Stalinism.

[Il Medico]

I am no fan of Stalin or Stalinism. However, when I opened the Trotskyism tread I promised (in a way) to open one on Stalinism. Polish Soviet has asked me to open one so I am obliging his request. As I said in the Trotskyist tread, no bashing of Stalinism by Trotskyist. I also request that Stalinst for whom this tread is for, focus on your ideas and not just attacking your OI (Trotskyism)(feel free to attack all the capitalist/fascist you want). Good luck at changing my mind.

[Communist Theory]

Stalin I think had some good ideas. I don't want to lay them out as I'm sure to be criticized by another poster because I got a fact wrong or something.

[Vincent P.]

If we take stalinism without all the human right thing, the lack of freedom, cult of personality and all that stalinists claim to be "over-exagerated" or "bourgeois propaganda", that is if we take anti-revisionism as an economic and social ideology, well I'm still not a fan.

Stalinism, when considered as the final healthy stage of socialism and not as a crappie transitional period, is downright deceiving. Considering 1920-1950 Soviet's policies as "common ownership of production" is nothing more than giving credit to the cappies claiming communism is statism. It's a bit late here to enter in details, bed is awaiting me, but some people here can explain better than I.

60's revisionism was the highway to capitalism as anti-revisionists say, and I agree, but I consider anti-revisionism to be, at best and without all its alleged crimes, an ideology advocating state capitalism in favor of socialism. A kind of truck driver who stopped in the middle of Nebraska claiming he reached NYC, if you see what I mean.

[Vincent P.]

Stalin I think had some good ideas. I don't want to lay them out as I'm sure to be criticized by another poster because I got a fact wrong or something.

Forget "facts" and just give us the ideas. We're not speaking of history, but of the ideology of anti-revisionism.

We're in the learning section anyway.

[Pogue]

How can you open a thread on Stalin and Stalinism, guilty for the betrayals, brainwashing and murders of the working class and revolutionary movements worldwide, and say we can't 'bash' him? Sorry, but when you do the things that man did, your going to get 'bashed' for it, and it'd be impossible to talk about Stalin without criticising him. This thread is going to be full of 'anti-revisionists' spouting some ridiculous historical line which fails to account for Stalin's crimes, a brand of 'history' not even worth discussing for a moment (its like discussing the likelihood of God with a Christian - its ridiculous), and then everyone else hilighting what Stalin did wrong. I don't think we really need to go over Stalin particularly again as we've had threads on it, and its such a stupid argument to have on this forum. Just do research yourself, its impossible to miss his crimes. On here you'll just get a load of zealous tankies like Polish Soviet defending Stalin like some sort of 'Little Father' and its disgusting, and I give this thread a day before it gets closed or purged (excuse the pun) anyway.

[mauryk2]

Trotsyism had no purpose after 1934. THAT was the beginning of their degeneration.

[Sam_b]

I think the problem here is too many people take the "Stalin as 'good' or 'bad' figure" in a completely black-and-white way. This is neither helpful nor useful, and neither are posts like the above that talk in the abstract of Stalin's 'crimes' without any detail or evidence. In a forum which is supposed to help answer questions for new comrades I think experienced members should be discouraging this one camp or another style idea and be helping people to think critcally, rather than a pargraph about not much and Stalin being 'bad'.

I assume therefore that H-L-V-S and his ilk will point to the 'badness' such as Holodomor, show trials and purges. Its not that I ultimately disagree with such analysis but it has to go deeper. Look at Stalin's record on the economy, on agriculture and on literacy and education levels for example. I don't see it as being a fluke that Russia avoided the worst of the great depression that sweeped the world. So are these then bad things?

Let's look more critically at such matters, i'm getting seriously bored with two or three line posts going HE'S A MURDERER! HE'S A BASTARD COS I AM AN ANARCHIST/TROT without any real critical thinking.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Anti-revisionists point out that Stalin's policies not only achieved impressive rates of economic growth and argue that such growth could have been sustained and a prosperous communism could have been achieved if the Soviet Union had remained on this same course. (see the article Theory of Productive Forces) Many of us, don't see Stalin as idol but just a comrade who could do better. If he was dictator, he would implement more progressive reform, but the Congress is in real power instead of the EVILAH MAN HIMSELF!

[Communist Theory]

Forget "facts" and just give us the ideas. We're not speaking of history, but of the ideology of anti-revisionism.

We're in the learning section anyway.
Well if you usually get a fact wrong concerning Anti-Revisionist like Stalin or Mao. Kassad tends to come out of his corner and precede to intellectually beat the shit out of you. Especially if you mention gulags or killing fields.

[Vincent P.]

Up to you.:)

[LeninBalls]

Please refrain from calling us "Stalinists", it's a childish term Anarchists and generally Trots use to hurt our feelings.

Basically, we believe that Stalin was a good socialist and tried to live up to true socialist theory in Marxist terms as close as possible. Granted he wasn't the most liberal person, and he could've been more democratic, we are not without our criticisms. None of us really view Stalin the same way (certain) Trotskyists view Trotsky.

We believe that Trotsky was a loon, and one way or the other ruined the USSR and in my opinion failed to stop the fascist invasion of 41, forever hindering socialist expansion for god knows how long.

We're often here to debunk the myth that "Socialism in One Country" = never supporting revolutions elsewhere. It's not. It's about when high time revolution has clearly died, and your socialist revolution is all you have to hold on to, it's only natural to fortify and strenghten whatever revolution you have, right? Of course we'll support socialist revolutions worldwide if they appear.

Finally, we oppose the blatant revisionisms of Marx's and Lenin's theories.

[Communist Theory]

I call you ARs Stalinists with affection.
Because comrade Stalin was the first AR.
Although Stalin wasn't much in the way of theorizing.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Stalinism" doesn't exist. It is a pejorative used against Marxist-Leninists who oppose revisionism, as well as support the worker's state of the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership. It's also thrown around in certain variations like "Stalin kiddie" or "Stalinoid", but all of them are equally worthless labels.

These accusations of "Stalinism" usually come from Trot's or Anarchists, who are somtimes likely to be mouthpieces of bourgeois historical revisionsm (whether they do it consciously or not.) The people who push the "state-capitalist" or "totalitarian" analysis to the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership are simply lacking of any relevance to the development of the Soviet Union.


This is not to say however, that all ideological opposition (be it tactical, or political) is unwarranted or worthless. Trotskyist's (those who know what their talking about) still rightly recognize the SU as a worker's state (albiet 'degenerated'), and even some anti-revisionists criticize Stalin's leadership; especially after WWII, where the military structure of the party remained, and suspended democratic procedure.

[Sasha]

@ leninballs,
quite like how you say this:



Basically, we believe that Stalin was a good socialist and tried to live up to true socialist theory in Marxist terms as close as possible. Granted he wasn't the most liberal person, and he could've been more democratic, we are not without our criticisms. None of us really view Stalin the same way (certain) Trotskyists view Trotsky.

and imediatly after that state this:


We believe that Trotsky was a loon, and one way or the other ruined the USSR and in my opinion failed to stop the fascist invasion of 41, forever hindering socialist expansion for god knows how long.

wich is doing to trotsky/trotskyism excactly the same as u acuse them of handeling stalin/stalinism.

wich reconfirms me again in my conviction that you are both idiots (but stalinists the bigger ones)

[LeninBalls]

@ leninballs,
quite like how you say this:


Because I read books and links from people who know their shit and don't listen to anarchists on revleft? :confused:

[Sasha]

Because I read books and links from people who know their shit and don't listen to anarchists on revleft? :confused:

let me refrase your own words (but now from an trosky viewpoint) and see if you then get my point:



Please refrain from mentioning icepicks, it's a childish thing Anarchists and generally Stalinists use to hurt our feelings.

Basically, we believe that Trotsky was a good socialist and tried to live up to true socialist theory in Marxist terms as close as possible. Granted he wasn't the most *** person, and he could've been more ****, we are not without our criticisms. None of us really view Trotsky the same way (certain) Anti-Revisionists view Stalin.

We believe that Stalin was a loon, and one way or the other ruined the USSR and in my opinion failed to stop the fascist invasion of 41, forever hindering socialist expansion for god knows how long.

[....]

Finally, we oppose the blatant revisionisms of Marx's and Lenin's theories.

[LeninBalls]

let me refrase your own words (but now from an trosky viewpoint) and see if you then get my point:

What the hell is your point?

Your fail play on words from above is reasons why Marxism Leninism and Trotskyism exists, because, get ready, we disagree on things!

