Would I be considered a Stalinist?

[RedArmy]

Hello all,

I have been fascinated by communism, seeing as I am a member of a working class family and my family has been hurt by the excesses of the upper classes. I am enamored by the idea of communism but some of my beliefs have been called "fascist". I personally disagree, because many things I support were enacted by Joseph Stalin. Of course, I know some communists dislike him because they see him as fascistic, but I like him and his policies. I don't know why you guys think of Stalin, so I'd be glad to hear your opinions. While I am a communist, I am also a militarist. This, of course, doesn't necessarily make me an imperialist in the capitalist sense, but I do not support pacifism. I am also more of a nationalist than an internationalist, and as far as I know, Stalin was as well. So my question is: would you consider me a Stalinist, or would I fit better into another subset of communism? I know there are many factions and variations of the general idea, and I'd like to know which one I fit into best. I know you probably need my opinions on other policy positions, so feel free to ask.

Thank you.

[Lolshevik]

um... yeah, you sound like a stalinist to me.

I think you need to make a study of the fundamentals of Marxism to get a better grip on your politics. The fact that you describe yourself as "more a nationalist than an internationalist" alone is very disturbing. I would recommend The Communist Manifesto, to get you started.

[RedArmy]

um... yeah, you sound like a stalinist to me.

I think you need to make a study of the fundamentals of Marxism to get a better grip on your politics. The fact that you describe yourself as "more a nationalist than an internationalist" alone is very disturbing. I would recommend The Communist Manifesto, to get you started.

I'm currently reading it. I find it very interesting. Perhaps I overstated my beliefs about nationalism. I'm not a nationalist fanatic, I just get a little nervous when some communists talk about "one world without borders". I completely think countries (especially communist ones) should cooperate with each other, but I want them to keep their sovereignty.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I'm currently reading it. I find it very interesting. Perhaps I overstated my beliefs about nationalism. I'm not a nationalist fanatic, I just get a little nervous when some communists talk about "one world without borders". I completely think countries (especially communist ones) should cooperate with each other, but I want them to keep their sovereignty.

borders and countries signify the existence of states. oh wait, i guess you aren't anti-state...

your nationalism is probably what gets you called a fascist. separating people by imaginary lines is just another way of differentiating between people and trying to prop yourself up over others.

[RedArmy]

borders and countries signify the existence of states. oh wait, i guess you aren't anti-state...

No... I guess not. Should I be? I'm open to listening to any and all opinions.

[RedArmy]

borders and countries signify the existence of states. oh wait, i guess you aren't anti-state...

your nationalism is probably what gets you called a fascist. separating people by imaginary lines is just another way of differentiating between people and trying to prop yourself up over others.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I'm not interested in propping my country up over others though, I just want countries to have the ability to retain their own unique culture and customs.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Yes, I see what you are saying. I'm not interested in propping my country up over others though, I just want countries to have the ability to retain their own unique culture and customs.

Why are countries and states necessary to do that? Culture and customs are social things, not government programs. In fact, states probably destroy culture and customs more than they protect them.

As for being anti-state, you're going to be in a very small minority on these boards if you aren't. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to change your opinion on the state, but why do you see the need for it?

[Outinleftfield]

No... I guess not. Should I be? I'm open to listening to any and all opinions.

Even the authoritarian of communists are supposed to support the eventual "withering away" of the state.

Marx described it. After the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat the state would wither away and cease to exist in the communist stage where everything is owned in common with no state.

[el_chavista]

Hello all,

I don't know why you guys think of Stalin, so I'd be glad to hear your opinions...

¡Salud camarada! There may be thousands of messages and tons of text with opinions about Stalin in this forum. Stalin's personality, facts and thoughts seem to provoke an endless discussion among revolutionaries.

[RedArmy]

Even the authoritarian of communists are supposed to support the eventual "withering away" of the state.

Marx described it. After the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat the state would wither away and cease to exist in the communist stage where everything is owned in common with no state.

Yes, that is certainly true, but for all intents and purposes, we need the state. The "withering away" is a long, long time from now, at least in my opinion. I'll be dead and gone by the time that comes.

[StalinFanboy]

Yes, I see what you are saying. I'm not interested in propping my country up over others though, I just want countries to have the ability to retain their own unique culture and customs.
I don't know of any communist or anarchist who wants to do away with cultures. That you believe that a country is representative of a single culture is weird. Take a look at Iraq, or hell, even the USA has a vast amount of cultures within it. If anything, internationalism will strengthen cultures, rather than require them to assimilate into a national standard.

