist consciousness in the working-class movement;
2) Brought out the great importance of theory, of consciousness, and of the Party as a revolutionizing and guiding force of the spontaneous working-class movement;
3) Brilliantly substantiated the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working-class movement with Socialism;
4) Gave a brilliant exposition of the ideological foundations of a Marxist party.

[Trotsky never reiterated the merger formula in his later years.]

[Cumannach]

"The Foundations of Leninism"

Leninism in a readable concise nutshell.

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm)

"Dialectical and Historical Materialism."

A great basic introduction to Dialectics.

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm)

"The National Question and Leninism"

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm)

"Trotskyism or Leninism"

More trots should read this for a different perspective.

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm)

Last but not least;

"Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm)

[Stalinist]

What do you mean redeemable?
Stalin was a great leader, who fought against the opportunists and Trotsky-fascists, to save the USSR from conspiracy and build socialism.
He managed to get an economy that was in ruins after the civil-war and the imperialist attacks and almost single handedly turn it into the worlds best economy.
The citizens of the USSR enjoyed free healthcare, education, a better standard of living than the west etc. all thanks to the ingenius 5 year plans.

Face it. Stalin created the first socialist state in the world. He also defeated fascism. But my post concerns only the economical side of his contributions.

[bailey_187]

a better standard of living than the west etc.

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a source for this?

[Stalinist]

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a source for this?


I thought this was obvious. Unfortunately it seems like I can't post links.
Just to briefly explain, by West I don't mean "Amerikkka" , but the whole of the capitalists countries.

Also when they make comparisons between the life of the USSR and the West they only seem to count white middle class people, while ignoring the working class, immigrants and minorities, like they don't count for them.

Now I believe that my argument can be more "believable". I recommend another view on Stalin, which can be found on marx2mao dot com.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I thought this was obvious. Unfortunately it seems like I can't post links.
Just to briefly explain, by West I don't mean "Amerikkka" , but the whole of the capitalists countries.

Also when they make comparisons between the life of the USSR and the West they only seem to count white middle class people, while ignoring the working class, immigrants and minorities, like they don't count for them.

Now I believe that my argument can be more "believable". I recommend another view on Stalin, which can be found on marx2mao dot com.

Yeah, little bit of a shame about those 30-40million dead workers too eh?

[Woland]

Yeah, little bit of a shame about those 30-40million dead workers too eh?

Why stop there? I bet you 10 robbo-dollars that you can make a bigger ass out of yourself.

[RedAnarchist]

Why stop there? I bet you 10 robbo-dollars that you can make a bigger ass out of yourself.

How did he make an ass out of himself?

[Woland]

How did he make an ass out of himself?

Well, to be honest, he first put 40-60 million there, though for some reason he edited that out.

[swirling_vortex]

The five year plans did work well for a couple decades and the Soviet's economy was pretty much unaffected by the Depression, mainly because they didn't get entangled within global trade and banking. Lenin (and subsequently Stalin) did prove that you can run a state-controlled economy and have it compete well with capitalist economies. The only problem with the 5 year plans is that as the economy grew larger, its inputs also grew, making it a monumental task for bureaucrats who probably didn't know entirely what they were doing. Had the government been quicker to implement computers and other forms of automation, they may have been able to salvage it. So in that regard I give Lenin and Stalin credit for disproving that only free markets are capable of producing economic growth.

Aside from that though, I don't see him as much of a hero. The CCCP was highly notorious for jailing political prisoners, often with little evidence of their so called "wrongdoing". The sheer amount of loss of human life under the Soviet Union's government doesn't resemble anything close to Marx's definition of a communist society. Just because Stalin fought fascists doesn't mean everything he did was through good intentions.

[STJ]

Stalin is a butcher he is the reason the world hate us communist.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Why stop there? I bet you 10 robbo-dollars that you can make a bigger ass out of yourself.

*yawn* Go ahead, give me some lame ass figure about the few hundred he killed..
..then tell me how they all deserved it 'cause they were part of the 'counter-revolution.'

You Stalinists are as predictable as you are mad! Apologism for tyranny marked the last century, please let's move forward this century. For the sake of our class yeah?

(How many Stalin killed: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin)

[Woland]

Stalin is a butcher he is the reason the world hate us communist.

