Moved from the animal farm thread in lit and film

[Cumannach]

You act like you calling me a revisionist is going to make my hair fall out. I frankly don't care what someone who appears to put his dick in a blender whenever someone even references a single potentially negative thing Stalin did. What you have done by ignoring all my points is claim that:
1) Everyone who was killed during Stalin's purges deserved to die and the progress of socialism required massive destruction of life.
2) Joseph Stalin had the interests of the working class totally in mind and all police state measures were totally necessary.
3) Industrial innovation is imperative, whereas human life is secondary.

You've spent a good three or so posts totally ignoring the bulk of my posts, and instead insist on calling me a revisionist and telling me I worship Animal Farm, when in truth, it appears you cannot even acknowledge a single criticism of Stalin, as you assume he was a totally perfect leader who deserves idolization; any and all criticism of him being anti-communist and revisionist. So, Detective, since you've done such a good job earning that title, why don't you save your sectarian pouting for later and address some of the very real points that people have been bringing up?

You didn't make any real points, just your usual long drawn out waffling.

The 'criticisms' you've made in your last few posts are not compatible with anti-revisionism. I really don't think you understand what anti-revisionism means, somehow, although it's not a complicated thing- try reading the group statement again.


I'm an anti-revisionist. I uphold that Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union under him promoted massive industrial development and had it been continued by the working class, it would have promoted revolutionary change and consistent development.That's not anti-revisionism. Anti-revisionism upholds the belief that the Soviet Union was socialist.

"Anti-revisionism is based on the view that the Soviet Union successfully implemented Marxism-Leninism during approximately the first thirty years of its existence"

If these revisionist positions you've expressed are the points you're talking about that you want addressed, there are several ongoing threads discussing the Stalin period.

For an anti-revisionist criticisms of Stalin do not mean questioning socialist construction, only learning from the few mistakes that were made along the way of the successful exercise of socialism.

An example of a criticism would be, ' Did Stalin try hard enough to preserve party and state democracy?' 'Did Stalin go too easy on the kulaks?' 'Did he go too hard on them?' 'Should he have rehabilitated them?' 'Was Stalin vigorous enough in trying to reign in the excesses of the collectivization, or the mistakes of the purges?' 'Was he too vigorous?' 'Did Stalin adequately prepare the Red Army and the country for the war?' 'Did he adopt the best tactics and strategy for the coming conflict?' 'Did he make sure the right resources were allocated properly? 'Did he give too much support to foreign countries, when it was dangerous to the Soviets to do so?' 'Was he reckless in that regard?' 'Did he not give enough support, was he reticent?' 'Should he done more to support the Greek communists, or was he too openly supportive of european communists, to the possible detriment of world peace'?
etc

Also you really need grow up just a little and stop behaving like a kid, this kind of swearing and insults doesn't help you in a discussion, they make you look like an angry teenager.

[Kassad]

Again, more ignorance towards my questions. No answers, but instead, rants and babble with no real substance. Anti-revisionists do not claim to be uncritical of Stalin, but when many of them are asked about things he may have failed to do, they never acknowledge that things were not utopian in the Soviet Union. The points I raise are not revisionist. You are merely dogmatic.

[KC]

Really, the only argument that the Purges were widely exaggerated is supported by the Soviet Archives, so of course it's going to deny killings and such.

The Great Purges were exploited numerous times as a propaganda measure to prevent any attempt at raising an opposition to Stalin's line. It was used after World War 2, for example, for this purpose.


Socialist, I'm an anti-revisionist. I uphold that Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union under him promoted massive industrial development and had it been continued by the working class, it would have promoted revolutionary change and consistent development.

That's not what an anti-revisionist is. Hell, even I recognize the benefits that happened under Stalin's rule, as do most Trotskyists. Does that make me an anti-revisionist?

[Kassad]

Maybe my political affiliations need some re-evaluation, for if it is mandatory to unconditionally praise Stalin's regime and to ignore any negative aspects for fear of being called a 'revisionist', then maybe this isn't the ideology I believed it was. Anti-revisionists claim to shatter the myths about Stalin, Mao Tsetung and others, but in the process, it appears that they have become so dogmatic that they fail to embrace the rational thinking they promote.