[RedArmy]

Why are countries and states necessary to do that? Culture and customs are social things, not government programs. In fact, states probably destroy culture and customs more than they protect them.

As for being anti-state, you're going to be in a very small minority on these boards if you aren't. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to change your opinion on the state, but why do you see the need for it?

I guess they aren't... but if there was no state to control the flow of immigration and emigration, what would guard against the mixing of cultures? I'm not against integration of cultures, but I fear that if too much mixing of cultures and integration occurs, then it will be one giant melting pot without any clear culture even existing anymore.

[Bankotsu]

After the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat the state would wither away and cease to exist in the communist stage where everything is owned in common with no state.

That is one of Marx's more erroneous theories in my opinion.

[RedArmy]

I don't know of any communist or anarchist who wants to do away with cultures. That you believe that a country is representative of a single culture is weird. Take a look at Iraq, or hell, even the USA has a vast amount of cultures within it. If anything, internationalism will strengthen cultures, rather than require them to assimilate into a national standard.

Hmm. I hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks for enlightening me!

[RedArmy]

¡Salud camarada! There may be thousands of messages and tons of text with opinions about Stalin in this forum. Stalin's personality, facts and thoughts seem to provoke an endless discussion among revolutionaries.

I'll be sure to read up on them. I find him fascinating. I see that you live in Venezuela. How do you like Chavez?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You will find a great diversity of views about Stalin here, and an even greater diversity of views about the Soviet Union. Some will say that if you like Stalin you can't be a communist. Others will say that the people who made the first statement are not communists. I strongly suggest you do not listen to either of them.

I personally believe that Stalin largely betrayed the Bolshevik Revolution, that his policies created a new ruling class in the Soviet Union, and that the political system he built suffered from fatal flaws that led to the collapse of the USSR. However, I also think he did a number of good things. I approve of most of his economic policies, his foreign policy, and his handling of WW2.

[Bankotsu]

RedArmy, are you interested in more critical analysis of communism? Because there are some errors in marxist theory that you should be aware of.

[RedArmy]

That is one of Marx's more erroneous theories in my opinion.

I agree. In all honesty, I don't really see that ever occurring, unless man can somehow reform himself and become a selfless being. Otherwise, I fear society would just devolve back into capitalism and feudalism.

[Bankotsu]

If anything, internationalism will strengthen cultures, rather than require them to assimilate into a national standard.

I think strengthening of cultures depends on the cultural polices implemented, I don't think it has much to do with internationalism at all.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I guess they aren't... but if there was no state to control the flow of immigration and emigration, what would guard against the mixing of cultures? I'm not against integration of cultures, but I fear that if too much mixing of cultures and integration occurs, then it will be one giant melting pot without any clear culture even existing anymore.

I'd rather have a variety of cultures than just one myself. Wouldn't that get boring fairly quickly?

[RedArmy]

RedArmy, are you interested in more critical analysis of communism? Because there are some errors in marxist theory that you should be aware of.

What errors would you be speaking of?

[RedArmy]

I'd rather have a variety of cultures than just one myself. Wouldn't that get boring fairly quickly?

Yes, I just don't want any culture being drowned out by the cacophony of all the different cultures and languages.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I guess they aren't... but if there was no state to control the flow of immigration and emigration, what would guard against the mixing of cultures? I'm not against integration of cultures, but I fear that if too much mixing of cultures and integration occurs, then it will be one giant melting pot without any clear culture even existing anymore.
That depends on the wishes of the people involved. There are countries where people with different cultures came and formed a melting pot. There are also other countries where several distinct cultures have coexisted for centuries.

I don't really see the importance of preserving cultures, but if you want to do that, you don't need barriers to migration. The only thing you need is people who want to preserve the culture in question.

[Bankotsu]

Wouldn't that get boring fairly quickly?

Not if you take pride in your own culture.

[Bankotsu]

I don't really see the importance of preserving cultures

So, if your own cultural group is destroyed, you would be okay with it?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Yes, I just don't want any culture being drowned out by the cacophony of all the different cultures and languages.

Isn't culture something the people should voluntarily want to take part in anyway? Having a state purely to protect local culture and customs seems like not only a waste, but illogical as well.

[RedArmy]

That depends on the wishes of the people involved. There are countries where people with different cultures came and formed a melting pot. There are also other countries where several distinct cultures have coexisted for centuries.