First of all, the 'world' does not hate communists, you've spent too much time in shit-chat. Then, if Stalin did not exist, you think the bourgeoisie would not hate communists, even though communists and the labour movement has been attacked by them ever since Marx's time? If Stalin didn't exist, they would have found someone else to demonize. Then, I wonder why Stalin is so popular in his own country, especially with the people who actually lived back then. If he was nothing but a 'bloody dictator' I'd think it would be very different.


(How many Stalin killed: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin)

Did you actually read the shit?


There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right. Woland edit- I've seen the archives, and its nothing like that.

Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.
And from the Lower Numbers school:
Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
Cited in Nove:
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.
[Letter]
Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity:
In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
Daniel Chirot:
"Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
"Highest": 40M
Citing:
Conquest: 20M
Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
Medvedev: 40M
Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
[Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
Kulaks: 7M
Gulag: 12M
Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.

Yeah, it makes complete sense. 1 in 3. How the hell did you become a communist in the first place?

[Bright Banana Beard]

*yawn* Go ahead, give me some lame ass figure about the few hundred he killed..
..then tell me how they all deserved it 'cause they were part of the 'counter-revolution.'

You Stalinists are as predictable as you are mad! Apologism for tyranny marked the last century, please let's move forward this century. For the sake of our class yeah?

(How many Stalin killed: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin)
This is hilarious. Funny, because this isn't aim on Stalin, but on counting the death that some source are seriously fucked up. Time Magazine!? Right, they such a reliable source that any source from USSR must be fake because they aint commies or liberal democracy! Too bad anarki can't convinced us.

[Pogue]

Regardless of what he did, is there anything he wrote that is redeemable?

In my view, no. His writings were all his own attempts to justify his own barbaric actions and so have little worth.

[Woland]

In my view, no. His writings were all his own attempts to justify his own barbaric actions and so have little worth.

Yes. Its all up to H-L-V-S now to lead us to true socialism.
-
I've never seen anything in his writing in which he seeks to 'justify' anything.

[el_chavista]

Who wouldn't say that Stalin's and Mao's development of the "aggravation von dem Klassenkampf" in the socialism was premonitory of the later capitalist comeback.

[STJ]

[QUOTE=Woland;1417801]First of all, the 'world' does not hate communists, you've spent too much time in shit-chat. Then, if Stalin did not exist, you think the bourgeoisie would not hate communists, even though communists and the labour movement has been attacked by them ever since Marx's time? If Stalin didn't exist, they would have found someone else to demonize. Then, I wonder why Stalin is so popular in his own country, especially with the people who actually lived back then. If he was nothing but a 'bloody dictator' I'd think it would be very different.


You keep telling yourself those lies enough times and maybe they will come true.

[ComradeOm]

Stalin is a butcher he is the reason the world hate us communist.You are suggesting that certain people did not hate or fear communism before Stalin?

[STJ]

You are suggesting that certain people did not hate or fear communism before Stalin?

No i am not there where certain people before Stalin that feared communism but now after Stalin its the vast magority of people who fear communism.

[Charles Xavier]

Socialism is demonized because it is in opposition to Capitalism.

The majority of these studies are fictionalized, written by people who idealized Franco's fascism or Mussolini.

A lie told often enough become truth.

Stalin's best work was on the National Question.

[skki]

The very foundation of Socialism is that workers should have control over production. This is how Marx saw Socialism, and until the Soviet Union, this is the only way Socialism was seen.

Under Stalin (along with previous and subsequent Soviet leaders) there wasn't a single worker operated production facility. There was instead a strict hierarchy, under which workers were expected to obey whatever rules and orders were passed down, without question. This bears no resemblance to anything Marx wrote about. It does however, bear quite a heavy resemblance to the Capitalist system we are living in now. You have workers doing the actual work, whilst unelected managers and supervisors control them, who in turn are controlled by the ruling party. No democracy. In Capitalist countries at least there are democratic workes unions, and you have the right to protest without losing your job or being sent to jail. In The Soviet Union there were unions, but they had no democratic structure and were controlled entirely by the higher-ups. Strikes and protests were met with imprisonement and supression.