[Sasha]

my point is that you are not disagreeing (wich would be fine) you are calling the ketle black.
you acuse trotskist of generalising and character attacks and then you do more or less the exact same

[Il Medico]

How can you open a thread on Stalin and Stalinism, guilty for the betrayals, brainwashing and murders of the working class and revolutionary movements worldwide, and say we can't 'bash' him? Sorry, but when you do the things that man did, your going to get 'bashed' for it, and it'd be impossible to talk about Stalin without criticising him. This thread is going to be full of 'anti-revisionists' spouting some ridiculous historical line which fails to account for Stalin's crimes, a brand of 'history' not even worth discussing for a moment (its like discussing the likelihood of God with a Christian - its ridiculous), and then everyone else hilighting what Stalin did wrong. I don't think we really need to go over Stalin particularly again as we've had threads on it, and its such a stupid argument to have on this forum. Just do research yourself, its impossible to miss his crimes. On here you'll just get a load of zealous tankies like Polish Soviet defending Stalin like some sort of 'Little Father' and its disgusting, and I give this thread a day before it gets closed or purged (excuse the pun) anyway.
I completely agree with you. However, when i opened the trotskyist tread, I said (as a a token of appeasement, not as an actual offer) if I open a tread on Stalin I would apply the same rules. So I want people to criticize Stalin, and only opened this retarded tread because Polish Soviet asked me to, and I kinda promised to. I am a man of my word, but believe me I take no joy in hearing those "tankies" as you call them defend that mass murdering fuckhead Stalin.

[Brother No. 1]

On here you'll just get a load of zealous tankies like Polish Soviet defending Stalin like some sort of 'Little Father' and its disgusting,
Can you do any better at critizing? I suppose you think all members in the Marxist-Leninist group are "Zealous tankies" but why do we care what you think about us? Fact is we dont. Your a Anarchist of course your opposed to us so your remarks,critization,ect is normal.


"Stalinism,Stalinist,Stalinist kidde,Stalinoid,ect" are all worthless lables Trotskyists and Anarchists use on us, but in their defense they arent the only ones that do it, and do I see Stalin as a "idol?" No. I just see him as a comrade who could have done better in the USSR. Many people here think anyone who defends Stalin is a Cultist worshiper who hero worships Stalin. Were not "Stalinists" or any other slur used on us. Also Anti-Revisionists do critize Stalin, maninly after WW2, on his actions so dont think ARs dont critize Stalin. But really , as Sam_B said, Stalin wasnt just "good" or just "bad" for you need to get thinking this world of ours is not in the old "Black and white" thing. Or somehow do people pass over the Ecomonic growth,litueracy,ect that Stalin helped.

[Pogue]

Can you do any better at critizing? I suppose you think all members in the Marxist-Leninist group are "Zealous tankies" but why do we care what you think about us? Fact is we dont. Your a Anarchist of course your opposed to us so your remarks,critization,ect is normal.


Some of you are alright people. Some of you are just confused or have been indoctrinated.


"Stalinism,Stalinist,Stalinist kidde,Stalinoid,ect" are all worthless lables Trotskyists and Anarchists use on us, but in their defense they arent the only ones that do it, and do I see Stalin as a "idol?" No. I just see him as a comrade who could have done better in the USSR. Many people here think anyone who defends Stalin is a Cultist worshiper who hero worships Stalin. Were not "Stalinists" or any other slur used on us. Also Anti-Revisionists do critize Stalin, maninly after WW2, on his actions so dont think ARs dont critize Stalin. But really , as Sam_B said, Stalin wasnt just "good" or just "bad" for you need to get thinking this world of ours is not in the old "Black and white" thing. Or somehow do people pass over the Ecomonic growth,litueracy,ect that Stalin helped.

Do you really expect us to focus on the literacy developement or industrialisation of a regime which killed anyone who disagreed with it? Lets get realistic here, its like asking someone to assess Hitler but do it without dealing with the Holocaust.

[Brother No. 1]

Some of you are alright people. Some of you are just confused or have been indoctrinated

Let me guess..I'm the confused or indoctrinated one. But its good to see you see some of us as swell guys.




Do you really expect us to focus on the literacy developement or industrialisation of a regime which killed anyone who disagreed with it?

Your going to only point out the 'badness' out of it. As I have said before Stalin could have done better with the U.S.S.R. but he did some good and some bad. not everything is perfect as can be and not everything can be a true good or a true bad.



Lets get realistic here, its like asking someone to assess Hitler but do it without dealing with the Holocaust.


More comparing with Hitler...
I'm not saying to over look the things Stalin did that were negative I'm just saying that you should see the positive things he has done. He has done both Postive and negative.

[Pogue]

Let me guess..I'm the confused or indoctrinated one. But its good to see you see some of us as swell guys.


Yes, in my opinion you are, based on how you write about Stalin and the USSR.



Your going to only point out the 'badness' out of it. As I have said before Stalin could have done better with the U.S.S.R. but he did some good and some bad. not everything is perfect as can be and not everything can be a true good or a true bad.


As I said, what am I more likely to focus on, the murder of millions, or a succesful literacy campaign?


More comparing with Hitler...
I'm not saying to over look the things Stalin did that were negative I'm just saying that you should see the positive things he has done. He has done both Postive and negative.

I've dealt with the second bit twice already.

And of course I'll compare him with Hitler. The two were very similar and were allies at one point.

[Brother No. 1]

Yes, in my opinion you are, based on how you write about Stalin and the USSR.

Everyone has their oppions and your oppion on me, is somewhat, respectable.



As I said, what am I more likely to focus on, the murder of millions, or a succesful literacy campaign?

you could foucs on both. Is it so wrong to foucs on both the postive and negative things done? As I said This world isnt "Black and white."

[Pogue]

you could foucs on both. Is it so wrong to foucs on both the postive and negative things done? As I said This world isnt "Black and white."


So ridiculous...why would I focus on this mass murderers literacy programmes? Its like begging me to focus on Hitler's advocacy for animal rights as much as his murder of millions of Jews, communists, disabled people, etc.

[LOLseph Stalin]

We believe that Trotsky was a loon, and one way or the other ruined the USSR and in my opinion failed to stop the fascist invasion of 41, forever hindering socialist expansion for god knows how long.

I'm not here to attack the other side or anything, but how exactly was Trotsky supposed to stop the Fascist invasion in 1941 when by that time he was already exiled in Mexico and dead? You can't criticize him for something he wasn't a part of.

[Il Medico]

H-L-V-S, I would recommend not getting in to a huge argument with Polish Soviet, he does not listen to reason, and he will keep up with the same bogus arguments over and over. He is a bit like a capitalist in his obsession of defending his rather foolish, indoctrinated ideologies. Nothing personal against Polish Soviet of course, besides his warped view of history, I find him to be a nice chap.

[gorillafuck]

I'm not here to attack the other side or anything, but how exactly was Trotsky supposed to stop the Fascist invasion in 1941 when by that time he was already exiled in Mexico and dead? You can't criticize him for something he wasn't a part of.
Indeed. Wasn't Trotsky exiled in 1928?

Edit: ^^^CaptainJack, I also disagree with Polish Soviet but that really didn't help

[Il Medico]

Indeed. Wasn't Trotsky exiled in 1928?
Yes, and dead by the Nazi invasion. I don't see how they could blame Trotsky for Stalin's policies.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, and dead by the Nazi invasion. I don't see how they could blame Trotsky for Stalin's policies.

Exactly my point. Sadly some Stalinists don't see it this way. All he was really able to do after being exiled was criticize the USSR in writing.

[Il Medico]

Edit: ^^^CaptainJack, I also disagree with Polish Soviet but that really didn't help
I was just trying to prevent H-L-V-S the agony of refuting polish Soviets arguments over and over again as I have had to do in the past, through PMs! Arrgh!:thumbdown:

[Il Medico]

Exactly my point. Sadly some Stalinists don't see it this way. All he was really able to do after being exiled was criticize the USSR in writing.
Yes, and all his predictions about Stalin's USSR in The Revolution Betrayed came true! I really don't see how anyone could blame him for the very destructive polices he was criticizing and that inspired Stalin to have him assassinated.

[Il Medico]

As I said This world isnt "Black and white."
Your right Polish Soviet the world isn't black and white. But even you have to admit that Stalin was a damn dark shade of gray!

[Kassad]

I can't wait to see an anarchist revolution that takes power and is struck down within a few months because it will totally fail to combat bourgeois reactionaries and capitalist infiltration. I believe that the entire theory of anarchism is totally surreal, as it acts like a socialist revolution will be achieved with no real opposition; assuming that the bourgeois will merely roll over and admit defeat. It hasn't happened in any revolution. Reactionaries will always struggle to defeat revolutionary states and there will always be bourgeois opposition. Stalin defeated reactionary opposition through succesfully implementing a functioning dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the Soviet Union, it was literally a life or death struggle. Either counterrevolutionaries are suppressed or they are allowed to roam free; inciting counterrevolutionary actions. Anti-revisionists are not uncritical of Stalin. Lenin's suppressions were meant to be temporary, whereas Stalin's didn't seem to be. I also disagree with him advocating that the Chinese communists should coexist with Kai-Shek's fascists in China. I disagree with his feelings on homosexuality. No one's uncritical and I acknowledge that there were a lot of people who died that did not have to. Regardless, counterrevolutionary aspects were totally at bay under Stalin and revisionism and the destruction of workers power only came after his death.

Stalin respected the right to self-determination. Stalin fought counterrevolution. Stalin promoted women's rights and sweeping education reform. Stalin successfully implemented literarcy campaigns. Stalin promoted healthcare and employment for citizens of the Soviet Union. Stalin promoted massive industrial and social development that combated Hitler's war machine.