I don't really see the importance of preserving cultures, but if you want to do that, you don't need barriers to migration. The only thing you need is people who want to preserve the culture in question.

Yes, I guess it does depend on the wishes of those involved. I just take pride in my heritage and want to preserve it. Some people have called me a "racist" because I am proud of my heritage, but I am not one at all.

[Bankotsu]

What errors would you be speaking of?

Read this critical analysis of left wing thought:


International Socialism and the Soviet Challenge
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/08.html

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So, if your own cultural group is destroyed, you would be okay with it?
What is a "cultural group"?

But yes, I'd probably be ok with it.

[RedArmy]

Isn't culture something the people should voluntarily want to take part in anyway? Having a state purely to protect local culture and customs seems like not only a waste, but illogical as well.

Well, I think it's really something you're born into. Of course you can rebel later on in life, but I don't think anyone chooses to join any culture, at least not in the beginning. There are other uses for the state, as well, this is just one I am concerned with.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Not if you take pride in your own culture.

Pride is exactly the problem. If you're proud of your culture, you use it to feel superior to others. There's nothing wrong with culture, but if you try to keep it separate and tolerate only your own you're treading the thin line of fascism.

[Bankotsu]

Isn't culture something the people should voluntarily want to take part in anyway?

I don't think so, all people are born into a cultural group and raised up on that culture. Nothing to do with free will at all.

[RedArmy]

Pride is exactly the problem. If you're proud of your culture, you use it to feel superior to others. There's nothing wrong with culture, but if you try to keep it separate and tolerate only your own you're treading the thin line of fascism.

I'm proud of my culture, but I don't hold a supremacist attitude. I don't think pride itself is the enemy, I think those who are too proud are the problem.

[Bankotsu]

Pride is exactly the problem. If you're proud of your culture, you use it to feel superior to others. There's nothing wrong with culture, but if you try to keep it separate and tolerate only your own you're treading the thin line of fascism.

Yes. There should be peaceful co-existence among many diverse cultures.

But all mixed into a rubbish melting pot is also wrong. It is also extreme.

[Bankotsu]

What is a "cultural group"?

But yes, I'd probably be ok with it.

A cultural group is a group that lives life in a certain way, have a habit of doing things in life that is in their own unique way and method.

So how do you eat your food? With chopsticks or with a fork and knife? That is your eating culture.

You are from which culture?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't think so, all people are born into a cultural group and raised up on that culture. Nothing to do with free will at all.
But cultures change all the time. It is a nationalist illusion to imagine that today's British culture, for example, is the same as the one 100 years ago. Or that the one 100 years ago is the same as the one 200 years ago.

You are born in a culture, but you also inevitably play a role in changing that culture and passing down the changed version to the next generation.


A cultural group is a group that lives life in a certain way, have a habit of doing things in life that is in their own unique way and method.
Too vague. Which "things in life" are you talking about? And why is it important how you do those things?


So how do you eat your food? With chopsticks or with a fork and knife? That is your eating culture.
Ok, I eat my food with a fork and knife, but so what? I mean, if all my friends used chopsticks, maybe I'd give them a try, too. I really don't care.

[Bankotsu]

But cultures change all the time.

That's true. That is why some people want to preserve their unique culture and don't want to lose it.

[chegitz guevara]

So, if your own cultural group is destroyed, you would be okay with it?

Why should I care? Culture is language, history, a way of doing things? Socialism will destroy all existing cultures and create new ones. Nearly every culture on the planet is oppressive in some way. That shit needs to go.

The only cultures I support are the ones in yogurt and cheese.

[RedArmy]

That's true. That is why some people want to preserve their unique culture and don't want to lose it.

That's what I'm saying. I love my culture and I don't want it to be perverted or corrupted.

[chegitz guevara]

That's true. That is why some people want to preserve their unique culture and don't want to lose it.

We call them reactionaries and conservatives. In addition to your support for imperialism, it's quite clear you have no place in this forum.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

But all mixed into a rubbish melting pot is also wrong. It is also extreme.

How is it wrong if it happens naturally without the interference of authoritative organizations such as the state, religion, or corporate power? It's not as if anyone is advocating the FORCED mixing of cultures. I just don't understand why it should be stopped from naturally occurring.

Also, I disagree that there is no free will when it comes to culture. The culture I find myself a part of these days is nothing like what I grew up around and I have had complete control over my lifestyle up to this point.