The idea that Stalin's Russia has even the faintest connection with Socialism or Marxism is laughable. It is the exact opposite. Stalin wasn't a Socialist, and neither are you misinformed little dipshits who fetishize him and his State-Capitalist empire. You are nothing but the worst sort of Capitalists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The idea that Stalin's Russia has even the faintest connection with Socialism or Marxism is laughable. It is the exact opposite. Stalin wasn't a Socialist, and neither are you misinformed little dipshits who fetishize him and his State-Capitalist empire. You are nothing but the worst sort of Capitalists.

Stalin played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. I can give them that. Also, the fact that he transformed the Soviet Union into a superpower. Before the revolution, the majority of the population was relying off farming. Lenin brought in a few short term economic plans, but these would have been virtually useless over a long term period. In all honesty there wasn't really much that could have been done until the revolution was spread. Stalin tried to compromise and I have to say that maybe he did make mistakes, but he was stuck in a difficult situation.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. I can give them that. Also, the fact that he transformed the Soviet Union into a superpower. Before the revolution, the majority of the population was relying off farming. Lenin brought in a few short term economic plans, but these would have been virtually useless over a long term period. In all honesty there wasn't really much that could have been done until the revolution was spread. Stalin tried to compromise and I have to say that maybe he did make mistakes, but he was stuck in a difficult situation.

What do you know even a Troskyist can admit he did good.

[LOLseph Stalin]

What do you know even a Troskyist can admit he did good.

Not everything he did was "good". Socialism in one country was still a horrible failure. Socialism is nothing unless it's international.

[Brother No. 1]

Not everything he did was "good".

Did I say that?



Socialism in one country was still a horrible failure.


And Revisionism in the CCCP was perfect.:rolleyes:





Socialism is nothing unless it's international.

Let me ask you something. Could he do anything international at what the state of the CCCP was in when he was General secertary? Revolutions failed,CCCP was in need of help, and Facism was rising. What could he possible Do at that time? He decided to build up the CCCP's industry,farming,culture and try to mkae Socialism there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Who wouldn't say that Stalin's and Mao's development of the "aggravation von dem Klassenkampf" in the socialism was premonitory of the later capitalist comeback.

Could you please clarify with the grammar? :confused:

[skki]

Crediting Stalin with the destruction of Nazi Germany is factually problematic. Stalin sought out non-aggression treaties with the Nazis. Research: Nazi–Soviet Pact, Hitler–Stalin Pact, German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact. These continued a good two years into World War 2, during which those imperealist Capitalists in Britain defied Hitlers wish for non-aggression treaties, with many dying fighting him. Stalin joined the war against the Nazis unwillingly, in an act of self-defense against attacks against his empire. When he had reclaimed Russia and his former territories, he set to use the war against Germany to further his imperealist agenda and gain new colonies to the west. In contrast; When British and American forces liberated countries, they returned them to the population.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin did the Non-agression acts for defenisve purposes. the CCCP at the time was at no where ready for a World War. The CCCP still needed to build up and then Hitler,with his paranoia and hatred for Slavs and Communists, attacked the CCCP. He thought it would be a easiy battle for he thought the people hated Communism,really Socialism there, and that they would support the SS troops. One of his many failures was thta he was too proud and that he underestimated his enemies.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Stalin did the Non-agression acts for defenisve purposes. the CCCP at the time was at no where ready for a World War. The CCCP still needed to build up and then Hitler,with his paranoia and hatred for Slavs and Communists, attacked the CCCP. He thought it would be a easiy battle for he thought the people hated Communism,really Socialism there, and that they would support the SS troops. One of his many failures was thta he was too proud and that he underestimated his enemies.


Hitler was also very determined to take Stalingrad. It was an ego thing. It was "Stalin's city". He pushed his troops to the limits in Stalingrad. It doesn't help that it was also the middle of the winter. The Germans weren't prepared for the cold Russian winter nor did they have all the proper supplies.

[Brother No. 1]

Hitler was also very determined to take Stalingrad. It was an ego thing. It was "Stalin's city".

A big steel vity...yeah I see how he would want to take that. I personaly think Stalingrad means City of steel.


The Germans weren't prepared for the cold Russian winter nor did they have all the proper supplies.