If you want to call me a Stalinist, that's fine. Slander doesn't progress the revolutionary movement a damn inch, but I'll deal with it. I acknowledge Stalin's rights and his wrongs. I practice self-criticism and unlike Anarchists, I don't view the world in black and white. Until then, I await that Anarchist revolution. :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Stalin promoted women's rights
Didn't he make abortion illegal?

(Note: I'm not an anarchist)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Didn't he make abortion illegal?

He may have. I know Hoxha did.

[Il Medico]

Didn't he make abortion illegal?

(Note: I'm not an anarchist)
Yes he did.
I am also not an Anarchist, I don't know who Kassad attacking, my best guess is H-L-V-S, if not I don't know who. Though he made the same easily refutable claims as Polish Soviet or Leninballs, at least he tried to make a articulate argument, I respect that.

[Kassad]

Didn't he make abortion illegal?

(Note: I'm not an anarchist)

Yes, he did, but like the issue with homosexuality, I think it should be viewed in context. Society develops in a moderately parallel way and it was general conditioning that preached that abortion and homosexuality were immoral. Of course, we know now that they are things that should be not just accepted, but approved of on widescale. Regardless, when looking back at that time period, I don't honestly think there were significant movements for abortion or homosexual rights and society, much less socially and morally developed as we are not, had a universal negative view of these things. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and I don't approve of his decision, but you have to view the historical context of the issue.

[Pogue]

I can't wait to see an anarchist revolution that takes power and is struck down within a few months because it will totally fail to combat bourgeois reactionaries and capitalist infiltration. I believe that the entire theory of anarchism is totally surreal, as it acts like a socialist revolution will be achieved with no real opposition; assuming that the bourgeois will merely roll over and admit defeat. It hasn't happened in any revolution. Reactionaries will always struggle to defeat revolutionary states and there will always be bourgeois opposition. Stalin defeated reactionary opposition through succesfully implementing a functioning dictatorship of the proletariat.


I don't know any anarchist in history or alive today who believes we will face 'no opposition' and that the 'bourgeois will roll over and admit defeat'. This comes straight out of your imagination as you crave for a leg to stand on when criticising anarchism. Of course it hasn't happened in any revolution. Do you not think anarchists had a reason for thus fighting so hard in worker's militias in Spain and the Ukraine? This is completely unsubstantiated bullshit right out of the party line. Stalin did not create a dictatorship of the proletariat, he created a dictatorship. Thats the reason why everyone hates him, genius. Thats why his name is synonymous with dictatorship and oppresion. Not because of the bourgeois conspiracy, but because it was true. Its almost sad how desperately you tankies try to hold up the USSR was a worker run society or a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. You guys are the sa ddupes who buy into whatever the leadership say as long as the leadership calls itself socialist, which is why you accept propoganda aimed at Russian workers - they were living the reality of it, and recognised the USSR and Stalin for what it was - the counter revolution. The communists killed for being communists recognised this, the workers recognised this. Its easy for you to pine about how wonderful it was - you never lived there.


In the Soviet Union, it was literally a life or death struggle. Either counterrevolutionaries are suppressed or they are allowed to roam free; inciting counterrevolutionary actions. Anti-revisionists are not uncritical of Stalin. Lenin's suppressions were meant to be temporary, whereas Stalin's didn't seem to be. I also disagree with him advocating that the Chinese communists should coexist with Kai-Shek's fascists in China. I disagree with his feelings on homosexuality. No one's uncritical and I acknowledge that there were a lot of people who died that did not have to. Regardless, counterrevolutionary aspects were totally at bay under Stalin and revisionism and the destruction of workers power only came after his death.


Ask yourself - why was this man in a position to dictate the countries policy in the first place? Because he was a dictator! Not a representative of the workers - a dictator. The extreme form of oppresion and control of the working class. One man, with all that power!


Stalin respected the right to self-determination. Stalin fought counterrevolution. Stalin promoted women's rights and sweeping education reform. Stalin successfully implemented literarcy campaigns. Stalin promoted healthcare and employment for citizens of the Soviet Union. Stalin promoted massive industrial and social development that combated Hitler's war machine.


Stalin was the counter-revolution, and this is the most tragic thing. Stalin was part of the new bourgeoisie. Stalin killed communists. Stalin suppressed revolution in Spain. Stalin signed a pact with Hitler. Stalin destroyed the workers unions, Stalin killed anyone who opposed him. Literacy improved in the capitalist liberal democracies too - so did women's rights. What does that prove? Stalin treated Jews and homosexuals like scum - even his supporters achknowledged this. Are we meant to suddenyl think he was a good guy because of a few social reforms that (apparently) went well? Your so brainwashed its unbelieavable, and its kind of funny that I take you guys so seriously, but I guess its because I'm on a forum environment where I'm forced to take views like yours seriously when to everyone else in the real world, they are pathetic and absurd.


If you want to call me a Stalinist, that's fine. Slander doesn't progress the revolutionary movement a damn inch, but I'll deal with it. I acknowledge Stalin's rights and his wrongs. I practice self-criticism and unlike Anarchists, I don't view the world in black and white. Until then, I await that Anarchist revolution. http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalinism-t109407/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

But you are a Stalinist. And nothing that happens on this forum advances the revolutionary movement 'a damn inch'. Nothing Leninists do does that either, because your ideas and approach is out-dated and alien to the working class. The very fact you spend so much time focusing on some dictators rights and wrongs is one of the key reasons your so irrelvant.

And what do you understand by an anarchist revolution? Because you see, we don't beleive in ourselves, as anarchists, leading a glorious revolution with our gerat anarchist leaders and pictures of Durruti up on walls everywhere. Anarchism is the strand of socialism emphasising the ability of the working class to do things themselves, rather than having a disgusting 'state' or 'proffesional revolutionaries' doing it for them. Any struggle which is self-managed is anarchist, whereas a struggle or revolution is only Leninist if the majority of participants are in the party, which has never and will never happen. You guys are incapable of revoltion because you don't want a revolution, you want a uprising to put your party and state into power. Thank fuck thats never going to happen again. I don't await the 'Anarchist revolution', I await the people's revolution, the workers revolution, whatevers its called, because I'm not some mindless and dogmatic party hack who can't think outside of what some old sell out tyrant wrote along time ago in Russia before during and after he launched a coup with the aim of making himself the new ruler.

[Pogue]

Yes, he did, but like the issue with homosexuality, I think it should be viewed in context. Society develops in a moderately parallel way and it was general conditioning that preached that abortion and homosexuality were immoral. Of course, we know now that they are things that should be not just accepted, but approved of on widescale. Regardless, when looking back at that time period, I don't honestly think there were significant movements for abortion or homosexual rights and society, much less socially and morally developed as we are not, had a universal negative view of these things. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and I don't approve of his decision, but you have to view the historical context of the issue.

No you don't. Plenty of people were not homophobic. Stalin was just a reactionary.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, he did, but like the issue with homosexuality, I think it should be viewed in context. Society develops in a moderately parallel way and it was general conditioning that preached that abortion and homosexuality were immoral. Of course, we know now that they are things that should be not just accepted, but approved of on widescale. Regardless, when looking back at that time period, I don't honestly think there were significant movements for abortion or homosexual rights and society, much less socially and morally developed as we are not, had a universal negative view of these things. It's easy to criticize in hindsight and I don't approve of his decision, but you have to view the historical context of the issue.
It definitely should be viewed in a historical context, but it can hardly be called pushing women's rights like you said. He took a step backward from Lenin legalizing abortion.

Though if he pushed women's rights in a different aspect then feel free to post it, but I'm not aware of any.

[Il Medico]

I agree with Kassad on the homosexuality and abortion argument. Society in general had not come to accept these things. However, on the same token atheism wasn't well accepted either, however it has spread quite fast in places like China. This proves that an idea, if promoted by the ruling body, can easily spread within a nation. Another example is how fast socialism was painted as the enemy in America. I think it was ultimately Stalin's own bigotry that stopped him from making the right choice.

[Kassad]

I don't know any anarchist in history or alive today who believes we will face 'no opposition' and that the 'bourgeois will roll over and admit defeat'. This comes straight out of your imagination as you crave for a leg to stand on when criticising anarchism. Of course it hasn't happened in any revolution. Do you not think anarchists had a reason for thus fighting so hard in worker's militias in Spain and the Ukraine? This is completely unsubstantiated bullshit right out of the party line. Stalin did not create a dictatorship of the proletariat, he created a dictatorship. Thats the reason why everyone hates him, genius. Thats why his name is synonymous with dictatorship and oppresion. Not because of the bourgeois conspiracy, but because it was true. Its almost sad how desperately you tankies try to hold up the USSR was a worker run society or a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. You guys are the sa ddupes who buy into whatever the leadership say as long as the leadership calls itself socialist, which is why you accept propoganda aimed at Russian workers - they were living the reality of it, and recognised the USSR and Stalin for what it was - the counter revolution. The communists killed for being communists recognised this, the workers recognised this. Its easy for you to pine about how wonderful it was - you never lived there.

