Am I considered a Stalinist?

[maxham]

Mates, I'd have a REALLY serious questions regarding my Leftist ideologies position. I'm not sure where's my position, but some people said that I'm a Stalinist (esp. in the economic issues). As a reference, here's my ideals:

POLITICS, LAW, & SOCIAL LIFE:

Power is very corrupt & evil. So, that means, any kinds of authorities are questionable, & basically, they are mafias, imperialists, colonialists, & robbers. All humankind should live in freedom, justice & harmony with the minimal (or even no) authorities influence as possible.

Justice is above the law. The law is not the only way to achieve justice. Laws are blind, so laws can't be guaranteed as the "justice-makers", but good morals creates justice.

We must guarantee justice, freedom, & humanism by freedom of travel, freedom of option, freedom of expression, freedom of religion & Human Rights, as well as equality of opportunity & equality of outcome.

LGBT culture is a must-accepted phenomena in all societies, & all kinds of social, political, economic, & cultural (negative) discrimination is totally unacceptable.

All kinds of religious faiths are the same purpose: To promote Truth, Justice & Goodness as well as humanism, togetherness, love, justice, & universalism & to help humankind to liberate themselves from spiritual darkness (immorality).

Rehabilitaion is far more important rather than punishment, as rehabilitation is a humanist-spirited & embraces personal freedom & right, as well as obligations, to "help someone bad to be better, & to make the world a better place".

Everyone MUST discover & love their given talents & potentials & collaborate altogether to make the World a better place, & everybody should support each other to discover & develop their talents as well. "We live to completing/collaborate each other, not competing each other".

Armed Forces are somewhat like "donkeys mixed with dogs" or "senseless" (like robots). Military culture should be intensively transformed into a more critical, liberating & humanist oriented, rather than discipline & obedience oriented.

Education is to liberating people from immorality, darkness, & stupidity, & so that;s why education should promote & guarantees wisdom, togetherness, universalism, equality, glory, humanism, & justice besides knowledge & prosperity.


ECONOMIC & WELFARE:

Everyone by/on their abilities & Everyone/on by their needs (a classical Marxist dogma)

A new economic system must be seriously implemented & developed that embraces 100% freedom, 100% justice & 100% collectivism as well.

CSR (Corporate Social Responsibilities) should be valued more rather than making profit.

Communitarian Entrepreneurship must be seriously developed by autogestion system (workers' self-management system), with supports from investors, elites, & governments (in short-medium terms), while in long terms, the autogestion system must guarantees justice & humanity of financial securities for all cooperatives/corporates.

The purpose of every economic activities are to liberating people from poverty, & to promote & guarantees prosperity, wealth, as well as financial independence. That's why, "Homo Homini Lupus" is totally discouraged.


After reading all of my ideals, which Leftist ideologies that suits me? Thanks for your opinions.

[khad]

No, a few posters just use that label whenever they encounter ideas that don't mesh with certain liberal-libertarian worldviews. I got called a stalinist and unapologetic capitalist for supporting public education. No big deal on this site.

[Hit The North]

Whether you're a Stalinist or not is not a philosophical question.

But someone who thinks that power is corrupt or evil, is unlikely to be a Stalinist.

And Stalin was hardly known for his liberal views on LGBT issues.

Moved to Learning.

[Pogue]

nah you seem like a sort of radical social democrat really

[SubcomandanteJames]

You're definitely NOT a Stalinist. I agree with Pogue that you much like a social democrat, in the old socialist sense of the word, not these Neo-social democratic Keyensians and such.

[Ismail]

But someone who thinks that power is corrupt or evil, is unlikely to be a Stalinist.Or a Marxist, for that matter.

See Engels, 'On Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm),' 1872:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
And Stalin was hardly known for his liberal views on LGBT issues.Neither were many Communists at the time, and certainly not many people in general for that matter. But hey, I guess Stalin not supporting homosexuals in the 1920's-early 50's because he was born to a poor peasant family where he had sexual relations with prepubescent girls among other, clearly not very 'advanced' actions (studied in a seminary school), damns him forever. I better tell the two gay 'Stalinists' I know about that, Stalin's saying "There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand by the latter." doesn't apply to us, I guess.