[chegitz guevara]

That's what I'm saying. I love my culture and I don't want it to be perverted or corrupted.

Assuming you're an American, modern capitalism has already done that. Assuming you live on planet Earth, imperialism has already done that.

And this is the reason some people call you a fascist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But I think we're sliding off-topic. RedArmy is probably here to talk about communism, not culture.

So, RedArmy, what are your views on economic policy issues?

[chegitz guevara]

Yes. There should be peaceful co-existence among many diverse cultures.

But all mixed into a rubbish melting pot is also wrong. It is also extreme.

Can we ban this fascist now?

[Bankotsu]

Why should I care? Culture is language, history, a way of doing things?

You got that right.



Socialism will destroy all existing cultures and create new ones.

That's why there were so many deaths and killings in some countries. China's cultural revolution for example.


Nearly every culture on the planet is oppressive in some way.

Oppresssive in what way?


The only cultures I support are the ones in yogurt and cheese.

That is your unique eating culture. Some people eat insects, worms, beetles for breakfast. But that is clearly not your eating culture.

We should respect each other's culture and learn to live life in harmony.

That is the right way to go.

[RedArmy]

The only cultures I support are the ones in yogurt and cheese.

:laugh:
While I disagree, that was a good one!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Can we ban this fascist now?
Eh? What? I may not agree with Bankotsu, but calling him a "fascist" for being excessively attached to the way he eats his food is going too far.

[Bankotsu]

Can we ban this fascist now?

I am not fascist thank you.:D

I am reformist socialist.

[RedArmy]

Assuming you're an American, modern capitalism has already done that. Assuming you live on planet Earth, imperialism has already done that.

And this is the reason some people call you a fascist.

I agree! I just don't want it to be corrupted any more than it already is. That's one of the reasons I want to do away with capitalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ok, so, as I was saying, let's talk about capitalism. RedArmy, are you opposed to the market economy and private property over the means of production?

[Bankotsu]

How is it wrong if it happens naturally without the interference of authoritative organizations such as the state, religion, or corporate power? It's not as if anyone is advocating the FORCED mixing of cultures. I just don't understand why it should be stopped from naturally occurring.

Also, I disagree that there is no free will when it comes to culture. The culture I find myself a part of these days is nothing like what I grew up around and I have had complete control over my lifestyle up to this point.

I don't think you have a clear understanding of what culture is and how it changes.

Read below book to have a clearer idea and improve your knowledge:

The Evolution of Civilizations - An Introduction to Historical Analysis
http://www.archive.org/details/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo

[RedArmy]

Ok, so, as I was saying, let's talk about capitalism. RedArmy, are you opposed to the market economy and private property over the means of production?

Essentially, yes. I think the only "private property" one should be able to own is one's house and essential items.

[Bankotsu]

I agree! I just don't want it to be corrupted any more than it already is. That's one of the reasons I want to do away with capitalism.


It's more to do with certain policies like immigration policies, education policies that are destructive to local cultures rather than the capitalist economic system itself in my view.

See below book for more study:

The Evolution of Civilizations - An Introduction to Historical Analysis
http://www.archive.org/details/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo

[RedArmy]

But I think we're sliding off-topic. RedArmy is probably here to talk about communism, not culture.

So, RedArmy, what are your views on economic policy issues?

Well, to be honest, they're a little mixed.

I believe that the income tax should remain more or less the same.
I believe that the inheritance tax should be 100%. I believe the state should confiscate inheritances so that new generations of "rich" people cannot be spawned.
I believe in protectionism to protect our workers at home and because I believe (well, actually know) that unadulterated free trade makes Chinese workers into slaves.

[RedArmy]

It's more to do with certain policies like immigration policies, education policies that are destructive to local cultures rather than the capitalist economic system itself in my view.

I have to disagree with you here. Capitalism fosters moral degeneracy and societal decay. Capitalists, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, are all too willing to rip the family apart and make the familial relationship one which revolves around money, not love and well, other family stuff.

[Bankotsu]

I believe that the inheritance tax should be 100%. I believe the state should confiscate inheritances so that new generations of "rich" people cannot be spawned.

You may be interested in georgism theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

[New Tet]

I have to disagree with you here. Capitalism fosters moral degeneracy and societal decay. Capitalists, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, are all too willing to rip the family apart and make the familial relationship one which revolves around money, not love and well, other family stuff.