Welcome to the fallacy party, may I take your jacket? Of course, all socialist movements are 'synonymous' with "fascism" and "tyranny" and that's because the bourgeois propaganda machines make sure that citizens fear socialism and fear revolution. That's why there will never be a solid estimate of a death toll under Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or whoever, as 'a lie repeated enough times becomes truth.' There are bourgeois scholars who are conditioned to despise socialism, Marxism and anarchism as well, therefore it's ridiculous to make some of the assertions you're making. Of course, it's natural for the ignorant to claim that any rational criticism of the bourgeois is a 'conspiracy.' Any claim that the bourgeois could be lying or manipulating information is a 'conspiracy' now. It's good to see where you stand: you stand on anti-communist and pro-bourgeois sources and an anti-communist ideology. Indeed, you claim that Anarchists acknowledge counterrevolution and bourgeois opposition, but you have no idea how to counter them. If anything, you'd support Gorbachev's theory of peaceful coexistence in a domestic sense, in which you would assume that the bourgeois will accpept and allow the workers state to flourish. Sorry to pop that surrealist bubble that you live in.


Ask yourself - why was this man in a position to dictate the countries policy in the first place? Because he was a dictator! Not a representative of the workers - a dictator. The extreme form of oppresion and control of the working class. One man, with all that power!

Propaganda attack #361. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union made decisions, influenced by workers, which is why them implemented pro-worker reforms. Of course, you assume that Stalin had a massive pile of papers on his desk and he just approved whatever he wanted. Stalin was one person and he didn't make every decision that the Soviet state took part in. Capitalists were suppressed and socialist reforms were implemented. You can ignore that all day if you wish.


Stalin was the counter-revolution, and this is the most tragic thing. Stalin was part of the new bourgeoisie. Stalin killed communists. Stalin suppressed revolution in Spain. Stalin signed a pact with Hitler. Stalin destroyed the workers unions, Stalin killed anyone who opposed him. Literacy improved in the capitalist liberal democracies too - so did women's rights. What does that prove? Stalin treated Jews and homosexuals like scum - even his supporters achknowledged this. Are we meant to suddenyl think he was a good guy because of a few social reforms that (apparently) went well? Your so brainwashed its unbelieavable, and its kind of funny that I take you guys so seriously, but I guess its because I'm on a forum environment where I'm forced to take views like yours seriously when to everyone else in the real world, they are pathetic and absurd.

Stalin had counterrevolutionaries killed. 'Communist' does not mean revolutionary, as revolutionary means that you are revolutionary in action, not just in words. On the execution of the Bolshevik leadership, you should note that when Stalin was not a part of party leadership while Lenin was still alive, only Lenin and Trotksy voted in favor of supporting armed struggle. A lot of the old Bolsheviks had become nothing short of social-democrats and reformists and many were counterrevolutionary by the time Lenin had taken power; advocating no militant struggle. Not all of them were purged, anyway, so the claim that Stalin 'killed all opposition' is absurd. Some Bolsheviks voted against revolution in the first place. You need to realize that Stalin was not omnipotent and the Comintern leadership voted to send arms to the Spanish Republicans, which was during the time of attempts at Soviet industrialization. Anyway, your insults and slander aside, I'm sorry for viewing the situation from a non-black and white perspective that views all the facts in a manner of self-criticism.


But you are a Stalinist. And nothing that happens on this forum advances the revolutionary movement 'a damn inch'. Nothing Leninists do does that either, because your ideas and approach is out-dated and alien to the working class. The very fact you spend so much time focusing on some dictators rights and wrongs is one of the key reasons your so irrelvant.

Irrelevant? Marxist-Leninists have led significant (and are still leading) revolutions worldwide. Of course, it's cute that you'd like to speak about relevance. Either way, I frankly don't care.


And what do you understand by an anarchist revolution? Because you see, we don't beleive in ourselves, as anarchists, leading a glorious revolution with our gerat anarchist leaders and pictures of Durruti up on walls everywhere. Anarchism is the strand of socialism emphasising the ability of the working class to do things themselves, rather than having a disgusting 'state' or 'proffesional revolutionaries' doing it for them. Any struggle which is self-managed is anarchist, whereas a struggle or revolution is only Leninist if the majority of participants are in the party, which has never and will never happen. You guys are incapable of revoltion because you don't want a revolution, you want a uprising to put your party and state into power. Thank fuck thats never going to happen again. I don't await the 'Anarchist revolution', I await the people's revolution, the workers revolution, whatevers its called, because I'm not some mindless and dogmatic party hack who can't think outside of what some old sell out tyrant wrote along time ago in Russia before during and after he launched a coup with the aim of making himself the new ruler.

Do you need a pacifier or something? A diaper change, perhaps? Don't you recall me getting into a nice debate with Cumannach and AvanteRedGarde about unconditional support for Stalin? Don't you recall me calling them out and saying that I believe some of anti-revisionist philosophy is flawed? Don't you realize that I disagree with my own party on a significant number of issues? The problem that you have and the reason we fight for revolution while you merely criticize is the fact that despite differences and ideological disputes, we work together for revolution. You, on the other hand, are an anti-communist that doesn't comprehend imperialism in the slightest. You criticize me for dogmatically advocating the line of my party and the Soviet Union's line, yet you propagate bourgeois propaganda every post you make. You are an ally of the bourgeois because you accept their unconditional support for the destruction of workers movements. You have basically lied about my ideology multiple times while throwing in a decent array of childish accusations and slander that are totally irrelevant. Frankly, I don't know why I deal with it because despite your claims of my irrelevance, Anarchists are the ones who propagate the bourgeois line and wind up following anti-communist lines unconditionally. You're totally ignorant on Stalin, imperialism and the Soviet Union and in truth, it's a total waste of time trying to debate with you, which is why I have no interest in doing it after this post. Spread your anti-communism somewhere else.

[Kassad]

It definitely should be viewed in a historical context, but it can hardly be called pushing women's rights like you said. He took a step backward from Lenin legalizing abortion.

Though if he pushed women's rights in a different aspect then feel free to post it, but I'm not aware of any.

I wasn't really referring to abortion when I said that. I was referring to women's rights to comprehensive education, something that was unheard of pre-revolution and women's equal employment. If you can ever find the book Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore, it goes into a lot of detail about social gains for women. Again, I'm not unconditionally giving praise to Stalin and I think his stance on abortion, in the practice of self-criticism, helps us comprehend mistakes made in past revolutions to properly sustain revolution in the future.

[Il Medico]

Welcome to the fallacy party, may I take your jacket? Of course, all socialist movements are 'synonymous' with "fascism" and "tyranny" and that's because the bourgeois propaganda machines make sure that citizens fear socialism and fear revolution. That's why there will never be a solid estimate of a death toll under Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or whoever, as 'a lie repeated enough times becomes truth.' There are bourgeois scholars who are conditioned to despise socialism, Marxism and anarchism as well, therefore it's ridiculous to make some of the assertions you're making. Of course, it's natural for the ignorant to claim that any rational criticism of the bourgeois is a 'conspiracy.' Any claim that the bourgeois could be lying or manipulating information is a 'conspiracy' now. It's good to see where you stand: you stand on anti-communist and pro-bourgeois sources and an anti-communist ideology. Indeed, you claim that Anarchists acknowledge counterrevolution and bourgeois opposition, but you have no idea how to counter them. If anything, you'd support Gorbachev's theory of peaceful coexistence in a domestic sense, in which you would assume that the bourgeois will accpept and allow the workers state to flourish. Sorry to pop that surrealist bubble that you live in.

H-L-V-S is by no means a puppet of the bourgeois, no more than you or I. Calling him so because of your disagreement is childish and only helps prove that you are in denial. I also do not see how H-L-V-S's views fall in to the Surrealist movement in art. I doubt that H-L-V-S thinks that clocks will begin to melt when the people's revolution comes!:lol:



Propaganda attack #361. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union made decisions, influenced by workers, which is why them implemented pro-worker reforms. Of course, you assume that Stalin had a massive pile of papers on his desk and he just approved whatever he wanted. Stalin was one person and he didn't make every decision that the Soviet state took part in. Capitalists were suppressed and socialist reforms were implemented. You can ignore that all day if you wish.Yes and Hitler wasn't responsible for the action of the Nazi party either.:rolleyes:




Stalin had counterrevolutionaries killed. 'Communist' does not mean revolutionary, as revolutionary means that you are revolutionary in action, not just in words. On the execution of the Bolshevik leadership, you should note that when Stalin was not a part of party leadership while Lenin was still alive, only Lenin and Trotksy voted in favor of supporting armed struggle. A lot of the old Bolsheviks had become nothing short of social-democrats and reformists and many were counterrevolutionary by the time Lenin had taken power; advocating no militant struggle. Not all of them were purged, anyway, so the claim that Stalin 'killed all opposition' is absurd. Some Bolsheviks voted against revolution in the first place. You need to realize that Stalin was not omnipotent and the Comintern leadership voted to send arms to the Spanish Republicans, which was during the time of attempts at Soviet industrialization. Anyway, your insults and slander aside, I'm sorry for viewing the situation from a non-black and white perspective that views all the facts in a manner of self-criticism. He killed Trotsky too. Stalin was either by intent or just by his own greedy power hungry personality a counter revolutionary. His communist elites replaced the bourgeois in Russia. Also, just holding the thoughts of communism is revolutionary. Even if you disagree with Marx and think it can be done peacefully. Being a communist means rejecting bourgeois society. Stalin kill mainly good communist in his purges, not counter-revolutionaries.




