Anti-revisionists only

[Idealism]

Because i want an answer to this, with out the discussion immediately degenerating in to Trotskyite vs. anti-revisionist flames; anti-revisionists only. I have 2 questions for you guys:
1. How did you start to think that people like stalin were good? (meaning prove to me that people like stalin or mao are good)
2. what differs Anti-revisionist theory, besides the view of history, from other stands of marxism such as trotskyism?

[Ismail]

1. We believe that Stalin was a genuine Communist regardless of the mistakes he made (and we do believe he made mistakes, though not in the way most would think). Since you're an anarchist, I'd need to prove to you that Lenin was a genuine Communist first and foremost.
2. Well, Anti-Revisionism is generally just Marxism-Leninism or at least the belief that after Stalin the USSR quickly degenerated and the successive leaders were anti-Communist. There's two branches of it:
a) the pro-Mao branch (Maoism)
b) the pro-Hoxha branch (Hoxhaism)

The Maoist branch is, well, Maoism. Back in the late 1970's when the Hoxhaist movement formed, it split off from the Maoists who back then were generally slavishly pro-Mao and China and upheld every single thing Mao said, such as, most notoriously, the Three Worlds Theory which Hoxha condemned as contrary to Marxism and Leninism (and he also condemned the Cultural Revolution). Today however, Maoism is split into 'orthodox' strands (Mao was glorious, Jiang Qing should have taken power, Cultural Revolution was closest a state has gotten to socialism) and anti-revisionist strands (Mao was good, but there were no good successors, Jiang Qing was ultra-left and Deng Xiaoping was a rightist, Cultural Revolution was generally positive but handled badly), and there's little difference between Hoxhaists and the latter Maoists today.

I suppose it's better to just start off with why Khrushchev and his successors were not Communists. Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html) is a good read, as is On Khrushchev's Phony Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm), with Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm) being yet another good read.

There's a third 'anti-revisionist' faction but it's little more than "Oh, yeah, those condemnations by Khrushchev of Stalin were bad, but the Soviet Union was still a good state" but both Maoists and Hoxhaists are against them.

If you want a pro-Stalin work, then Another View of Stalin is pretty much the standard. (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html)

[Cumannach]

Because i want an answer to this, with out the discussion immediately degenerating in to Trotskyite vs. anti-revisionist flames; anti-revisionists only. I have 2 questions for you guys:
1. How did you start to think that people like stalin were good? (meaning prove to me that people like stalin or mao are good)
2. what differs Anti-revisionist theory, besides the view of history, from other stands of marxism such as trotskyism?

1. The same way I came to think Marx or Lenin were 'good': By listening to what the people that were defending Stalin, were actually saying- by giving them a fair hearing.

If there are two different groups of people, one claiming that communism is evil, and backing it up with their arguments, and another group claiming that communism is justice, and making their own arguments, the only reasonable way to form your own opinion is to listen to the arguments of both sides, test their opposite claims against each other, see which holds out better, which is more credible and which more accords with the facts as you perceive them, then make your judgment, and accept the claim of one group or the other group (or neither if they're both nonsense).

There's no reason to be afraid to read something just because it contradicts something you've read before. If you're confident of what you already know, what can you lose by listening to someone who says they know otherwise?

If you want someone to 'prove Stalin was good' to you, you should read some anti-revisionist literature, like the link the above comrade posted.

That book, although not very long, goes into detail. If you want a first introduction to the anti-revisionist arguments for Stalin try reading this

http://www.btinternet.com/~fountain/stalin/index.html (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efountain/stalin/index.html)

It's an introduction to a book of Stalin's most important writing, by Bruce Franklin.