Here is APL_Serpov's (an old gay 'Stalinist' user of RevLeft) take:

Marxism-Leninism as every Hoxhaist knows is not some religion. We do not concern ourselves with men's souls (assuming of course said soul actually exists). Instead it is a science that concerns itself with how things are produced and who controls the production. And as a science Marxism-Leninism changes with new information and new facts. Take homosexuality for example. While it was believed by Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha that homosexuality was caused by social dynamics we have since learned in studies conducted in the 1990's and earlier in this decade that there are indeed differences in brain structure and hormone levels between heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and women. These differences cannot be influenced by the social superstructure or the economic structure as such they must be related to human biology and are therefore natural occurrences.

Furthermore although homosexuality was illegal in both the USSR and Socialist Albania no person has ever been purged from the PPSH or from the CPSU (B) for being homosexual. It should also be noted that Yezhov was a known bi-sexual. Indeed although it was illegal no person was ever prosecuted under those laws. I think because the governments of both proletarian dictatorships had bigger issues than making sure that Igor did not put his penis into Ivan's rectum. And quite frankly it is none of the state's business what consenting adults do with their genitalia.

[Hit The North]

Or a Marxist, for that matter.



Yep.

[Communist Theory]

What's a Stalinist?

[Ismail]

What's a Stalinist?Someone who hates America and freedom.

[Communist Theory]

Someone who hates America and freedom.
lulz.
I thought it was somebody that thinks that Stalin was a ideological powerhouse
that came up with his own theories on how Communism should be achieved or something.

[Il Medico]

What's a Stalinist?
Stalinist are Marxist-Leninist/Anti-Revisionist. This means YOU!

[Ismail]

I thought it was somebody that thinks that Stalin was a ideological powerhouse This is incorrect. As Leon Trotsky points out in the definitive biography of Stalin, Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, "Stalinism" was concocted as part of Stalin's Asiatic and primitive worldview. At the same time, you can clearly feel the passion of Trotsky's writings as he himself notes early on about how his pen is only able to write pure hatred of the man. It is a highly recommended biography, unfinished because of the "Stalinist" attack on Trotsky's head, but already having been comprised of 500+ pages of how Stalin never really accomplished anything ever. Of course anti-communist historians, such as Ian Grey in his 1979 work Stalin: Man of History cast some serious doubt on this,* but Trotsky's epicness in word form makes such trifles irrelevant.

The amazing portion of the book comes at around page 380, wherein Trotsky notes that Stalin quite possibly poisoned Lenin: "I imagine the course of affairs somewhat like this. Lenin asked for poison at the end of February, 1923.... Toward winter Lenin began to improve slowly...; his faculty of speech began to come back to him.... His goal was near, but the danger emanating from Lenin was even nearer. At this time Stalin must have made up his mind that it was imperative to act without delay.... Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin with the hint that the physicians had left no hope for his recovery or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know."

These are the words of a genius. And though we now know that Stalin last saw Lenin alive on December 13 1923,** Trotsky's words of wisdom still resonate with us even to this very day.

This biography is so amazing and well-regarded, that even Marxists.org, which has Trotsky's own, similarly unbiased autobiography My Life, lacks it.

* Let's find an example quote from the book itself! On Brest-Litovsk: "Trotsky's furious sallies made no impression on his German opponents. They knew the weakness of his position. Suddenly, on January 18, they produced a map of eastern Europe, showing the new frontiers, which deprived Russia of extensive territories. The ultimatum enraged Trotsky. He swore that he would break off negotiations. Then, having received a telegram, signed 'Lenin-Stalin,' instructing him to return to Petrograd for discussions, he agreed to an adjournment until January 29. There is further evidence, cited by Trotsky himself, showing how closely Stalin stood to Lenin at this critical time. A certainly Dmitrievsky observed that "even Lenin at that period felt the need of Stalin to such an extent that, when communications came from Trotsky at Brest and an immediate decision had to be made, while Stalin was not in Moscow, Lenin would inform Trotsky: 'I would like first to consult with Stalin before replying to your question.' And only three days later Lenin would telegraph: 'Stalin has just arrived. I will consider it with him, and we will at once give you our joint answer.''" Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p 106. Dmitrievsky's words came from Trotsky's own biography which Grey cited. L. Trotsky, Stalin (London, 1968), pp. 244, 248-49.