Irrelevant? Marxist-Leninists have led significant (and are still leading) revolutions worldwide. Of course, it's cute that you'd like to speak about relevance. Either way, I frankly don't care. The "revolutions' you Stalinist lead are the ones that alienate the workers that you are suppose to be leading. Your steadfast adherence to totalitarianism has made you damn near irrelevant and you almost took the rest of us with you.




Do you need a pacifier or something? A diaper change, perhaps? Don't you recall me getting into a nice debate with Cumannach and AvanteRedGarde about unconditional support for Stalin? Don't you recall me calling them out and saying that I believe some of anti-revisionist philosophy is flawed? Don't you realize that I disagree with my own party on a significant number of issues? The problem that you have and the reason we fight for revolution while you merely criticize is the fact that despite differences and ideological disputes, we work together for revolution. You, on the other hand, are an anti-communist that doesn't comprehend imperialism in the slightest. You criticize me for dogmatically advocating the line of my party and the Soviet Union's line, yet you propagate bourgeois propaganda every post you make. You are an ally of the bourgeois because you accept their unconditional support for the destruction of workers movements. You have basically lied about my ideology multiple times while throwing in a decent array of childish accusations and slander that are totally irrelevant. Frankly, I don't know why I deal with it because despite your claims of my irrelevance, Anarchists are the ones who propagate the bourgeois line and wind up following anti-communist lines unconditionally. You're totally ignorant on Stalin, imperialism and the Soviet Union and in truth, it's a total waste of time trying to debate with you, which is why I have no interest in doing it after this post. Spread your anti-communism somewhere else.You are making yourself look foolish with this continuing line about H-L-V-S being a mouthpiece of the bourgeois. Just Shut up. Also saying you occasionally criticize they completely flawed ideology of your is like a Republican claiming he is not conservative because he is pro-choice. One bright spot does not make your arguments right. It is the same with Stalin and the USSR.

[Kassad]

H-L-V-S is by no means a puppet of the bourgeois, no more than you or I. Calling him so because of your disagreement is childish and only helps prove that you are in denial. I also do not see how H-L-V-S's views fall in to the Surrealist movement in art. I doubt that H-L-V-S thinks that clocks will begin to melt when the people's revolution comes!:lol:

Oh, they will melt.

Listen, you're missing my point completely. I am criticizing H-L-V-S, not because I believe he is a puppet of the bourgeois or a servant of the capitalist system, but because he parrots the same propaganda and ideology that the bourgeoisie promotes. It should be very critical to observe what is positive for the bourgeoisie and what they criticize. Demonizing Marxism is in their favor, which is what H-L-V-S is doing. He's parroting propaganda about Stalin that reactionaries propagate.


He killed Trotsky too. Stalin was either by intent or just by his own greedy power hungry personality a counter revolutionary. His communist elites replaced the bourgeois in Russia. Also, just hold the thoughts of communism is revolutionary. Even if you disagree with Marx and think it can be done peacefully. Being a communist means rejecting bourgeois society. Stalin kill mainly good communist in his purges, not counter-revolutionaries.

Trotksy was supporting opposition to the Soviet Union and advocating its destruction during war with Nazi Germany. Trotsky was counterrevolutionary, in my opinion, and his theories of permanent revolution were skewed and totally irrelevant. I'm sure Stalin did kill people who didn't need to be killed, but the it is the duty of proletarian dictatorship to suppress reactionaries and prevent counterrevolution, which is what he did. Of course, I'm open to sources and specifics as to 'good' communists who were killed so I can address them more directly.


The "revolutions' you Stalinist lead are the ones that alienate the workers that you are suppose to be leading. Your steadfast adherence to totalitarianism has made you damn near irrelevant and you almost took the rest of us with you.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not authoritarian and most socialist states that have been forced into the realm of totalitarianism have usually done so to cling to socialist reforms that are under attack by reactionary-supported imperialists and colonialist powers that seek a hegemony over the land, people and resources that revolutonary forces are trying to liberate. You're looking at the narrow picture and you aren't taking imperialist threats and intervention into account.


You are making yourself look foolish with this continuing line about H-L-V-S being a mouthpiece of the bourgeois. Just Shut up. Also saying you occasionally criticize they completely flawed ideology of your is like a Republican claiming he is not conservative because he is pro-choice. One bright spot does not make your arguments right. It is the same with Stalin and the USSR.

M'kay.

[Il Medico]

Oh, they will melt.

Listen, you're missing my point completely. I am criticizing H-L-V-S, not because I believe he is a puppet of the bourgeois or a servant of the capitalist system, but because he parrots the same propaganda and ideology that the bourgeoisie promotes. It should be very critical to observe what is positive for the bourgeoisie and what they criticize. Demonizing Marxism is in their favor, which is what H-L-V-S is doing. He's parroting propaganda about Stalin that reactionaries propagate.
Yes capitalist demonize Marxism, H-L-V-S is not. And it is not propaganda if it is true. Capitalist don't have to demonize Stalin, he did that himself.




Trotksy was supporting opposition to the Soviet Union and advocating its destruction during war with Nazi Germany. Trotsky was counterrevolutionary, in my opinion, and his theories of permanent revolution were skewed and totally irrelevant. I'm sure Stalin did kill people who didn't need to be killed, but the it is the duty of proletarian dictatorship to suppress reactionaries and prevent counterrevolution, which is what he did. Of course, I'm open to sources and specifics as to 'good' communists who were killed so I can address them more directly.
Trotsky was dead before the Soviet union and Nazi Germany went to war, courtesy of Comrade Stalin via an icepick!




The dictatorship of the proletariat is not authoritarian and most socialist states that have been forced into the realm of totalitarianism have usually done so to cling to socialist reforms that are under attack by reactionary-supported imperialists and colonialist powers that seek a hegemony over the land, people and resources that revolutonary forces are trying to liberate. You're looking at the narrow picture and you aren't taking imperialist threats and intervention into account.
All your arguments are based on the bogus idea of one country socialism. Another thing we have to thank Comrade Stalin for!:rolleyes: Totalitarianism is oppression and oppression is a symptom of class society, thus any "revolutionary" group that embraces it is not revolutionary, rather it is reactionary.




M'kay.
This isn't south park.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Jack, calm down. You don't need to ostracize Kassad for criticizing H-L-V-S's claims. I happen to share a very similar opinion as Kassad's on this matter.

Yes capitalist demonize Marxism, H-L-V-S is not. And it is not propaganda if it is true. Capitalist don't have to demonize Stalin, he did that himself.
Actually, H-L-V-S (fuck I'm getting sick of typing that) has made it quite clear in this thread as well as others that he opposes Marxism-Leninism, which was the ideology guiding the socialist Soviet Union, so lets leave it at that.


All your arguments are based on the bogus idea of one country socialism. Another thing we have to thank Comrade Stalin for!:rolleyes: Totalitarianism is oppression and oppression is a symptom of class society, thus any "revolutionary" group that embraces it is not revolutionary, rather it is reactionary. "Totalitarianism" is not an accurate way to describe any government, because the label itself is not indicative of the context of a government, which class is the ruling class, what actual practices are being considered totalitarian, etc.

Most people who push this lame label group Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin into the same category. All though, as anyone who knows anything about history, Lenin and Stalin were quite different from Hitler, and the government's they headed were diametrically opposed.

Socialism in one country, is not the idea that socialism can be developed in sustained in one country forever. Instead, it is a strategic political position, which arose out of the situation the Soviet Union found itself in after the failure of the German, and Hungarian revolutions. Instead of trying to spread the revolution by military force (which is basically what Trotsky argued for at one point); "Socialism In one country" was a policy of developing the industrial foundations of the USSR, and to rebuild/ as well as rapidly develop their socialist economy. The Soviet Union could not fatalistically rely on other countries to support their development due to their backwardness, but in any case these other revolutions failed. Next, the Soviet Union aided countless revolutionary struggles in numerous different countries around the world in the interest of defeating capitalism and implementing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Some worked better than others, but the point remains that under Stalin's leadership (he who advocated Socialism in One Country) revolutions in China, Albania, Yugoslavia, Korea were aided by and allied (more or less, depends on which country) with the Soviet Union.

[Pogue]

Welcome to the fallacy party, may I take your jacket? Of course, all socialist movements are 'synonymous' with "fascism" and "tyranny" and that's because the bourgeois propaganda machines make sure that citizens fear socialism and fear revolution. That's why there will never be a solid estimate of a death toll under Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or whoever, as 'a lie repeated enough times becomes truth.' There are bourgeois scholars who are conditioned to despise socialism, Marxism and anarchism as well, therefore it's ridiculous to make some of the assertions you're making. Of course, it's natural for the ignorant to claim that any rational criticism of the bourgeois is a 'conspiracy.' Any claim that the bourgeois could be lying or manipulating information is a 'conspiracy' now. It's good to see where you stand: you stand on anti-communist and pro-bourgeois sources and an anti-communist ideology. Indeed, you claim that Anarchists acknowledge counterrevolution and bourgeois opposition, but you have no idea how to counter them. If anything, you'd support Gorbachev's theory of peaceful coexistence in a domestic sense, in which you would assume that the bourgeois will accpept and allow the workers state to flourish. Sorry to pop that surrealist bubble that you live in.