[KC]

Maybe my political affiliations need some re-evaluation, for if it is mandatory to unconditionally praise Stalin's regime and to ignore any negative aspects for fear of being called a 'revisionist', then maybe this isn't the ideology I believed it was. Anti-revisionists claim to shatter the myths about Stalin, Mao Tsetung and others, but in the process, it appears that they have become so dogmatic that they fail to embrace the rational thinking they promote.

You're starting to sound like a Trotskyist.:p

[communard resolution]

Maybe my political affiliations need some re-evaluation, for if it is mandatory to unconditionally praise Stalin's regime and to ignore any negative aspects for fear of being called a 'revisionist', then maybe this isn't the ideology I believed it was. Anti-revisionists claim to shatter the myths about Stalin, Mao Tsetung and others, but in the process, it appears that they have become so dogmatic that they fail to embrace the rational thinking they promote.

Whether you remain an anti-revisionist or end up in another camp, I think your approach is examplary. Posters like you make me want to re-evaluate the Stalin period myself. I cannot say that the choleric rants and one-sided apologisms of certain other anti-revisionists have the same effect on me - they just strike me as cynical.

[rednordman]

That's not what an anti-revisionist is. Hell, even I recognize the benefits that happened under Stalin's rule, as do most Trotskyists. Does that make me an anti-revisionist?:confused:From what I have read from alot of the trotskyists on this forum, praising any part of the bolskeviks reign does indeed make you anti-revisionist. As does praising practically any socialist republic and revolution in history.

Looking at this thread develop it is quite obvious that it is simply another Everyone Vs Stalinists one. Though it is easy to go nuts against the Stalinist faction, I will admit that BOTH sides to this argument have made good points.

Though I do love the authors work. To deny that the book is made for anti-communist purposes is silly. The real question is whether Orwell actually understood this while writing it. This is why I see him as being a bt of a tragic philosopher in a way. Though its a very good story that is very thought provoking, regardless of what message he was trying to put across, it has undoubtable done more harm than good to the socialist movement throughout history.

Like it or not, the average person is not going to simply read it, and get the trotskyist perspect, and there probably not going to dismiss the likeness of the Napolean to Stalin either. In fact the book is that successfull and well written, I bet a huge majority of people who have read it have quite literally closed the book as well as there own hopes for socialism too.

This is the blantant reason why, worldwide it is read in schools. There is no way that schools want children to understand the anti-revisionist or the troskyist perspective, simple as. To be brutally honest, it is WAY to easy for people to tilt the story to fit the capitalist democracy agenda, whether it was meant for that or not. This is why whether the story was designed to criticise stalinism or not, in the eyes of the capitalists, its taken everything else that opposes capitalism with it. And they are the ones who have the monopoly over the media and in many ways public perception (real or fabrication).

For the most part, I think Orwell was a good socialist, but he tried too hard to fight against the authoritarians (fair play to him, but he didnt forsee the consequences), and ended up giving the anti-communists a very powerfull present.

[Cumannach]

Again, more ignorance towards my questions.
You don't even know your own positions, you can't expect anyone else to.

No answers, but instead, rants and babble with no real substance. Anti-revisionists do not claim to be uncritical of Stalin, but when many of them are asked about things he may have failed to do, they never acknowledge that things were not utopian in the Soviet Union. The points I raise are not revisionist. If you want to discuss the issues of anti-revisionism please post in the relevant threads. There's actually a sticky for Stalin in one forum.

Maybe my political affiliations need some re-evaluation, for if it is mandatory to unconditionally praise Stalin's regime and to ignore any negative aspects for fear of being called a 'revisionist', then maybe this isn't the ideology I believed it was.
This time, be sure to actually inform yourself of the political and theoretical positions of the tendency you think you're aligning with.

Anti-revisionists claim to shatter the myths about Stalin, Mao Tsetung and others, but in the process, it appears that they have become so dogmatic that they fail to embrace the rational thinking they promote.No it doesn't appear they've become dogmatic. An example of dogmatism is clinging to the wild exaggerations in the undocumented, fabricated claims of professional anti-communists about the numbers prosecuted during the purges, even after the secret state archives have been opened to researchers, and these myths, which in any case were never backed up by evidence of any kind, have been exposed for what they are- propaganda. Wasn't that one of the things you did above?

