For Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists

[Idealism]

Oaky, this is not meant to be an attack, it is because im truly curious; in your support for Stalin, why do you think there are so many Anti-Stalinists on the Left? Are they all believers of bourgeois propaganda? A list, i know from wikipedia; but it gets the point across: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are they all believers of bourgeois propaganda?

Apperently so. :rolleyes:

[Brother No. 1]

why do you think there are so many Anti-Stalinists on the Left?

Well lets see...Anarchists werent to fond of Joseph Stalin and niether were Trotskyists, obviously, and others of the left dont like Stalin for his actions and think he brought the CCCP down, brought State Capitalist,ect... But the term Stalinists is basicly an attack its-self. It imples that we Marxist-Leninists, who are Anti-Revisionists, worship Joseph Stalin like some god. Do you honestly believe we Maxist-Leninists are cultists? We follow a different branch of the left like the Marxist and Anarchists do.




i know from wikipedia;

Wikipedia isnt the best place to get facts for it is run by cappies and anyone can say anything on there.



Are they all believers of bourgeois propaganda?

"In conflict only the winner writes history." Stalin did make mistakes but the Capitalists sometimes over-exagerate the estimations of his failures like they do with Mao,Lenin,ect...

[ls]

"In conflict only the winner writes history." Stalin did make mistakes but the Capitalists sometimes over-exagerate the estimations of his failures like they do with Mao,Lenin,ect...

So that's a yes to his question then? :rolleyes:

[Idealism]

Wikipedia isnt the best place to get facts for it is run by cappies and anyone can say anything on there.


I understand that, but this page outlays the different leftist groups that opposed stalin; and is easily accessible.

[LOLseph Stalin]

But the term Stalinists is basicly an attack its-self. It imples that we Marxist-Leninists, who are Anti-Revisionists, worship Joseph Stalin like some god.

Let's see. Trotskyists must worship Trotsky then, and Maoists must worship Mao, so on and so on...

[Brother No. 1]

Let's see. Trotskyists must worship Trotsky then, and Maoists must worship Mao, so on and so on...

Now speaking did Stalin ever say he was a Stalinist? for speaking Trotskyists are named like they are for Trotsky made a theory of Socialism through his ideas. Did Stalin ever do that? No he was a Marxist-Leninist. Mao created Maoism another form of Socialism thorugh his ideas. If a name is there then the most commonthing here on the left Ism ot Ist then that person created that theory. But Stalinist is used as a insult because of the Personality cult. Or have Trotskyists forgotten what they use on us poor "Stalinists" in most arguements?

[Cumannach]

Mensheviks will always be numerous

[LOLseph Stalin]

No he was a Marxist-Leninist.


But Stalinist is used as a insult because of the Personality cult.

I see Anti-Revisionism completely separate from Marxism-Leninism. Also, Stalin had his own ideas about Communism just like Trotsky and Mao so I feel it's fair to call his ideas "Stalinism". It's no different from calling Trotsky's ideas Trotskyism or Mao's ideas Maoism.

[Sean]

This was directed towards anti-revisionist/marxist leninists. Pipe down Trots, and let them answer a question directed at them.:)

[F9]

Please answer the questions the OP made, and stop turning it to conversations.This is basically attended to non-M-L that have responded in here, last warning, if you do it again , then further administrative action should and will be taken, please, if the question isnt attended to you, just dont answer, i dont think thats too hard!

Edit:Lol Sean :p

Fuserg9:star:

[Sean]

^Hivemind.

[Kassad]

Oh, children, children. Does one person on this website comprehend revolutionary leadership? Respecting a leader or a revolutionary is not cultish. Leninists do not get off to pictures of Lenin, just like Anarchists don't sing 'Hare Krishna' around potraits of Bakunin. Revolutionary leadership is realizing that someone or some group is incredibly adept at what they do and the things they organize. With the Bolsheviks, Lenin has the ability to reach out to the masses and the working class to promote organization. In China, Mao Zedong led the struggle against reactionaries and bourgeois fascists. You have to recognize revolutionary leadership if you ever want to understand revolutionary politics.