No, some regimes that called themselves socialist are referred to as tyranny because they are. No one refers to the Spanish Revolution as tyranny because it wasn't. What you guys cannot accept is the reason why everyone calls these states tyrannical i because they were. Or did millions of people die just like that? We know about revolutionaries being killed by Stalin, in Spain and in Russia. The only one denying it are Stalinists - is this really suprising?


If anything, you'd support Gorbachev's theory of peaceful coexistence in a domestic sense, in which you would assume that the bourgeois will accpept and allow the workers state to flourish. Sorry to pop that surrealist bubble that you live in.

Link to where I believe peaceful co-existance was possible, supported it or even spoken about it before? I've never even mentioned it in my life.


Propaganda attack #361. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union made decisions, influenced by workers, which is why them implemented pro-worker reforms. Of course, you assume that Stalin had a massive pile of papers on his desk and he just approved whatever he wanted. Stalin was one person and he didn't make every decision that the Soviet state took part in. Capitalists were suppressed and socialist reforms were implemented. You can ignore that all day if you wish.

If Stalin was being controlled by the workers, why did he not call elections to be elected? Because it was a dictatorship. Thats why there was no free press, no opposition allowed (even communist opposition), and thats why he needed a secret police. Thats also why he killed so many people. There is no evidence for any democratic structure in Russia - there were no indeendent trade unions, no elections, no debate. Just Stalin and his advisors.


Stalin had counterrevolutionaries killed. 'Communist' does not mean revolutionary, as revolutionary means that you are revolutionary in action, not just in words. On the execution of the Bolshevik leadership, you should note that when Stalin was not a part of party leadership while Lenin was still alive, only Lenin and Trotksy voted in favor of supporting armed struggle. A lot of the old Bolsheviks had become nothing short of social-democrats and reformists and many were counterrevolutionary by the time Lenin had taken power; advocating no militant struggle. Not all of them were purged, anyway, so the claim that Stalin 'killed all opposition' is absurd. Some Bolsheviks voted against revolution in the first place. You need to realize that Stalin was not omnipotent and the Comintern leadership voted to send arms to the Spanish Republicans, which was during the time of attempts at Soviet industrialization. Anyway, your insults and slander aside, I'm sorry for viewing the situation from a non-black and white perspective that views all the facts in a manner of self-criticism.

The reason why this and all your arguments is so weak is that you try to construct a defense of Stalin from the mountain of evidence condeming him. So its OK to kill people because they are, in your eyes social democrats? Stalin was an authrotiarian social democrat! You say he implemented some reforms - yes, from above, as a state. Socialist reforms is the word you used - he was a reformist! He advocated one man doing as he pleased, apparently moving in a socialist direction. This was no revolution because it didn't involve workers taking power. He was effectively a tyrannical authoritarian social democrat, with less emphasis on the democrat part. This is why I think Marx-Leninists are not revolutionary - this is an all powerful state carrying out reforms, not a revolution.

Either way, Stalin decided who was deemed 'counter-revolutionary'. To him, this included Spanish Anarchists and Trotskyists who carried out a revolution. Clearly they were not counter-revolutionaries. He killed Trotsky because Trotsky criticised Stalin for being counter-revolutionary. Clearly, Stalin killed revolutioaries. He was the ****er-revolution, he supressed workers power and became the new ruling class. Your just naive enough to buy into it because he called himself socialist, which seems to be th eonly prequisit you guys need to go off supporting someone.


Irrelevant? Marxist-Leninists have led significant (and are still leading) revolutions worldwide. Of course, it's cute that you'd like to speak about relevance. Either way, I frankly don't care.

'Led' revolutions. You mean controlled them and killed them. They have used them as coups to to create dictatorships. Why is it cute to speak about relevance? I don't have an over-inflated ego and a sense of being a vanguard like you have - I'm just one working class perso with revolutionary class conciousness who wants to spread this as an individual and in organisations. I'm as relevant as every other members of the class.


Do you need a pacifier or something? A diaper change, perhaps? Don't you recall me getting into a nice debate with Cumannach and AvanteRedGarde about unconditional support for Stalin? Don't you recall me calling them out and saying that I believe some of anti-revisionist philosophy is flawed? Don't you realize that I disagree with my own party on a significant number of issues? The problem that you have and the reason we fight for revolution while you merely criticize is the fact that despite differences and ideological disputes, we work together for revolution. You, on the other hand, are an anti-communist that doesn't comprehend imperialism in the slightest. You criticize me for dogmatically advocating the line of my party and the Soviet Union's line, yet you propagate bourgeois propaganda every post you make. You are an ally of the bourgeois because you accept their unconditional support for the destruction of workers movements. You have basically lied about my ideology multiple times while throwing in a decent array of childish accusations and slander that are totally irrelevant. Frankly, I don't know why I deal with it because despite your claims of my irrelevance, Anarchists are the ones who propagate the bourgeois line and wind up following anti-communist lines unconditionally. You're totally ignorant on Stalin, imperialism and the Soviet Union and in truth, it's a total waste of time trying to debate with you, which is why I have no interest in doing it after this post. Spread your anti-communism somewhere else.


I think when you start asking me if I need a diaper change your level of argument is slipping a bit, but I'll continue nonetheless.

I don't propogate bourgeois propoganda, I propogate left wing crticisms of the Stalinist regime. Its not uncommon because there is alot to be criticised, especially when people make claims such as yourself about the USSR and Stalin. The left wing critique of the USSR is that it didn't create workers power, it created state power. Another critique is that Stalin murdered revolutionaries and anarchists/Trotskyists in Spain, and killed countless dissenters against his regime (and regimes tend to create opposition) in Russia. He sided with Hitler and carved up Poland. He was anti-semetic and homophobic. These are all facts accepted by everyone except Stalinists, whose sole sources n the wonders of Stalin come from other Stalinists and the USSR. We don't use bourgeois propoganda, we use anarchist ideas. We criticise Stalin for what he clearly did wrong, and his myriad of anti-socialist actions.

I do love it when someone throws around the whole 'anti-communist' line. So you support a man who killed comunists, crushed a revolution and sided with fascists, and I criticise this from the perspective that he didn't give the workers freedom, he didn't create workers control, and that he killed communists, and that he was a dictator and there was no democracy, and that somehow makes me anti-communist? So wait, supporting workers control, freedom and equality, world revolution and the abolition of class is anti-comunist, but supporting a regime with one unelected man as a ruler, class based social relations and a leadership which openly killed revolutionaries is anti-communist? Wow.

The line simply doesn't work. I'm an anarchist and so by definition a communist. Thats why I am active as much as I am in distributing propoganda, standing on pickets, talking to people about the need to organise as a class against capitalism. Clearly, I am not an anti-communist. This is *such* a ridiculous and baseless claim it shows how desperate you are - you can't bare any criticisms of your religion of Stalinism so you fall into self-denial and then ridiculous insults. If I'm not in need of a diaper change, I'm an anti-communist member of a libertarian communist group. Face it, I'm not anti-communist, I'm anti-Stalinist, clearly two very different things.

I really think you can do better tha calling me an anti-communist. :)

[Pogue]

Oh, they will melt.

Listen, you're missing my point completely. I am criticizing H-L-V-S, not because I believe he is a puppet of the bourgeois or a servant of the capitalist system, but because he parrots the same propaganda and ideology that the bourgeoisie promotes. It should be very critical to observe what is positive for the bourgeoisie and what they criticize. Demonizing Marxism is in their favor, which is what H-L-V-S is doing. He's parroting propaganda about Stalin that reactionaries propagate.

This falls into the ridiculous assumption that if the bourgeoisie says it, it can never be true. The bourgeoisie criticised Hitler, too, does that mean if I criticise Hitler, I am parroting bourgeois propganda? Anarchists such as the CNT and Emma Goldman went to Russia and saw what it was like - even Trotsky, a Leninist, criticised it. We criticise it from a left wing perspective, the capitalist from the right. It just so happens we both have some criticisms that were true.

I love how to Stalinists, the bourgeoisie naturally always lie, but of course the information they get from Stalinist sources never lies. Yes, because Stalin and the Politburo never told a fib, did it Kassad? They were well known for their honesty. The USSRs totally free press could easily research condtions in Russia and report the truth.

OH WAIT!


Trotksy was supporting opposition to the Soviet Union and advocating its destruction during war with Nazi Germany. Trotsky was counterrevolutionary, in my opinion, and his theories of permanent revolution were skewed and totally irrelevant. I'm sure Stalin did kill people who didn't need to be killed, but the it is the duty of proletarian dictatorship to suppress reactionaries and prevent counterrevolution, which is what he did. Of course, I'm open to sources and specifics as to 'good' communists who were killed so I can address them more directly.