[Brother No. 1]

Anti-revisionists claim to shatter the myths about Stalin, Mao Tsetung and others, but in the process, it appears that they have become so dogmatic that they fail to embrace the rational thinking they promote.

Sometimes they do sometimes they stop before they become full. It happens in the AR camp and it happens in other camps.





Hell, even I recognize the benefits that happened under Stalin's rule, as do most Trotskyists. Does that make me an anti-revisionist?

No but it does mean that you actually SEE the benifits that have happened when Stalin was in power but you also see the mistakes he has made and even I know Stalin made mistakes. Lenin,Mao,ect they all made mistakes as we humans tend to do.



Posters like you make me want to re-evaluate the Stalin period myself.

That is one of the goals of the AR camp is for people to Re-evaluate how Stalin was in the CCCP.


I cannot say that the choleric rants and one-sided apologisms of certain other anti-revisionists have the same effect on me - they just strike me as cynical.

All camps have this type of people. Wether Anarchist,Troskyist,Anti-Revisionist,ect there are some people like that. No camp is perfect like we huamns arent perfect but it would be better if we didnt have people like that.

[Kassad]

Cheers to Cumannach for being the first person added to my ignore list.

Polish Soviet, I'm very aware of the positive things that rose from Stalin's time in power in the Soviet Union, but I'm tired of the babble that claims that authentic socialism was being practiced when people were still unemployed, living in poverty and without comprehensive education or healthcare. Like I said, it seems like we had developing socialism. In Cuba, illiteracy has been totally done away with, healthcare and education are comprehensive, all people have shelter and a workers democracy is in full effect in the workplace and in the legislature. Here, we have authentic socialism, in my opinion. I don't want to debate Cuba because this is not the place, but we seem to have no real regard for the differences between socialism and developing socialism. This does not mean I think Stalin was totally wrong in all issues, but merely the fact that he was developing socialism with many mistakes that need to be documented.

No one can claim there was authentic socialism in the Soviet Union because there was not total workers control. Sorry. That's where the story ends. There was not total workers democracy or comprehensive revolutionary reforms. There was not a total destruction of economic and social hierarchy. With these things still in place, socialism is not totally in effect. I won't come near the idea that it was 'state capitalist' or anything like that, as I believe the Soviet Union was on a steady path towards socialism during Lenin, but during Stalin's reign, there were significant errors made that were bureaucratic and anti-worker, followed by the destructive revisionism of leaders after Stalin.

Unless you take note of this, you are just mindlessly babbling. Not you specifically, Polish Soviet, but referring to all those who cling to the idea that authentic socialism was totally in effect.

[Brother No. 1]

I won't come near the idea that it was 'state capitalist' or anything like that,

Mostly that is what the Anarchist camp thinks for the Soviet state,wether under Lenin or Stalin, was bad and opressed the people.

[Glenn Beck]

Maybe my political affiliations need some re-evaluation, for if it is mandatory to unconditionally praise Stalin's regime and to ignore any negative aspects for fear of being called a 'revisionist', then maybe this isn't the ideology I believed it was. Anti-revisionists claim to shatter the myths about Stalin, Mao Tsetung and others, but in the process, it appears that they have become so dogmatic that they fail to embrace the rational thinking they promote.

Combating myths or oversimplifications disseminated about the historical eras of Stalin and Mao's leadership isn't an ideological affiliation, it's called not being an intellectually dishonest and/or misinformed asshole.

I've seen Trotskyists, Left Communists, and even anarchists do it. In fact the first person I ever heard make an argument questioning the characterization of the famine during the Great Leap Forward as mass murder or genocide was a good friend of mine that happens to be a lifelong anarchist and a Tibet sympathiser.

We should never let ideological affiliations get in the way of carefully weighed judgments made in good faith, though disagreement is inevitable dishonest discussion should not be.