Why do you reproach capitalism for doing what comes to it naturally?

[Bankotsu]

Capitalists, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, are all too willing to rip the family apart and make the familial relationship one which revolves around money, not love and well, other family stuff.

The capitalist economic system with its emphasis on the profit motive and personal benefit at the expense of others can be quite destructive to all other areas of human needs, such as love, compassion etc.

That is why we need socialist practices to neutralise off the bad effects in my view.

According to Prof. Carroll Quigley:



The third notable feature of the whole development is closely related to this special nature of capitalism.

Capitalism provides very powerful motivations for economic activity because it associates economic motivations so closely with self-interest.

But this same feature, which is a source of strength in providing economic motivation through the pursuit of profits, is also a source of weakness owing to the fact that so self-centered a motivation contributes very readily to a loss of economic coordination.

Each individual, just because he is so powerfully motivated by self-interest, easily loses sight of the role which his own activities play in the economic system as a whole, and tends to act as if his activities were the whole, with inevitable injury to that whole.

We could indicate this by pointing out that capitalism, because it seeks profits as its primary goal, is never primarily seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power, patriotic improvement, or moral uplift.

Any of these may be achieved under capitalism, and any (or all) of them may he sacrificed and lost under capitalism, depending on this relationship to the primary goal of capitalist activity—the pursuit of profits. During the nine-hundred-year history of capitalism, it has, at various times, contributed both to the achievement and to the destruction of these other social goals.

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/02.html#5

[Durruti's Ghost]

Capitalists, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, are all too willing to rip the family apart and make the familial relationship one which revolves around money, not love and well, other family stuff.

Did the family ever really have anything to do with love? As far as I can tell, it's always been an instrument of patriarchy...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Essentially, yes. I think the only "private property" one should be able to own is one's house and essential items.
Excellent! Then we should agree on most things, and you'll probably agree with most people on this forum as well.

I would not say that houses should be privately owned, though. I suspect you're referring to the fact that the people living in a house should have full control over what they do with the house. Yes, they should, and we agree on that. But "private ownership" also includes the right to buy and sell that which is privately owned, and I oppose the buying and selling of houses.

I prefer to say that people should have "exclusive use-rights" over their homes.


I believe that the income tax should remain more or less the same.
Ah, many people do not realize this, but there are no income taxes in a planned economy. There were no income taxes in the Soviet Union, for example. The reason for it is quite simple: Since all workers are employed by the state, it would be pointless for the state to pay them money and then take it away from them in the form of tax.

In fact, under normal circumstances, there are no taxes at all in a planned economy. The available wealth is divided into a wage fund and various funds used for other purposes (pensions, investment in new equipment, research and development, etc.) Instead of raising taxes, the state can cut wages. But such an action tends to be extremely unpopular, so even the undemocratic governments of the old Eastern Bloc did not cut wages unless it was an absolute emergency. If they needed to raise money for other purposes, what they usually did was to refrain from increasing wages in line with increases in productivity.


I believe that the inheritance tax should be 100%. I believe the state should confiscate inheritances so that new generations of "rich" people cannot be spawned.
Agreed, though the real long-term solution is to ensure that no valuable items can be privately owned in the first place, so there is nothing you could inherit that could make you rich. If all the land and all the means of production are publicly owned, the only things left to inherit are personal items - and those are harmless.


I believe in protectionism to protect our workers at home and because I believe (well, actually know) that unadulterated free trade makes Chinese workers into slaves.
Terms like "protectionism" and "free trade" no longer have any meaning in a socialist economy. Protectionism refers to the state putting taxes and regulations on private firms doing business across borders. Free trade refers to the state not putting taxes and regulations on private firms doing business across borders. But in socialism there are no private firms, and no taxes.

Socialist trade is trade between states, and of course the state can place regulations on its own trade, but it's not like the protectionism or free trade you find in capitalist economic relations. Socialist trade is much more responsive to the demands of the people, because all of it is done by a democratically elected institution.

[Radical]

I've never heard of a Communist that favours Nationalism over Internationalism

- Am I the only person here that wants a One World Language?

[Sam_b]

Am I the only person here that wants a One World Language?

Expand your terms. Sounds like ridiculous cultural imperialism to me. Do people over the world not have an inherant right to communicate in whatever language they want? What do you think of the Tsarist Russifcation programme started in the 19th century, for example?

[Lolshevik]

I'm partial to Esperanto myself as a global second language, but it's too euro-centric I think to be accepted by the masses of non-indo-european language speakers.