Anyway, as much as the ignorant masses would like to proclaim, Anti-Revisionists do not worship Stalin. Of course there's a lot of anti-Stalin on the left. But there's also a lot of anti-Trotsky. A lot of anti-Obama. A lot of anti-everyone. That doesn't mean that just because a figure is not universally accepted, he must be repudiated. The Soviet Union under Stalin saw massive industrial development and incredible military growth that sustained the massive onslaught of the Nazi military. I like to ask people to close their eyes and imagine if Stalin and Hitler never clashed. Imagine if Hitler focused all his energy on Western Europe and left the Soviet Union completely alone. They'd be speaking German over there, that's for fucking sure.

To the original poster, it sounds like you've been reading my posts. I often claim that those who are anti-Stalin are subscribing to bourgeois propaganda. This is not totally true, but it has a valid notion that needs recognized. Take Noam Chomsky, for example. Chomsky has written some good stuff on imperialism and the media's hegemony in the United States. It's ironic, though, because despite his incredible anti-imperialist stance, he totally ignores the imperialist factors in the Soviet Union. Ask yourself, was the Soviet Union threatened consistently since the moment the Bolsheviks took power? Was it attacked by military powers? Was it not an under-industrialized nation that would have been destroyed, had Lenin and Stalin not industrialized and prepared the state for military assault? Would we have preferred that Stalin allow the Soviet Union to remain impoverished and watch Hitler's war machine march through the entire nation?

Chomsky, as we see, totally ignores imperialism's role in the development of the Soviet Union. As do most others. It is total bourgeois propaganda to come out and claim that 'Communism failed in the Soviet Union' without acknowleding why. It wasn't because of an ideological flaw in Marxism, but it was instead colonial and imperialist threats from the capitalist world that forced the Soviet Union to focus on its military to such an extent that workers and the proletariat were not the prime centers of attention. It was literally a choice between enacting socialism without industrial development and allowing Germany to destroy and disunify the entire nation, or industrialize and keep the state alive. Stalin chose the latter to sustain Soviet development and had his policies continued to be strengthened and not impeded by revisionism, the Soviet Union would have become a massive, self-sustainable power that would properly enact socialist reforms.

Therefore, we must see the factors that played out in the Soviet Union and not totally accept the bourgeois notions that 'Marxism' and 'Communism' are ideologically flawed. If anything, it is the capitalist oppression and destructive hegemony of the bourgeoisie that is flawed, as it decimated entire nations and groups in the interest of profit. The Soviet Union was a threat to corporate profit and imperialist gains, so it had to go.

[Idealism]

Oh, children, children. Does one person on this website comprehend revolutionary leadership? Respecting a leader or a revolutionary is not cultish. Leninists do not get off to pictures of Lenin, just like Anarchists don't sing 'Hare Krishna' around potraits of Bakunin. Revolutionary leadership is realizing that someone or some group is incredibly adept at what they do and the things they organize. With the Bolsheviks, Lenin has the ability to reach out to the masses and the working class to promote organization. In China, Mao Zedong led the struggle against reactionaries and bourgeois fascists. You have to recognize revolutionary leadership if you ever want to understand revolutionary politics.

Anyway, as much as the ignorant masses would like to proclaim, Anti-Revisionists do not worship Stalin. Of course there's a lot of anti-Stalin on the left. But there's also a lot of anti-Trotsky. A lot of anti-Obama. A lot of anti-everyone. That doesn't mean that just because a figure is not universally accepted, he must be repudiated. The Soviet Union under Stalin saw massive industrial development and incredible military growth that sustained the massive onslaught of the Nazi military. I like to ask people to close their eyes and imagine if Stalin and Hitler never clashed. Imagine if Hitler focused all his energy on Western Europe and left the Soviet Union completely alone. They'd be speaking German over there, that's for fucking sure.