[The Author]

Yes, Stalin made mistakes, as did Lenin, Hoxha, Mao, etc. What everyone seems to forget is that the problems of the Soviet government are not attributable to just one man. There were thousands of workers, thousands of cadres involved in running the country and making achievements and mistakes. People just like to lump all of the problems together as "oh, but this was Stalin's fault!" And where the hell are the administrative officials who actually ran the country in this picture?

There is no such thing as "the Stalin period," or "the Stalin regime." For people who call themselves Marxists and communists, you all have a nasty habit of limiting criticism and analysis to the "Great Man" theory. Think in terms of the entire administration of the Soviet state, never just the actions of one individual head!


Polish Soviet, I'm very aware of the positive things that rose from Stalin's time in power in the Soviet Union, but I'm tired of the babble that claims that authentic socialism was being practiced when people were still unemployed, living in poverty and without comprehensive education or healthcare. Like I said, it seems like we had developing socialism.

But that is what socialism is. Socialism is the transitory phase ("Communism, the First Phase," according to Marx) between capitalism and communism. It is the period of social development inheriting all of the defects of capitalism and trying to overcome those defects and shortcomings, and developing the economic, political, and cultural forces of society in transitioning to communism- or "Communism, the Second Phase," as Marx would put it. Socialism will of course have its serious defects to be overcome. Marx and Lenin stated this would be a problem. Any communist who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves. It is not socialism that we are aiming for, it is communism. Communists also fool themselves when they start telling you that the transition will be a smooth, easy one. It is most certainly not easy, and it certainly will not be painless. To quote Lenin,


...it is not hard to see that during transition from capitalism to Socialism a dictatorship is necessary for two main reasons. In the first place, it is impossible to conquer and destroy capitalism without the merciless suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, who cannot be at once deprived of their wealth, of their advantages in organization and knowledge, and who will, therefore, during quite a long period inevitably attempt to overthrow the hateful (to them) authority of the poor. Secondly, every great revolution, especially a Socialist revolution, even if there were no external war, is inconceivable without an internal war, with thousands and millions of cases of wavering and of desertion from one side to the other, and with a state of the greatest uncertainty, instability and chaos. And, of course, all elements of decay of the old order, inevitably very numerous and connected largely with the petty bourgeoisie (for the petty bourgeoisie is the first victim of every war and every crisis) cannot fail to “give themselves away” during such a profound transformation. And these elements of decay cannot appear otherwise than through the increase of crimes, ruffianism, bribery, speculation and other indecencies. It takes time. and an iron hand to get rid of this.

There never was a great revolution in history in which the people have not instinctively felt this and have not displayed a salutary firmness, shooting thieves on the spot. The trouble with the previous revolutions was this—that the revolutionary zeal of the masses, which kept them vigilant and gave them strength to suppress mercilessly the elements of decay, did not last long. The social, the class cause of such weakness of revolutionary zeal lay in the weakness of the proletariat, which is the only class capable (if sufficiently numerous, conscious and disciplined) of attracting the majority of the exploited toilers (the majority of the poor, if we should use a simpler and more popular expression) and of retaining the power for a sufficiently long time to suppress completely both all exploiters and all elements of decay.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/soviets.htm


I believe the Soviet Union was on a steady path towards socialism during Lenin, but during Stalin's reign, there were significant errors made that were bureaucratic and anti-worker, followed by the destructive revisionism of leaders after Stalin.But there were significant errors made that were bureaucratic and anti-worker "during Lenin" as well as the steady path, and there was a steady path as well as errors "during Stalin." What is important to realize here is that there were contradictions- antagonistic relations- that had carried over from the capitalist period and were constantly being confronted and fought to overcome. There were successes, defeats, mistakes. There were struggles.

But that does not mean the USSR was a "deformed workers' state" or a "state capitalist regime." Those are convenient slogans used by the "left" opposition while dodging the fact that, yes, there will be problems in the socialist transition from capitalism to communism, and that merely sitting by and whining and writing polemical articles- as has been done for a century and a half by these clowns- is not the answer.

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist and a dialectical materialist who likes to make a habit of studying the problems and shortcomings, in the hopes of finding ways to overcome them.