He was to over confident that his "supieor race" would have victory. He was only a good speaker and he basicly sucked at commanding soldiers let alone armies.

[skki]

There is absolutely no indication that Stalin had any intention of attacking the Nazis. And since the Soviet archives are now open, we would probably know if he did. We know he attempted to seek peace with Germany, and that's about it. He did not use the peace-time to build up his army in preperation for an eventual war with Germany, he instead conducted a very wasteful war in Finland and looked to expand his empire elsewhere. He even traded with the Fascists. He even sold them military equipment. A rather strange move to have taken if he really did expect to be at war with Germany at some point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi–Soviet_economic_relations

[Brother No. 1]

Wikipedia....isnt that site run by cappies?

[skki]

....
Are you a troll?

[Bilan]

Stalin had ideas?!

[LOLseph Stalin]

Stalin had ideas?!

Apperently so. They were just incorrect for the conditions of Russia at the time.

[Brother No. 1]

No. Stalins War with Finland I have not research alot but wikipedia is not the best source to find out stuff but its your way. He thought the Facists would keep the deal up to 5 years of peace. Hitler was never to be trusted with deals,soviets didnt know this, and he broke the treaty with the Soviets. funny you have a Che quote when Che supported Stalin. Are you also going to say the peace pact Lenin made with Germany was alot wrong in some way? Lenin knew CCCP had no power to even continue in the first World War. Besides with the Czarist army fighting the Bolsheviks he counldnt fight in 2 fronts at the same time. Stalin couldnt fight both Finland and Nazi germany without losing. The situation at the time was the only choice that wouldnt compeletly destroy the CCCP. Was the CCCP in any condintion to fight the National Socialsit germans?

[Bilan]

Unconfirmed reports, people. Unconfirmed reports.
I've only ever bothered to read one paper by Stalin from start to finish, Marxism vs Anarchism (I think it was called). Terrible.

[skki]

No. Stalins War with Finland I have not research alot but wikipedia is not the best source to find out stuff but its your way. He thought the Facists would keep the deal up to 5 years of peace. Hitler was never to be trusted with deals,soviets didnt know this, and he broke the treaty with the Soviets. funny you have a Che quote when Che supported Stalin. Are you also going to say the peace pact Lenin made with Germany was alot wrong in some way? Lenin knew CCCP had no power to even continue in the first World War. Besides with the Czarist army fighting the Bolsheviks he counldnt fight in 2 fronts at the same time. Stalin couldnt fight both Finland and Nazi germany without losing. The situation at the time was the only choice that wouldnt compeletly destroy the CCCP. Was the CCCP in any condintion to fight the National Socialsit germans?

The wikipedia article I linked to cited a lot of sources for it's claims. So it's pretty reliable.

You are just blindly guessing Stalin's motivations. I have genuine sourced facts backing up my course of events. All the arms deals (that you still haven't addressed) strongly indicate that Stalin didn't expect to go to war with Germany. The war with Finland was totally unnesecary and he was under no pressure to fight it. It was a 100% war of aggression and the Finnish would never be able to attack Russia. Thus he would never be unwillingly put into a position where he was fighting the Finnish and the Germans at the same time. The Finnish didn't want to fight, the Germans did.

I don't much care for Lenin and the Che quote in my sig isz being used to poke fun at the Marxists and Trots who hero-worship Che.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't much care for Lenin and the Che quote in my sig isz being used to poke fun at the Marxists and Trots who hero-worship Che.

I feel like i'm one of the only people here who doesn't like Che.

[skki]

I feel like i'm one of the only people here who doesn't like Che.
I briefly mentioned in one of the first threads I posted in that I don't much care for Che. The rest of the thread was pretty much devoted to bashing me.

So there are others, but we quickly learn to be quiet about it.

[Brother No. 1]

hero-worship Che.

Really must there be worship?

[/quote]You are just blindly guessing Stalin's motivations. I have genuine sourced facts backing up my course of events. All the arms deals (that you still haven't addressed) strongly indicate that Stalin didn't expect to go to war with Germany. The war with Finland was totally unnesecary and he was under no pressure to fight it. It was a 100% war of aggression and the Finnish would never be able to attack Russia. Thus he would never be unwillingly put into a position where he was fighting the Finnish and the Germans at the same time. The Finnish didn't want to fight, the Germans did.[/quote]




He thought the Facists would keep the deal up to 5 years of peace.