To the original poster, it sounds like you've been reading my posts. I often claim that those who are anti-Stalin are subscribing to bourgeois propaganda. This is not totally true, but it has a valid notion that needs recognized. Take Noam Chomsky, for example. Chomsky has written some good stuff on imperialism and the media's hegemony in the United States. It's ironic, though, because despite his incredible anti-imperialist stance, he totally ignores the imperialist factors in the Soviet Union. Ask yourself, was the Soviet Union threatened consistently since the moment the Bolsheviks took power? Was it attacked by military powers? Was it not an under-industrialized nation that would have been destroyed, had Lenin and Stalin not industrialized and prepared the state for military assault? Would we have preferred that Stalin allow the Soviet Union to remain impoverished and watch Hitler's war machine march through the entire nation?

Chomsky, as we see, totally ignores imperialism's role in the development of the Soviet Union. As do most others. It is total bourgeois propaganda to come out and claim that 'Communism failed in the Soviet Union' without acknowleding why. It wasn't because of an ideological flaw in Marxism, but it was instead colonial and imperialist threats from the capitalist world that forced the Soviet Union to focus on its military to such an extent that workers and the proletariat were not the prime centers of attention. It was literally a choice between enacting socialism without industrial development and allowing Germany to destroy and disunify the entire nation, or industrialize and keep the state alive. Stalin chose the latter to sustain Soviet development and had his policies continued to be strengthened and not impeded by revisionism, the Soviet Union would have become a massive, self-sustainable power that would properly enact socialist reforms.

Therefore, we must see the factors that played out in the Soviet Union and not totally accept the bourgeois notions that 'Marxism' and 'Communism' are ideologically flawed. If anything, it is the capitalist oppression and destructive hegemony of the bourgeoisie that is flawed, as it decimated entire nations and groups in the interest of profit. The Soviet Union was a threat to corporate profit and imperialist gains, so it had to go.

So is that a yes, they are all believers in bourgeois propaganda?

[Kassad]

So is that a yes, they are all believers in bourgeois propaganda?

Not directly and intentionally, but they definitely propagate a lot of the same general theories and statements that bourgeois scholars and capitalis media figures promote.

[Wanted Man]

Oaky, this is not meant to be an attack, it is because im truly curious; in your support for Stalin, why do you think there are so many Anti-Stalinists on the Left? Are they all believers of bourgeois propaganda? A list, i know from wikipedia; but it gets the point across: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left
They are lots of groups, but not a lot of people. I don't know if they are "all believers in bourgeois propaganda", that sounds like a very bourgeois idealist way of putting it in the first place.

To be honest, this question can be extended to pretty much all political movements. Liberals, conservatives and libertarians are against fascism. Why are there so many anti-fascists on the right? Are they all believers of marxist propaganda? Stalinists, anarchists and maoists are all against trotskyism, why are there so many anti-trotskyists on the left? Are they all believers of stalinist propaganda?

[F9]

Actually trashed my stupidity and cleared the thread from the other posts too.Again sorry Idealism!

[Idealism]

Actually trashed my stupidity and cleared the thread from the other posts too.Again sorry Idealism!

It's fine, mistakes happen, No worries. :)

[Idealism]

The reason why im asking by the way, is because of looking into this belief in history; that completely challenges what i had thought before, and is rejected widely by most people (in America). On one hand, if i say Stalin was a dictator, then why are my comrades supporting him? they have no reason to support a dictator, so this leads me to believe that he is not. On the other hand, if it is true that he did help build socialism and was a loyal Marxist-Leninist, how am i supposed to believe that my comrades are against him? why are so many historians against him? this leads to believe that i am mistaken in the idea that he was such a person. So you see, it is because I see very conflicting ideas, both from people who i see as my comrades, as people i can trust.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The reason why im asking by the way, is because of looking into this belief in history; that completely challenges what i had thought before, and is rejected widely by most people (in America). On one hand, if i say Stalin was a dictator, then why are my comrades supporting him? they have no reason to support a dictator, so this leads me to believe that he is not. On the other hand, if it is true that he did help build socialism and was a loyal Marxist-Leninist, how am i supposed to believe that my comrades are against him? why are so many historians against him? this leads to believe that i am mistaken in the idea that he was such a person. So you see, it is because I see very conflicting ideas, both from people who i see as my comrades, as people i can trust.