[Bankotsu]

- Am I the only person here that wants a One World Language?

I oppose that. It's a form of imperialism in my view. Imposing a fixed language on people.

[chegitz guevara]

Why do we need a one world language? Soon we'll have "universal" translators.

[Bankotsu]

Yes, they should, and we agree on that. But "private ownership" also includes the right to buy and sell that which is privately owned, and I oppose the buying and selling of houses.

I prefer to say that people should have "exclusive use-rights" over their homes.


You may be interested in below lecture:



The idea of property in Classical Antiquity is summed up in the word proprietas, which means possession of all the innumerable and undesignated rights in an object, maybe with a few specific restraints. In other words, you may have a car that will go 150 miles an hour, but you're not supposed to drive it 150 miles an hour.

But you can drive it or not; you can rent it; you can sell it. That is proprietas. It is not the medieval idea of property. In the early Middle Ages no one worried about proprietas in the ultimate sense of possession of a title.

All anyone cared about was specific rights to do specific things or to obtain specific benefits from an object.

For example some people might have the right to grow crops on a piece of land in ways specified by custom at certain times of the year; while others might have rights to graze animals on it in fixed numbers for fixed periods; a church might have the right to a customary fraction of the crop; and a lord might hold certain rights over it, to hunt on it, to collect fees for having its grain ground into flour in his mill, and so forth.

Thus the idea of property was specific rights, and the word we use for it is dominia, which is a plural...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13458196/Prof-Carroll-Quigley-The-Oscar-Iden-LecturesLecture-1-The-State-of-Communities


Not ownership of property, but certain rights to a property. So you can have a right to do certain things with a property and others have their own rights to do their own things on the same property.

[Radical]

I oppose that. It's a form of imperialism in my view. Imposing a fixed language on people.

I never wanted nor implied to force fixed language onto anybody. I simply spoke of my desire that I would like the whole world to have a fluent knowledge of a same language. I never mentioned anything about disallowing other languages to be learnt or taught.

[Olerud]

I am also more of a nationalist than an internationalist

No you are not a communist based on this one quote. Marxism is based on internationalism have you never heard the phrase "Workers of the world unite!".

Also I don't really agree with the whole idea of Stalinism. I tend to think that Stalin only upheld the banner of Marxist-Leninism and didn't develop it so therefore doesn't warrant his own -ism.

[Radical]

Also I don't really agree with the whole idea of Stalinism. I tend to think that Stalin only upheld the banner of Marxist-Leninism and didn't develop it so therefore doesn't warrant his own -ism.

Exactly

[Durruti's Ghost]

Also I don't really agree with the whole idea of Stalinism. I tend to think that Stalin only upheld the banner of Marxist-Leninism and didn't develop it so therefore doesn't warrant his own -ism.

Perhaps that is true, but it the use of various "name-isms" does serve to distinguish between supporters of Stalin, supporters of Trotsky, supporters of Mao, and so on. Whether Stalin "warrants" his own -ism doesn't really matter as long as the use of the word "Stalinism" serves some sort of function.

[Wanted Man]

Hello all,

I have been fascinated by communism, seeing as I am a member of a working class family and my family has been hurt by the excesses of the upper classes. I am enamored by the idea of communism but some of my beliefs have been called "fascist". I personally disagree, because many things I support were enacted by Joseph Stalin. Of course, I know some communists dislike him because they see him as fascistic, but I like him and his policies. I don't know why you guys think of Stalin, so I'd be glad to hear your opinions. While I am a communist, I am also a militarist. This, of course, doesn't necessarily make me an imperialist in the capitalist sense, but I do not support pacifism. I am also more of a nationalist than an internationalist, and as far as I know, Stalin was as well. So my question is: would you consider me a Stalinist, or would I fit better into another subset of communism? I know there are many factions and variations of the general idea, and I'd like to know which one I fit into best. I know you probably need my opinions on other policy positions, so feel free to ask.

Thank you.

Basically, people who are described as "Stalinists" reject the label themselves. And they also reject militarism and nationalism, and they especially don't express your "fascist sympathies". Being a communist is not about having a hard-on for "cool" military forces like the Red Army. It's also got nothing to do with stern and fatherly leaders or the "communism = one-man dictatorship" that anti-communists suggest.

It's also quite offensive to carry the name "Red Army" and have "fascist sympathies", because the actual Red Army lost over 8.5 million people fighting fascism.