Oh come on, you have completely distorted Trotsky's writings there. Thats pathetic.

On the subject of good communists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Nin

Maybe you can explain why they killed Nin?


The dictatorship of the proletariat is not authoritarian and most socialist states that have been forced into the realm of totalitarianism have usually done so to cling to socialist reforms that are under attack by reactionary-supported imperialists and colonialist powers that seek a hegemony over the land, people and resources that revolutonary forces are trying to liberate. You're looking at the narrow picture and you aren't taking imperialist threats and intervention into account.

If Stalin was protecting socialism why did he attack the Spanish revolution? Surely he would have loved to see 'another' socialist society emerge as an ally?

[ZeroNowhere]

Demonizing Marxism is in their favor, which is what H-L-V-S is doing.From my limited discussions with him, I can assure you that he doesn't.

[ComradeR]

I'm critical of a lot of things that Stalin did while he was in power but that does not mean I think he or the SU should simply be decried as some great evil. You simply have to take the good with the bad, learn from it and move on.

Do you really expect us to focus on the literacy developement or industrialisation of a regime which killed anyone who disagreed with it?
True alot of people were killed for being (or believed to be) counter-revolutionary in the SU but this is hardly something unique to the "Stalinist" SU or much less Marxism. For example in Spain we also saw revolutionary violence against people believed to be counter-revolutionary. Thousands of priests and ordinary people believed to be counter-revolutionary were executed by Anarchists. Had they (the Anarchists) been victorious in the war it's very likely the number of people killed could have reached into the hundreds of thousands or even millions and we would be hearing about "those mass murdering Anarchists". Revolutionary violence against the ruling class and their supporters during the revolution and against their remnants and supporters after to defend the revolution is justified and often necessary, but it can get carried away and innocent people will get wrongly accused and killed.

Maybe you can explain why they killed Nin?
People like Nin were killed because they were seen as being against what they (the SU) saw as the way a revolution should be carried out and thus (wrongfully) a counter-revolutionary.

I'm not an AR btw (I don't really prescribe to any particular "ism") I just think that there is something to be learned from every revolution and each should be studied rather then simply denounced and demonized for not matching what you believe it should be.

[Pogue]

True alot of people were killed for being (or believed to be) counter-revolutionary in the SU but this is hardly something unique to the "Stalinist" SU or much less Marxism. For example in Spain we also saw revolutionary violence against people believed to be counter-revolutionary. Thousands of priests and ordinary people believed to be counter-revolutionary were executed by Anarchists. Had they (the Anarchists) been victorious in the war it's very likely the number of people killed could have reached into the hundreds of thousands or even millions and we would be hearing about "those mass murdering Anarchists". Revolutionary violence against the ruling class and their supporters during the revolution and against their remnants and supporters after to defend the revolution is justified and often necessary, but it can get carried away and innocent people will get wrongly accused and killed.


Actually, its historical fact that it wasn't 'thousands' of priests that were killed, the number was closer to hundreds, and also that priests who were not deemed corrupt (i.e. didn't favour burying the rich over the poor) were spared, but because of the church's institutional support both financially and 'morally' alot of them were killed. If you read Anthony Beevor's book on the Spanish Civil War he makes all of thsi quite clear. The violence against the church was not generalised or widespread, it was specific and targetted, but all the same, it was condemned by the CNT-FAI who even took active steps to prevent it - Beevor says that there is evidence that the majority of killings (against the ruling class, i.e. rich priests, landowners, etc) were carried dout quite simply by criminals (as prisos were opened) or individuals acting against the wishes of their union. The anarchists did not have a policy of mass murder and thus didn't carry out massacres. You can't say 'They would have' as if its true, thats mindless and baseless speculation.


People like Nin were killed because they were seen as being against what they (the SU) saw as the way a revolution should be carried out and thus (wrongfully) a counter-revolutionary.

I'm not an AR btw (I don't really prescribe to any particular "ism") I just think that there is something to be learned from every revolution and each should be studied rather then simply denounced and demonized for not matching what you believe it should be.

Nin was killed for being a great revolutionary leader. He opposed the Stalinist, USSR controlled Spaish communist party for its repressive and counter-revolutionary measures, and so he was tortured and killed by the Stalinists as part of Stalin's counter-revolutionary measures.

[ComradeR]

Actually, its historical fact that it wasn't 'thousands' of priests that were killed, the number was closer to hundreds
Much like the number of those killed in the SU it depends on the source. I've seen figures ranging from hundreds to thousands.

The violence against the church was not generalised or widespread, it was specific and targetted, but all the same, it was condemned by the CNT-FAI who even took active steps to prevent it
Regarding targeting the church that may well be but counter-revolutionaries were imprisoned or killed by the CNT-FAI, it's utterly absurd to to try and deny it or play it down.

You can't say 'They would have' as if its true, thats mindless and baseless speculation.
Then how else would they have dealt with counter-revolutionaries? It's no secret that not everyone in Spain was an Anarchist or supported Anarchy and would take up arms to attack it or to sabotage it. Anarchists were already carrying out revolutionary violence against counter-revolutionaries in the areas under their control and there is no reason to believe it wouldn't continue as necessary if they had won the war. This is hardly a criticism, revolutionary violence is justified and necessary at times to defend a revolution from the bourgeois remnants and its supporters.

Nin was killed for being a great revolutionary leader. He opposed the Stalinist, USSR controlled Spaish communist party for its repressive and counter-revolutionary measures, and so he was tortured and killed by the Stalinists as part of Stalin's counter-revolutionary measures.
That's pretty much what I said, the SU saw him as a counter-revolutionary and a danger to how they believed the revolution should be carried out and had him killed.

[LeninBalls]

Exactly my point. Sadly some Stalinists don't see it this way. All he was really able to do after being exiled was criticize the USSR in writing.

I'm talking about if Trotsky was in power, obviously. I don't see what's hard to comprehend.

[Random Precision]

Instead of trying to spread the revolution by military force (which is basically what Trotsky argued for at one point);

Of course, Trotsky never argued for this. It was Tukachevsky and Solomin among others who advocated spreading the revolution into Poland and then Germany "at the point of a bayonet", or a military theory of the offensive. Trotsky was vocally opposed to that idea:


We need peace not from doctrinal considerations but because the working people have had enough of war and privation. Our efforts are directed to safeguarding for the workers and peasants as long a period of peace as possible...

One of the most important tasks of our domestic policy in recent times has been to draw closer to the peasant. The peasant question confronts us with particular acuteness in the army. Does Solomin seriously believe that today, when immediate danger of a return of the landlords has been eliminated, and revolution in Europe still remains only a potentiality, we can rally our army of more than a million men, nine-tenths of whom are peasants, under the banner of offensive war for the purpose of bringing about the denouément of the proletarian revolution? Such propaganda would be stillborn...

It was precisely because we posed the question like that in the spring of 1920 that every Red Army man was firmly convinced that bourgeois Poland had forced upon us a war which we had not wanted and from which we had tried to protect the people by making very big concessions. It was just this conviction that engendered the very great indignation and hatred that was felt against the enemy. It was due precisely to this that the war, which began as one of defence, could subsequently be developed into an offensive war.

The contradiction between defensive propaganda and the offensive (in the last analysis) character of a war is a ‘good’, viable, dialectical contradiction. And we have no grounds whatsoever for altering the character and direction of our educational work in the army.in order to please muddleheads, even if they speak in the name of military doctrine.

Those who talk about revolutionary wars usually derive their inspiration from recollections of the wars of the Great French Revolution. In France they also began with defence: they created an army for defence and then went over to the offensive. To the sound of the Marseillaise the armed sansculottes marched with their revolutionary broom all across Europe. Historical analogies are very tempting. But one has to be cautious when resorting to them. Otherwise, formal features of similarity may induce one to overlook material features of difference. France was, at the end of the 18th century, the richest and most civilised country on the Continent of Europe. In the 20th century, Russia is the poorest and most backward country in Europe. Compared with the revolutionary tasks that confront us today, the revolutionary task of the French army was much more superficial in character. At that time it was a matter of overthrowing ‘tyrants’, of abolishing or mitigating feudal serfdom. Today it is a matter of completely destroying exploitation and class oppression. But the role of the arms of France – that is, of an advanced country in relation to backward Europe – proved to be very limited and transient. With the downfall of Bonapartism, which had grown out of the revolutionary war, Europe returned to its Kings and feudal lords.

In the gigantic class struggle which is unfolding today, the role of armed intervention from without can have no more than concomitant, contributory, auxiliary significance. Armed intervention can hasten the denouément and facilitate the victory. But for this it is necessary that the revolution be mature not merely in respect of social relations – that is already the case – but also in respect of political consciousness. Armed intervention is like the forceps of the obstetrician: used at the right moment it can ease the birth-pangs, but if brought into play prematurely it can only cause a miscarriage.

Source: "Military Doctrine or Pseudo-Military Doctrinairism", December 5 1921, in How the Revolution Armed, vol. 5: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/military/ch37.htm


"Socialism In one country" was a policy of developing the industrial foundations of the USSR, and to rebuild/ as well as rapidly develop their socialist economy.