Aperrentaly you skiped what I said.

Stalin also asked for Finland to move back its border 25 Kilometers from Leningrad by diplomantic means but they didnt accpet. so he had used diplomantic means and he wanted the border farther away. The War on Finland was for the NonSoviet-German agression act allowed the CCCP to have some sphere of infulence in Eastern Europe which inculded Findland.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg/750px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg)

[LOLseph Stalin]

So there are others, but we quickly learn to be quiet about it.

I will take that as a word of advice. ;)

[Brother No. 1]

I feel like i'm one of the only people here who doesn't like Che.

I can understand your reasons why you dont like him. But Che was a Revoltuionary no more no less.

[robbo203]

Well, to be honest, he first put 40-60 million there, though for some reason he edited that out.


If this is a reference to me perhaps you would care to substantiate this claim. I made no reference to the total numbers butchered by the state capitalist stalinist regime. They were substantial but nothing like the above. Many could not, even by the warped logic of a stalinist, be considered "enemies of the state". 30,000 Red Army soldiers were executed on the orders of Stalin because they lost in battle, for example.

The man was a sicko and his whole regime stank. I would say that the whole disastrous experiment in dictatorial state capitalism has been the single biggest factor in stalling and indeed marginalising the growth of genuine communist ideas. Its a bloody good thing the USSR collapsed. I look forward to seeing the collapse of Red China , North Korea and the rest of these utter frauds. Of course, realistically, the most we can hope for at the moment is some kind of bourgeois demcracy. But at least in a bourgeois democracy the workers have some kind of opportunity to organise politically and economically.

In state capitalist regimes worker resistance to the rule of capital is crushed. I suspect if old Charlie Marx were alive today he would be at the forefront in calling for the overthrow of these regimes. Quite right too.

[Hiero]

Stalin's work on Marxism and the Problem of Linguistics (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm) change linguistic thought in the USSR. The aritcle clarifys where language sits in regards to economic base and super structure.

But the originally question was a bait. Stancel is trolling, it is amazing how deep the anti-Soviet propaganda goes. His works never got to the point where they were unredeemable and have to be redeemed. They have always been classics worthy of education, his stuff on dialectics should be read in conjunction with Marx and Engels. His works on the nation influenced many others including western thought.

Really the question you asked is not a real question at all, because you can easily look up Marxists.org and find Stalin's main works highlighted in black. No matter what we give you I doubt you will read any of them and continue to dwell in your ingorance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Stalin's work on Marxism and the Problem of Linguistics change linguistic thought in the USSR. The aritcle clarifys where language sits in regards to economic base and super structure.

This work is among the very worst ever to have been written even by a pretend Marxist like Stalin, and is only of value to Stalin-groupies like you, who seem to have lost all their critical faculties.

[mosfeld]

Not everything he did was "good". Socialism in one country was still a horrible failure. Socialism is nothing unless it's international.

This has been said a million times, but..

World revolution, which revisionist Trotskyites advocate, will probably never happen because not all countries of the world are all mature for a revolution at once. So we'll settle for socialism in one country but that doesn't mean we'll automatically abandon internationalism like you seem to think, we'll still support revolutions elsewhere in the world, which is what Stalin did.

Just ask Lenin;

"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously." (Lenin, Political Report of the CC to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP, March 7 1918, Collected Works, Vol 27).

[STJ]

Did I say that?





And Revisionism in the CCCP was perfect.:rolleyes:






Let me ask you something. Could he do anything international at what the state of the CCCP was in when he was General secertary? Revolutions failed,CCCP was in need of help, and Facism was rising. What could he possible Do at that time? He decided to build up the CCCP's industry,farming,culture and try to mkae Socialism there.
The Soviet Union was revisionist from the begining you want to show me where Marx said anything about state captilism.

[STJ]

Stalin played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. I can give them that. Also, the fact that he transformed the Soviet Union into a superpower. Before the revolution, the majority of the population was relying off farming. Lenin brought in a few short term economic plans, but these would have been virtually useless over a long term period. In all honesty there wasn't really much that could have been done until the revolution was spread. Stalin tried to compromise and I have to say that maybe he did make mistakes, but he was stuck in a difficult situation.