** R.H. McNeal. Bride of the Revolution: Krupskaya and Lenin, London, 1973., p. 73.

[ArrowLance]

100% Freedom, lol.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'd say the key questions would be stuff like how do we get to this society you describe, and how you view Russia in the 30s-50s - was it a good first step to getting to that kind of society?
Also, when you say "people", do you mean other revolutionaries, or just people in general? Cos if it's the latter, then that'll probably because they have no idea of non-Stalinist communist ideas, so they'll just associate all forms of communism with Stalinism.

[Chow Foo]

Stalinists are losers who still praise Stalin ( A fascist dictator cultist freak ruled in the -- name -- of Marxism)

[LeninBalls]

Yes. You are scum of the earth and should either kill yourself or submit to Anarchism.

[Pogue]

Yes. You are scum of the earth and should either kill yourself or submit to Anarchism.

There are plenty more ideologies that are not Stalinism that are better than Stalinism. But if you want to 'submit to Anarchism', whatever the fuck that means in your deluded brain, go for it.

[Jonnydraft]

Yes. You are scum of the earth and should either kill yourself or submit to Anarchism.

More than a little ironic.

[Luís Henrique]

Mates, I'd have a REALLY serious questions regarding my Leftist ideologies position. I'm not sure where's my position, but some people said that I'm a Stalinist (esp. in the economic issues). As a reference, here's my ideals:

It isn't likely that they know you better than yourself.


Power is very corrupt & evil. So, that means, any kinds of authorities are questionable, & basically, they are mafias, imperialists, colonialists, & robbers. All humankind should live in freedom, justice & harmony with the minimal (or even no) authorities influence as possible.

This doesn't seem a Stalinist position, at all. It much more looks like some kind of radical liberalism; the first sentence is in fact a bit conservative (power corrupts; so you pure and gentle workers and peasants, do not spoil yourselves by meddling with power. Leave it for us, the already corrupt businessmen and landlords).


Justice is above the law. The law is not the only way to achieve justice. Laws are blind, so laws can't be guaranteed as the "justice-makers", but good morals creates justice.

This tends a bit towards jusnaturalism, the idea that there is a supernatural source of justice, superior to human wits. I tend to find it difficult to reconcile this with a materialist, marxist, position.


We must guarantee justice, freedom, & humanism by freedom of travel, freedom of option, freedom of expression, freedom of religion & Human Rights, as well as equality of opportunity & equality of outcome.

This seems radical liberalism.


LGBT culture is a must-accepted phenomena in all societies, & all kinds of social, political, economic, & cultural (negative) discrimination is totally unacceptable.

This goes against fact - LGBT "culture" (whatever this means, for I don't believe in the existence of a "LGBT culture") is certainly not "accepted" in most societies. Other than this, it again looks as liberalism.


All kinds of religious faiths are the same purpose: To promote Truth, Justice & Goodness as well as humanism, togetherness, love, justice, & universalism & to help humankind to liberate themselves from spiritual darkness (immorality).

This again goes agains fact. Religions tend to promote lies and unjustice, not the opposite. I fear that "spiritual darkness" is a phrase devoid of actual content.


Rehabilitaion is far more important rather than punishment, as rehabilitation is a humanist-spirited & embraces personal freedom & right, as well as obligations, to "help someone bad to be better, & to make the world a better place".

This is Beccaria.


Everyone MUST discover & love their given talents & potentials & collaborate altogether to make the World a better place, & everybody should support each other to discover & develop their talents as well. "We live to completing/collaborate each other, not competing each other".

I think this gives too much to the caricature the bourgeois make of socialism and socialists. We do compete with each others and there is nothing inherently wrong in this. The problem is what we compete for, and what the rewards are.


Armed Forces are somewhat like "donkeys mixed with dogs" or "senseless" (like robots). Military culture should be intensively transformed into a more critical, liberating & humanist oriented, rather than discipline & obedience oriented.

This seems too superficial. "Military culture" cannot be transformed into its opposite; as long as there are militaries, they will always be "discipline and obedience oriented" (among other, even worse, things).


Education is to liberating people from immorality, darkness, & stupidity, & so that;s why education should promote & guarantees wisdom, togetherness, universalism, equality, glory, humanism, & justice besides knowledge & prosperity.

This does not seem to be what education is about in our society; perhaps when you say "is" you mean "should be"?


Everyone by/on their abilities & Everyone/on by their needs (a classical Marxist dogma)

First I don't think it is dogma; second it is definitely not Marxist; I think its origins are in Paul of Tarsus.


A new economic system must be seriously implemented & developed that embraces 100% freedom, 100% justice & 100% collectivism as well.