But when it was first put forth by Bukharin that was not at all what it was about. It was a "lengthy process of development" through which the peasantry, including the kulaks, would "grow into socialism". Stalin didn't go quite that far, but his concept of industrialization as late as 1926 was still sort of a shallow NEP-based reformism:


It is the path of the mass organisation of millions of peasant farms into co-operatives in all spheres of co-operation, the path of uniting the scattered peasant farms around socialist industry, the path of implanting the elements of collectivism among the peasantry at first in the sphere of marketing agricultural produce and supplying the peasant farms with the products of urban industry and later in the sphere of agricultural production.

And the further we advance the more this path becomes inevitable under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, because co-operative marketing, co-operative supplying, and, finally, co-operative credit and production (agricultural co-operatives) are the only way to promote the welfare of the countryside, the only way to save the broad masses of the peasantry from poverty and ruin...

The peasantry is non-socialist by its position. But it must, and certainly will, take the path of socialist development, for there is not, and cannot be, any other way of saving the peasantry from poverty and ruin except the bond with the proletariat, except the bond with socialist industry, except the inclusion of peasant economy in the common channel of socialist development by the mass organisation of the peasantry in co-operatives.

Source: "Concerning Questions of Leninism", January 25, 1926: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm


The Soviet Union could not fatalistically rely on other countries to support their development due to their backwardness, but in any case these other revolutions failed.

Of course this is exactly what Trotsky was saying, that the Soviet workers had to embark on industrialization. There are quite frankly endless quotes on this that I don't feel like searching through for exactly the right one, so instead you should read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch04.htm).


Next, the Soviet Union aided countless revolutionary struggles in numerous different countries around the world in the interest of defeating capitalism and implementing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Some worked better than others, but the point remains that under Stalin's leadership (he who advocated Socialism in One Country) revolutions in China, Albania, Yugoslavia, Korea were aided by and allied (more or less, depends on which country) with the Soviet Union.

But this is exactly what you were criticizing Trotsky for just a moment ago, the idea that you can spread the revolution by military force. By that logic, Stalin must have been the best Trotskyite who ever lived!

The "revolutions" in Eastern Europe and North Korea were accomplished exactly that way: the Red Army marched in and handed power over to the Communist Party. Of course, the question you need to be asking is whether that is actually revolution, not just because the system it established was not socialist in the slightest but also because it conflicts with Marxism's most basic premise: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

[ArrowLance]

And it is not propaganda if it is true.


Propaganda can be true. But in the case of anti-Stalin/USSR propaganda, I don't think all of it is.

[Pogue]

Much like the number of those killed in the SU it depends on the source. I've seen figures ranging from hundreds to thousands.



What source does this come from?


Regarding targeting the church that may well be but counter-revolutionaries were imprisoned or killed by the CNT-FAI, it's utterly absurd to to try and deny it or play it down.

Who are you referring to? Because I have no problem with say, interning fascists, but thats not what Stalin did, he killed and imprisoned even communist revolutionaries such as Andres Nin. I don't understand your point - surely we'd be pelased if fascists and the bourgeoisie were dealt with - I have no problem with that, but thats not what Stalin did.


Then how else would they have dealt with counter-revolutionaries? It's no secret that not everyone in Spain was an Anarchist or supported Anarchy and would take up arms to attack it or to sabotage it. Anarchists were already carrying out revolutionary violence against counter-revolutionaries in the areas under their control and there is no reason to believe it wouldn't continue as necessary if they had won the war. This is hardly a criticism, revolutionary violence is justified and necessary at times to defend a revolution from the bourgeois remnants and its supporters.

This is a ridiciulous argument. How do you expect me to respond when your argument consists of 'The Spanish anarchists would have killed alot of counter-reovlutionaries had they won. I just know this.' It didn't happen and so your opinion on this matter is worthless.


That's pretty much what I said, the SU saw him as a counter-revolutionary and a danger to how they believed the revolution should be carried out and had him killed.


If the SU saw Nin as a counter-revolutionary that shows us clearly what the Soviet Union was really about - new class rule and suppressing revolution. I don't see how anyone in the world could logically say Nin was a counter-revolutionary.

[Il Medico]

Propaganda can be true. But in the case of anti-Stalin/USSR propaganda, I don't think all of it is.
USSR propaganda no. A good deal is false. However, the cappies criticisms of Stalin for being a Totalitarian Mass Murdering Fuckhead, are mostly grounded in reality. In the war of words between communism and capitalism, Stalin really gave the cappies quite a gift.

[Sam_b]

the cappies criticisms of Stalin for being a Totalitarian Mass Murdering Fuckhead, are mostly grounded in reality

My, what insightful analysis. Its just not good enough and lazy politics to just make generalisations, again without a shred of evidence. It's like a cliche for liberal moralism that the left could do without.

Now, can anyone actually post something productive without the loaded terminologies?

[Vincent P.]

The crimes had been officially recognized by Soviet Union not long after Stalin's death, and Nikita didn't have no political political interest which can stand as a good reason to denounce Stalin's excesses, he just [partially] told the truth. Faith in the immaculated Stalinian Union has been friggin' shaken (even though this didn't restrain Nikita from being a genuine authoritarian asshole too).

The denounciation of stalinism came from the soviet union after Stalin, from people who were hated about as much as Stalin by the West and who had nothing to win by doing so, yet anti-revisionist claim that information about Stalin under the Stalinist regime is more reliable.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What always gets me about the whole building up a "workers" state is , why? "To defend the revolution" is the normal response. However which lasted longer in Iraq against the kind of armed force a revolution would have to go up against, the Iraqi state or the Civilian resistance?

[ComradeR]

What source does this come from?
I'm in a hurry right now but various bourgeois and church sources put the number as high as 7,000. Or the accounts of people such as Franz Borkenau (who while a Marxist was not a Leninist) who talked about the "mass executions" carried out by Anarchists in places such as Barcelona.

Who are you referring to? Because I have no problem with say, interning fascists, but thats not what Stalin did, he killed and imprisoned even communist revolutionaries such as Andres Nin. I don't understand your point - surely we'd be pelased if fascists and the bourgeoisie were dealt with - I have no problem with that, but thats not what Stalin did.
They were wrong in many cases but from the point of view of Stalin and the SU they were going after courter-revolutionaries.

This is a ridiciulous argument. How do you expect me to respond when your argument consists of 'The Spanish anarchists would have killed alot of counter-reovlutionaries had they won. I just know this.' It didn't happen and so your opinion on this matter is worthless.
My entire point is that it is ridiculous to believe that if the Anarchists had won the war that suddenly all counter-revolutionary activity would cease. Barring soom sudden global revolution that would sweep the bourgeoisie and all of it's supporters away instantly counter-revolutionaries would have to be oppressed and even killed. And given how the Anarchists were willing to do just that during the war it is not unreasonable to believe they would have continued as necessary to defend the revolution afterward. It is just absurd to criticize communists for doing that when Anarchists who put in that same position would have to (and did) do the same thing.

If the SU saw Nin as a counter-revolutionary that shows us clearly what the Soviet Union was really about - new class rule and suppressing revolution. I don't see how anyone in the world could logically say Nin was a counter-revolutionary.
The bureaucracy in the SU did not constitute a new class. But regardless it is true that their view of revolution had become warped and distorted leading them in some cases to suppress what they saw as counter-revolutionaries but were in fact not (such as Nin).

I'm going to be gone for a few days but I'll respond further when I get back.

[Idealism]

Of course, Trotsky never argued for this.

I cant say ive read much of Trotsky's work, but i did read this:http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm
In which he explains the need for what he calls military intimidation of bourgeois, which involves preemptive use of "counter-revolutionary" measures, the purpose of which could be interpreted as "spreading the revolution by military force". Though from what ive heard, I don't think he held these views for a long time.

[Il Medico]

My, what insightful analysis. Its just not good enough and lazy politics to just make generalisations, again without a shred of evidence. It's like a cliche for liberal moralism that the left could do without.

Now, can anyone actually post something productive without the loaded terminologies?
I apologize if my 'terminologies' offended your sensibilities. However, I don't see how it was off hand when describing a person who kill nearly as many as Hitler. I doubt you object if some one called Hitler that, it is not lazy politics just anger towards a man responsible for the death of millions.

[Charles Xavier]

People tend to forget that when socialism is under siege it resorts to means it would not normally use. The Healthy development of a peaceful development of socialism was hindered by Imperialist wars and a lack of allies. There was no Socialist Germany or Britain to aid the development of Socialism, as a result you see a practical application of socialism responding to the conditions it faced. Imperialist wars, backwardness of its economy and infrastructure, illiteracy, economic attacks and what not compounded with political problems within the soviet union itself. The Soviet Union was not one person dictating the shots. It was collective leadership, variety of platforms won by various ideological tendencies in society. Not everything that Stalin wanted to happen, happened, sometimes programs he disagreed with internally in the party were promoted by the society.

The question is not whether Stalin was good or bad, but should socialism fight for its existence in an imperfect form due to the backwardness and imperialist intrigues it was handed or die?

Its very easy to criticize when you are not making decisions which affect not only millions of your own countrymen but the entire world's class struggle.