The reason they where invaded by Nazi Germany was because of all those purges of the military officers that had been done by Stalin.

[LeninBalls]

The reason they where invaded by Nazi Germany was because of all those purges of the military officers that had been done by Stalin.

You musn't have the slightest ounce of knowledge of history if you think the Third Reich invaded the USSR because Stalin killed some officers.

[STJ]

Those purges and the Finnish Soviet war of 1939 where the Soviets got there asses kicked. That was final the nail in the coffin. Read some history books.

[LeninBalls]

Christ, even wiki has the simplest explanation why Hitler invaded the USSR, and you're telling me to read history books.

[Brother No. 1]

The reason they where invaded by Nazi Germany was because of all those purges of the military officers that had been done by Stalin.

Incorrect on so many levels.

The 3rd Reich Invaded the CCCP mainly to "destroy Communism" and to get rid of any oppostion there. They thought all of europe should be their for their were the "superior race" of all mankind. The Slavs to them were "lesser beings" and Hitler was never a guy to trust anyone. He always betrayed his pacts with others. Nazi germany would never care about Soviet problems and only cared about them selfs and their needs.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

If this is a reference to me perhaps you would care to substantiate this claim. I made no reference to the total numbers butchered by the state capitalist stalinist regime. They were substantial but nothing like the above. Many could not, even by the warped logic of a stalinist, be considered "enemies of the state". 30,000 Red Army soldiers were executed on the orders of Stalin because they lost in battle, for example.

The man was a sicko and his whole regime stank. I would say that the whole disastrous experiment in dictatorial state capitalism has been the single biggest factor in stalling and indeed marginalising the growth of genuine communist ideas. Its a bloody good thing the USSR collapsed. I look forward to seeing the collapse of Red China , North Korea and the rest of these utter frauds. Of course, realistically, the most we can hope for at the moment is some kind of bourgeois demcracy. But at least in a bourgeois democracy the workers have some kind of opportunity to organise politically and economically.

In state capitalist regimes worker resistance to the rule of capital is crushed. I suspect if old Charlie Marx were alive today he would be at the forefront in calling for the overthrow of these regimes. Quite right too.

So wait, you think it's a bloody good thing that the USSR collapsed, which is an event that pushed half the country into poverty and unemployment and led to millions of deaths that would have not happened otherwise, and yet you call Stalin a sicko?

[ZeroNowhere]

Its a bloody good thing the USSR collapsed.
Wait, why? That is, what did that accomplish?

[Brother No. 1]

When the CCCP collapsed it only accomplished the spread of Capitalism in eastern Europe and Russia. Only thing it did accomplished it the Elite in Russia gaining power and opressing the people like the Czars.

[Incendiarism]

World revolution, which revisionist Trotskyites advocate, will probably never happen because not all countries of the world are all mature for a revolution at once. So we'll settle for socialism in one country but that doesn't mean we'll automatically abandon internationalism like you seem to think, we'll still support revolutions elsewhere in the world, which is what Stalin did.

This is rather unfair, don't you think?

I believe to understand Trotsky's line of thought you must necessarily see it through the context of his time, and not in the abstract. The first half of the 20th century contained some of the most opportune instances of action that we have seen hitherto, and these opportunities were senselessly crushed by the USSR - for what?

That said, I don't completely dislike Stalin and have brought myself to defend him when I feel the criticism falls beyond the boundaries of reason. It doesn't mean he was always right.

[Os Cangaceiros]

we'll still support revolutions elsewhere in the world, which is what Stalin did.

You mean like how he "supported" the revolutionaries in Spain and Greece? :rolleyes:

[Cumannach]

Hiero:



This work is among the very worst ever to have been written even by a pretend Marxist like Stalin, and is only of value to Stalin-groupies like you, who seem to have lost all their critical faculties.

What would you know about Marxist writing? You can't even understand basic Dialectics.

[Holden Caulfield]

In my view, no. His writings were all his own attempts to justify his own barbaric actions and so have little worth.

wrong, he did some good stuff, Jacob posted a few.
His writing on the national question and some other issues were pretty sound (until he got into power and ignored it all obviously)