Welcome to politics. Really, you just have to make your own conclusions.

In my opinion, its not as simple as for example "was Stalin a dictator or not"; this kind of black and white analysis is pointless and doesn't get to the point. The point being whether or not Stalin's actions left a positive impression for the development of socialism in the USSR. I think for the most part his actions had positive effects, but he definitely was not perfect. Not only is it analytically weak to view a person with such black and white standards; its also incorrect to assume that one man comprised the political makeup of a point in time. Stalin certainly had power, but it wasn't absolute, and nor was he superhuman; everyone has their limits.

Anti-Revisionists see the Soviet Union developing on a path towards socialism during Stalin's leadership. As evidenced by the economic and social development seen in the Soviet Union during this time, as well as the suppression (yet seemingly failed suppression) of bourgeois influence on society. Really, that's what it get's down to. Of course the Soviet Union wasn't perfect, and it didn't fit the compartmentalized views of some revolutionaries....but when has an ideology put into practice been the absolute perfect embodiment of an ideal? Never.

[Brother No. 1]

why are so many historians against him?

We Communists are easy to attack and they attack his failures and purposely forget what good he did for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Historians are on thr right poltical scale, they do get payed a large amount of money funded by the Capitalists, so its really obvious they attack us left.



On one hand, if i say Stalin was a dictator, then why are my comrades supporting him? they have no reason to support a dictator, so this leads me to believe that he is not. On the other hand, if it is true that he did help build socialism and was a loyal Marxist-Leninist, how am i supposed to believe that my comrades are against him?

Well Comrade in the left movement they are many poltical theories and the whole view on Stalin is based on us Marxist-Leninists against the Trotskyists and anyone else who hates Stalin. Trotskyists attack Stalin for Trotsky attacked Stalin many times in the Revoluntion betrayed and its apart of Trotskyism to be against Marxism-Leninism. But to the most part this can be found all around the left. Different ideas=different views on others.

[SecondLife]

Mostly critics against Stalin is a-political and populistic. Right-wing don't understand communism and don't want to understand. They simply highlight Stalin's deportations and cult of personality without delve into political acpects. This is populism. They want simply election vote from someone whos relative was killed. Or find pretext to destroy communism.
To prevent dictatorship or cult of personality inside party and the same time fight with contra-revolution is not as easy job, although not impossible. But anyway, why not to forget about Stalin and look better into future. USSR anyway proves that socialism or communism can live just fine and not only in USSR. The first failed attempt don't mean nothing in history perspective.

[Communist Theory]

Stalin pwned all opposition.
That's why nobody likes him except Stalin because everyone knew he was major badass.

[Kassad]

Stalin pwned all opposition.
That's why nobody likes him except Stalin because everyone knew he was major badass.

Your superior logic is just too much for me.

[Jack]

"The Historians are on thr right poltical scale, they do get payed a large amount of money funded by the Capitalists, so its really obvious they attack us left."

Oh conspiracy theories, how I do love you...

[Brother No. 1]

Oh conspiracy theories, how I do love you...

Sure and when the Historians find something they msut not get paid for they do it just because they love it.:rolleyes:

[Kassad]

"The Historians are on thr right poltical scale, they do get payed a large amount of money funded by the Capitalists, so its really obvious they attack us left."

Oh conspiracy theories, how I do love you...