This sounds great, but what does it mean?


CSR (Corporate Social Responsibilities) should be valued more rather than making profit.

They can't. Corporations exist to produce profits, not to bear the burden of social responsibilities. As it is, this sentence sounds distinctly conservative, much in the Rerum Novarum way.


Communitarian Entrepreneurship must be seriously developed by autogestion system (workers' self-management system), with supports from investors, elites, & governments (in short-medium terms), while in long terms, the autogestion system must guarantees justice & humanity of financial securities for all cooperatives/corporates.

"Communitarian Enterpreneurism" sounds to me as an oxymoron. I fear the whole paragraph doesn't make much sence, and it relies in some unexplained clauses (for instance, the "system must guarantee justice", etc.: what means to "guarantee justice", and how it is seen that the system effectively does this, instead of reproducing inequality and violence?)


The purpose of every economic activities are to liberating people from poverty, & to promote & guarantees prosperity, wealth, as well as financial independence. That's why, "Homo Homini Lupus" is totally discouraged.

Again you seem to state as fact what is only a wish.


After reading all of my ideals, which Leftist ideologies that suits me? Thanks for your opinions.

You will have to discover it for yourself.

Luís Henrique

[Communist Theory]

Someone who hates America and freedom.
The idiots understand this post so they thank it.


This is incorrect. As Leon Trotsky points out in the definitive biography of Stalin, Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, "Stalinism" was concocted as part of Stalin's Asiatic and primitive worldview. At the same time, you can clearly feel the passion of Trotsky's writings as he himself notes early on about how his pen is only able to write pure hatred of the man. It is a highly recommended biography, unfinished because of the "Stalinist" attack on Trotsky's head, but already having been comprised of 500+ pages of how Stalin never really accomplished anything ever. Of course anti-communist historians, such as Ian Grey in his 1979 work Stalin: Man of History cast some serious doubt on this,* but Trotsky's epicness in word form makes such trifles irrelevant.

The amazing portion of the book comes at around page 380, wherein Trotsky notes that Stalin quite possibly poisoned Lenin: "I imagine the course of affairs somewhat like this. Lenin asked for poison at the end of February, 1923.... Toward winter Lenin began to improve slowly...; his faculty of speech began to come back to him.... His goal was near, but the danger emanating from Lenin was even nearer. At this time Stalin must have made up his mind that it was imperative to act without delay.... Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin with the hint that the physicians had left no hope for his recovery or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know."

These are the words of a genius. And though we now know that Stalin last saw Lenin alive on December 13 1923,** Trotsky's words of wisdom still resonate with us even to this very day.

This biography is so amazing and well-regarded, that even Marxists.org, which has Trotsky's own, similarly unbiased autobiography My Life, lacks it.

* Let's find an example quote from the book itself! On Brest-Litovsk: "Trotsky's furious sallies made no impression on his German opponents. They knew the weakness of his position. Suddenly, on January 18, they produced a map of eastern Europe, showing the new frontiers, which deprived Russia of extensive territories. The ultimatum enraged Trotsky. He swore that he would break off negotiations. Then, having received a telegram, signed 'Lenin-Stalin,' instructing him to return to Petrograd for discussions, he agreed to an adjournment until January 29. There is further evidence, cited by Trotsky himself, showing how closely Stalin stood to Lenin at this critical time. A certainly Dmitrievsky observed that "even Lenin at that period felt the need of Stalin to such an extent that, when communications came from Trotsky at Brest and an immediate decision had to be made, while Stalin was not in Moscow, Lenin would inform Trotsky: 'I would like first to consult with Stalin before replying to your question.' And only three days later Lenin would telegraph: 'Stalin has just arrived. I will consider it with him, and we will at once give you our joint answer.''" Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p 106. Dmitrievsky's words came from Trotsky's own biography which Grey cited. L. Trotsky, Stalin (London, 1968), pp. 244, 248-49.

** R.H. McNeal. Bride of the Revolution: Krupskaya and Lenin, London, 1973., p. 73.
The smart ones understand this post so they thank it.

You guys are lazy take time to read.

[Luís Henrique]

First I don't think it is dogma; second it is definitely not Marxist; I think its origins are in Paul of Tarsus.

To clarify, when I say it is not Marxist, I mean it isn't of Marxist origin, not that it is incompatible with Marxism.

Luís Henrique