I'm sorry if this doesn't compute with your idea of "cool totalitarianism", but I'd rather have people learning to support internationalism in practice.

[ChrisK]

Read this critical analysis of left wing thought:


International Socialism and the Soviet Challenge
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/08.html

You don't honestly believe that shit do you? The fact that this person clearly never read anything Marx wrote other than part of the manifesto and chunks of capital tells me that all of this came from thier ass.

[RedArmy]

Basically, people who are described as "Stalinists" reject the label themselves. And they also reject militarism and nationalism, and they especially don't express your "fascist sympathies". Being a communist is not about having a hard-on for "cool" military forces like the Red Army. It's also got nothing to do with stern and fatherly leaders or the "communism = one-man dictatorship" that anti-communists suggest.

It's also quite offensive to carry the name "Red Army" and have "fascist sympathies", because the actual Red Army lost over 8.5 million people fighting fascism.

I'm sorry if this doesn't compute with your idea of "cool totalitarianism", but I'd rather have people learning to support internationalism in practice.

Well then I guess I won't post here anymore, because it's quite clear that I don't belong.

[Rjevan]

I can't help but to me you are quite clearly a Nazbol!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

In any case, no, you're no "Stalinist" and as Wanted Man pointed out, we don't like being called "Stalinists" and we are definitely no nationalists, militarists and far from any "fascist tendencies".

The Russian Nazbols also admire Stalin but their view of him is twisted and false but it reminds me of the way you seem to see him but again: this is a very twisted view of Stalin, if you read up a bit on him (preferably not in any nazi or definitely anti-communist books...) you will discover this for your own.

But before you leave now and hang up some Limonov portraits because you believe to be one of those weirdos read the "Manifesto", stay with us and discuss your views with us, I guess some of us had similar thoughs like "No states? How should this work? Besides, I like my country..." at first but if you try to understand the communist theory you will see why we are internationalists and realise why this is necessary and far better for "your country" than fascist nationalism and that we are not out to "destroy all cultural achievements" (and whatelse nonsense the fascists). ;)

[Misanthrope]

You are nationalist to the United States?

[Outinleftfield]

That is one of Marx's more erroneous theories in my opinion.

As an anarchist I agree. I was just pointing out that supporting the eventual abolition of the state is part of marxism.

I understand arguments for the state too. The need for something to stop reactionaries and outsiders from restoring capitalism. But organizations can do that without having to become states i.e. without monopolizing power. One organization stopping the return of capitalism has unchecked power and can do what ever it wants. Several organizations stopping the return of capitalism as would be formed in an anarchist society by voluntary association would be able to not only police attempts at reestablishing capitalism or any other form of coercive hierarchy but would also be able to police each other, all keeping each other true to their purpose.

The problem with government and police in any society is who governs the government and who polices the police. Having many organizations take over the functions of government and police while lacking one essential characteristic of these institutions by not monopolizing power and by allowing anyone to create new organizations on a voluntary basis takes care of that problem.

That's why we say "anarchy is order". Monopolization creates disorder by creating an unchecked or poorly checked class of people who can easily abuse their authority to get what they want.

[Outinleftfield]

I've never heard of a Communist that favours Nationalism over Internationalism

- Am I the only person here that wants a One World Language?

An international sign language would help both hearing and deaf people around the world communicate more effectively with each other.

The only problem is that blind people wouldn't be able to understand it, but then I guess if they were with people who understood their spoken language who weren't blind they could translate.

[Zolken]

Exactly Simply make up some sort of nonsense and get one other person to agree with you and there you have it .. a new 'ism' of your very own.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Basically, people who are described as "Stalinists" reject the label themselves. And they also reject militarism and nationalism, and they especially don't express your "fascist sympathies".
He said other people accused him of having "fascist sympathies", not that he himself believes he has any.

Also, he did not really explain what he means by "nationalism". So far it seems he's really only concerned about preserving cultural differences, which isn't really nationalism by a long shot.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

He said other people accused him of having "fascist sympathies", not that he himself believes he has any.

Also, he did not really explain what he means by "nationalism". So far it seems he's really only concerned about preserving cultural differences, which isn't really nationalism by a long shot.

This is true, but The Wanted Man's analysis isn't far off I don't think. Who becomes a communist based on militaristic fetishes?

[Olerud]

Who becomes a communist based on militaristic fetishes?

Apparently this guy.