Are you really that ignorant? Basically, when looking at a large group of younger people, out of them, how many of their political and religious ideologies are close to their parents? I'd say a significant amount. Well, since most people in the United States approve (or at least, give their consent through their lack of action) of capitalism, therefore their children usually will as well. When someone is conditioned to believe something and do something, such as support capitalism, they usually do it. So when these children, influenced by capitalist culture, are the ones writing history, which side will they be on?

I sure hope I can't be restricted for thinking rationally.

[Invariance]

"The Historians are on thr right poltical scale, they do get payed a large amount of money funded by the Capitalists, so its really obvious they attack us left."

Oh conspiracy theories, how I do love you... Because, of course, anarchists have never been depicted as manic-eyed, bomb-wielding terrorists. Why, historians, politicians and social scientists would never misrepresent an entire movement for the benefit of the capitalist class - that's just ludicrous!

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.

[Idealism]

I understand just fine why there is right wing opposition in historians, though i do not believe that my anarchist, left communist, and trotskyist comrades are believers in right wing politics. So to the original question, why is there left-wing opposition?

[Brother No. 1]

why is there left-wing opposition?

Why do some leftist oppose others? Well the different policies and way to get to our goal , a Stateless and Classless Society, divide and make us oppose each other in debate. We also oppose each other for we have different views on certain people. Example: Lenin,Stalin,Che, Fidel Castro,Mao-Tse Tung,gang of 4 ,ect....
Plus some politics were created through oppostion and debate.
like the constant debating of the Trotskyists and the Marxist-Leninists over Stalin and the USSR. The debate on ideas ( Trots and ML's fight over the "Premeant Revolution" and Socialism in one country ideas and so on.) Or do you mean why do some oppose the left?

[Glenn Beck]

I understand just fine why there is right wing opposition in historians, though i do not believe that my anarchist, left communist, and trotskyist comrades are believers in right wing politics. So to the original question, why is there left-wing opposition?

You are thinking of the question in excessively black and white terms. Pretty much every different tendency generally thinks others hold views that are objectively or subjectively bourgeois. This is not the same as saying they are bourgeois. By the same token when an anti-revisionist criticizes a Trotskyist, anarchist, whateverist critique of Stalin or the Soviet Union as echoing bourgeois propaganda that does not necessarily mean that everything that individual believes is bourgeois propaganda, that the individual is consciously disseminating bourgeois propaganda, or that the individual is themselves a member of the bourgeoisie, but that the individual has a bourgeois or pro-bourgeois stance on a particular issue that may or may not be considered of crucial political importance.

As I said previously, pretty much any tendency views other tendencies as having views on certain issues that they would characterise as 'right' or 'bourgeois', it does not necessarily mean anything so vulgar and superficial that the individuals holding such views are themselves universally right-wing or members of the bourgeoisie.

[Idealism]

You are thinking of the question in excessively black and white terms. Pretty much every different tendency generally thinks others hold views that are objectively or subjectively bourgeois. This is not the same as saying they are bourgeois. By the same token when an anti-revisionist criticizes a Trotskyist, anarchist, whateverist critique of Stalin or the Soviet Union as echoing bourgeois propaganda that does not necessarily mean that everything that individual believes is bourgeois propaganda, that the individual is consciously disseminating bourgeois propaganda, or that the individual is themselves a member of the bourgeoisie, but that the individual has a bourgeois or pro-bourgeois stance on a particular issue that may or may not be considered of crucial political importance.

As I said previously, pretty much any tendency views other tendencies as having views on certain issues that they would characterise as 'right' or 'bourgeois', it does not necessarily mean anything so vulgar and superficial that the individuals holding such views are themselves universally right-wing or members of the bourgeoisie.

Im sorry i wasn't very clear, i felt the discussion was getting derailed into why right-wing bourgeois scholars oppose Stalin, i was meaning to say that i understand the opposition from them, but not as to why there is opposition from people who should be comrades, as was the original question. It was not meant to say that the one side or the other must hold bourgeois prejudices.

[NecroCommie]

Leninists do not get off to pictures of Lenin...

:blushing: