Explaination for Stalin?

[Teln3t]

So I was wondering if there's a good response against the people who bring up Stalin in a debate...

I understand Stalin was actually the leader of the communist party. But even though him being a dictator is completely the opposite of communism(state less), what do I say?


There has to be a legitimate response that disassociates his actions.

:confused:

[Walt]

Just because he was a "communist" you don't need to defend his actions. He did some ultimately cruel things- some of which you could never defend. I personally believe communism would be better without him.

[mykittyhasaboner]

There is no "explanation for Stalin". You have to research history and come up with your own perceptions and conclusions, otherwise your just going to have everyone dropping their 2 cents on Stalin which can range from totally incoherent criticism to infantile worship.

Your best bet is to read, and then read some more, from actual works pertaining to the subject.

Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" is probably the most notable 'anti-Stalin' work; and Trotskyists are the most prominent ideological opponents of Stalin and others like Mao or Hoxha. Other "anti-Stalinists" include any anarchist, George Orwell, Tony Cliff, there are quite a few. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left) can help. A good place to find works from Trotsky and others critical of Stalin would be MIA (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.marxists.org).

Another good referrence would be the Soviet Constitution of 36 (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html), which Stalin had a part in drafting

Some pro-Stalin/Soviet Union sources are seldomly seen as a result of decades of propaganda but there are some good works. Check out:

Stalin and the Struggle For Democratic Reform (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html)
Stalin Society (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/presentations.html)


Edit:


Just because he was a "communist" you don't need to defend his actions. He did some ultimately cruel things- some of which you could never defend. I personally believe communism would be better without him.

This exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned "incoherent criticism".

[Spawn of Stalin]

The perfect place to start would be with Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html) by Ludo Martens. Also, the Soviet Union never claimed to be Communist, or stateless, only its enemies referred to it as a Communist country, it makes it sound a bit more scary. There are many of us who see strong leadership as necessary in the socialist state, the Soviet Union was under constant threat from imperialism, capitalism, and counter-revolution. I don't see Stalin as a dictator because the only person he was a dictator to was himself, the real dictators in the Soviet Union were the working people, others may have a hard time admitting that Stalin wasn't the totalitarian madman they think he was, but nobody can deny that Stalin did a great job of modernising society, Russians today literally owe everything to Lenin and Stalin. If you want a really good argument for Stalin, not long ago Russians voted him the third greatest Russian of all time, with 35% of all Russians saying that they would actually vote for him if he was still alive today.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Are all communists required to support any and all actions taken by any other communists at any place and any time?

If liberals don't have to give an explanation for the actions of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and conservatives don't need to make an effort to distance themselves from Otto von Bismarck, then communists should not be held to different standards. We will give explanations for the actions of self-described communists who died before we were born as soon as the supporters of other ideologies start giving explanations for the actions of their leaders and founders in the 19th century. I'm really interested in hearing them explain the colonization of Africa, among other things.

The next time someone asks you to explain Stalin, ask them to explain why they oppose votes for women. It makes about as much sense. Chances are that their favourite political party, or its predecessor, opposed female suffrage at some point.

[mikelepore]

The people of the Soviet Union didn't have the constitutional provision to vote out a bad leader before Stalin achieved power, so naturally they didn't have such a provision after Stalin achieved power. Socialism has to start out with democratic processes.

[Tatarin]

I agree with the above statements, but I would also say that Stalin is, I believe, asked of as a historical thing. But the same can be said of the U.S. too. Let them explain Richard Nixon. Or Ronald Reagan. Or ask them the great democratic advancements of people like Joseph McCarty and J. Edgar Hoover.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[BobKKKindle$]

You will find that most people on the left and Marxists such as myself in particular won't say that the USSR suffered from bureaucratic degeneration because Stalin was a bad person, or that Stalin was able to position himself as leader of the party bureaucracy and build up his support just because he was a skilled political operator, or because Trotsky was arrogant, even though these are the kinds of explanations you're presented with when you study Soviet history at school, many of them relying on a "great man" view of history*. Rather, Stalin was part of a broader political phenomenon called Stalinism, and, as an individual, he wasn't essential to the emergence of that phenomenon during the late 1920s, which involved power shifting away from the Soviets and into the hands of bureaucrats inside the state and the party, many of them drawn from the ranks of former Tsarist officials. When Trotskyists talk about Stalinism we don't just use it to refer to Stalin's time as General Secretary of the Communist Party or the 1930s and 40s as it can also be applied to the governments which came to power after Stalin's death as well as other countries such as the PRC, that have historically claimed to be socialist but, like the Soviet Union, have exhibited the subordination of the working class to a bureaucratic elite, and the absence of democratic control of the means of production. In our view, Stalinism originally arose as a result of distinct set of material conditions, namely the disintegration of the working class during the Civil War, and the strengthening of the party bureaucracy, which was itself a result of the failure of the revolution to spread to other more advanced countries like Germany, as, if they had experienced socialist revolutions, as several countries almost did, these countries would have been able to release Soviet Russia from the grip of imperialism, and give her the resources she needed to develop her industries and maintain the institutions of Soviet democracy. Both Lenin and Trotsky were aware that, owing to her material backwardness, Soviet Russia would be doomed in the absence of international revolution, and the same lesson holds true today, despite the efforts of Stalinists to argue that it is possible to develop socialism in one country alone, in isolation from the rest of the world.

So if people challenge you about Stalin, I think it's important to explain who you view Stalin to be - i.e. the leader of a bureaucratic class that arose as a result of a specific set of material conditions. If you want an analysis of the class nature of Soviet Russia, Tony Cliff's Russia: A Marxist Analysis (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1964/russia/index.htm) is a great read, as is his political biography of Trotsky during the fight against Stalinism, available here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1991/trotsky3/index.html).

*Even though they claim to be Marxists, who uphold a materialist view of history, regarding class struggle at the motor force behind all historical change, there are some people on the left who have fallen into the trap of great man history, such as those who claim that the USSR suddenly ceased to be socialist after Stalin's death just because Khrushchev and his supporters came to power, despite there not being a change in the mode of production, or any signs of class struggle during the leadership change. As I noted above, Trotskyists don't believe there was any fundamental change in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death because we argue that Khrushchev was part of the same bureaucratic class as Stalin and so acted in broadly the same way, in defense of the same class interests, even if the precise details of their policies and style of government were different.


Russians today literally owe everything to Lenin and StalinWhat, you mean Russia's widespread alcoholism, unemployment, AIDS epidemic, and growing racism? I don't know what you're trying to get at here to be honest. If you mean that the gains that were made under the Soviet Union (whatever those gains are supposed to be - the democratic and socialist gains that were made possible by the October Revolution have all been lost, in fact I would argue that they were all lost in the 1930s when Stalinism took hold, and I dispute the notion that Stalinism was progressive in any way from the viewpoint of the Russian working class, given that its main role was to develop Russia's productive apparatus through the intense exploitation of the peasantry and working class, under the direction of the bureaucracy) were solely the result of Lenin and Stalin, then you seem to be adopting a great man version of history, whereas I view classes as the key historical actors, and class struggle as the key force behind history.


If you want a really good argument for Stalin, not long ago Russians voted him the third greatest Russian of all time"If you want a really good argument for Winston Churchill, not long ago British people voted him the greatest Briton of all time" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons))

Shortly followed by Maggie at no. 16

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So I was wondering if there's a good response against the people who bring up Stalin in a debate...

I understand Stalin was actually the leader of the communist party. But even though him being a dictator is completely the opposite of communism(state less), what do I say?


There has to be a legitimate response that disassociates his actions.

:confused:

Well you can take from his actions that he was not a Communist but a power hungry bureaucrat. The view that Stalin = Communism is largely fuelled by the bourgeois media, they wil have you believe many countries are Communist today (China, DPPK, Cuba). This is ridiculous to label them this because you will be hard pressed to find many Communists who associate with Stalinism, so if those calling themselves Communists don't believe Stalin was a Communist how can he be?

[Spawn of Stalin]

What, you mean Russia's widespread alcoholism, unemployment, AIDS epidemic, and growing racism? I don't know what you're trying to get at here to be honest. If you mean that the gains that were made under the Soviet Union (whatever those gains are supposed to be - the democratic and socialist gains that were made possible by the October Revolution have all been lost,
Actually I was referring to the fact that Russia now has vaguely acceptable living standards. All the things you listed were made possible by anti-Communists.

in fact I would argue that they were all lost in the 1930s when Stalinism took hold, and I dispute the notion that Stalinism was progressive in any way from the viewpoint of the Russian working class, given that its main role was to develop Russia's productive apparatus through the intense exploitation of the peasantry and working class, under the direction of the bureaucracy) were solely the result of Lenin and Stalin,
What is this "Stalinism" you speak of?

then you seem to be adopting a great man version of history, whereas I view classes as the key historical actors, and class struggle as the key force behind history.
Hello Mr. Perfect. I do agree with you though, classes are the key force, I didn't say anything contrary to this, but please, go ahead and deny the essential role that Lenin played in October, then go and drool over your secret stash of the Socialist Review like a hypocrite.

"If you want a really good argument for Winston Churchill, not long ago British people voted him the greatest Briton of all time" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons))

Shortly followed by Maggie at no. 16
Yeah well, these are the same people who vote for Nu Labour. What can I say? Brits are ignorant, indoctrinated and undereducated, don't I just know it.

This is ridiculous to label them this because you will be hard pressed to find many Communists who associate with Stalinism
If by "Stalinism" you mean Marxism-Leninism, this statement is false.

[BobKKKindle$]

Actually I was referring to the fact that Russia now has vaguely acceptable living standards.From what I know about Russia, this isn't the case. We only need to look at a couple of indicators to see what Russia is like - the average Russian man can presently expect to live only to 58, which is around 15 years lower than the life expectancy for women, mainly as a result of nutritional deficiencies, alcoholism, the prevalence of treatable diseases, and the growing AIDS epidemic, which, depending on the studies you look at, is estimated to encompass 1.1% of the population, with much higher rates in certain cities and amongst certain demographic groups, and prevalence has doubled since 2001, making Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia the world's most rapidly expanding regional epidemic. It is also estimated that since the beginning of the 1990s, some 8 million Russians have died prematurely, and the mortality rate has risen one-and-a-half times over the same period, reaching a high point at 16.4 deaths per 1,000 inhabitants in 2003, alongside a dramatic increase in the inequality of the distribution of wealth and income. On this basis, I don't think it's fair to say that the conditions of the Russian working class are "acceptable". A more pressing issue here however is your assumption that a country's living standards increasing over time is reason to see it as progressive and to praise its leaders - if we accept this assumption then it makes sense to praise Park Chung-hee, military dictator of South Korea, Lee Kuan Yew, first prime minister of Singapore, and even Franco of Spain, as all of these governments have succeeded in industrializing their countries and offering higher standards of living, despite also being repressive towards working-class resistance. It really comes down to what you see the point of socialism as being - if you understand socialism to mean the rapid industrialization of underdeveloped countries like Russia and China through the exploitation of the working class, forced accumulation, and the repression of political dissent, basically replicating the role that was played by the emergent bourgeoisie in countries like Britain and the United States, then sure, the Soviet Union in the 1930s is a great example of socialism, but if you adopt this view then I don't see why you limit your praise to regimes that have draped themselves in red flags instead of extending it to the regimes I listed above, given that they did the exact same thing. I was going to use China as another example of a repressive and anti-worker regime you should support according to your criteria, but it seems you do actually support the Chinese government, so....


What is this "Stalinism" you speak of?A political phenomenon centered around the subordination of the working class to a bureaucracy, applying both to political regimes, and political parties that side with the trade-union bureaucracy and seek to exert bureaucratic control over the class.


Hello Mr. Perfect. I do agree with you though, classes are the key forceSo why should Russian workers feel that they owe everything to Lenin and Stalin?


Yeah well, these are the same people who vote for Nu Labour. What can I say? Brits are ignorant, indoctrinated and undereducated, don't I just know it.Or, we could do the sensible thing, and accept that a leader doing well in a poll doesn't make that leader a hero of the working class, given that, in the same poll you referred to earlier, Pyotr Stolypin and Alexander Nevsky topped the list, and Nicholas II ranked just below Stalin.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm sorry Comrade, I've got no time to argue with people who can't see good in anything and just argue for the sake of arguing. I never once claimed that the Soviet Union was perfect, but it's the best that there has ever been, and that counts for something, quite a lot, actually. Talk about great man theories all you like, yes, I think Stalin was a good socialist, in fact I think he was a great socialist, this I am not ashamed of. And yes, I am a great admirer of the achievements of the Soviet Union, and of China, and of Cuba, and of Korea, and of Vietnam, do you see a pattern emerging? We, and when I say we I mean Marxist-Leninists, are doing something right, and I will take back everything I say the minute there is a revolution of a Trotskyist nature, because let's face it, the only reason for this is that you're a Trotskyist and I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I don't see you going into anarchist topics and and talking about their shortcomings, why is that?

I've got no problems with Trotskyists or anarchists or anyone else to be honest, I just want to be a Marxist-Leninist with my Marxist-Leninist Comrades, if people don't like that, then that's okay, but I've noticed quite a lot of them oppose Marxist-Leninists in every topic just for the sake of it, and I won't be a part of that because it's just silly, it promotes division and sectarianism both of which are already rife in this country, and people like that are a stain on the good Trots and anarchists, and there are many. Go smash the BNP or something, start an international, just anything to keep you occupied instead of having petty tendency wars with "Stalinists", because in case you hadn't noticed, Teln3t asked for explanations for Stalin, not against him.

[Irish commie]

Well you can take from his actions that he was not a Communist but a power hungry bureaucrat. The view that Stalin = Communism is largely fuelled by the bourgeois media, they wil have you believe many countries are Communist today (China, DPPK, Cuba). This is ridiculous to label them this because you will be hard pressed to find many Communists who associate with Stalinism, so if those calling themselves Communists don't believe Stalin was a Communist how can he be?

I agree with you mostly on this issue, however you seem to be associating cuba with stalinism which i believe is baseless. Cuba is clearly a socailistic country which trys to function on the crual US imperialist embargo.

[Irish commie]

*under **cruel

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with you mostly on this issue, however you seem to be associating cuba with stalinism which i believe is baseless. Cuba is clearly a socailistic country which trys to function on the crual US imperialist embargo.

No sorry that is not what I meant. What I meant was that the bourgeois media will portray Cuba as Communism and then go on to point out it's so called repressive regime. Cuba isn't a fully fledged Communist society and judging it as such is wrong.

[Radical]

Stalin was the engineer of Leninism that acted in the intrests of the working class. Stalin dedicated his whole life to constructing Socialism, only to be betrayed later by Revisionists.

Being a Dictator doesn't make somebody an evil person. If you're going to attack Stalin for this, you must also attack Lenin to the same extent. In the eyes of the Bourgeois, both Lenin and Stalin were Totalitarian Dictators that believed Socialism could be achieved in one country.

[BobKKKindle$]

I never once claimed that the Soviet Union was perfect, but it's the best that there has ever been, and that counts for something, quite a lot, actually.Whether you see a particular government as being "perfect" or "good" depends entirely on the criteria that you are using to make value judgments of that sort, but for Marxists the most important thing of all is not whether a government's policies are good or bad as such, given that even capitalist governments sometimes do things which are in the interests of the working class, when they are forced to by pressure from below, or when the interests of the bourgeoisie and working class coincide to a limited extent, rather the key thing for us is the issue of class rule - which class is the ruling class, which class interests is the state being used to protect. This is the exact point that Lenin focused on, when, in response to Kautsky's arguments concerning democracy, he accused Kautsky of talking about democracy as an abstract idea, and pointed out that whenever socialists hear anyone talking about democracy or socialism being undemocratic the question we have to ask them is "democracy for whom?", because we do not believe it is possible to have a democratic system that reconciles the interests of different classes. My contention is that the ruling class from around 1927 onwards in the Soviet Union was a bureaucracy, and, given that Marxists see the state as an instrument of class oppression, after that point the state was no longer under the control of the working class to any meaningful extent.


We are doing something right, and I will take back everything I say the minute there is a revolution of a Trotskyist natureIt's not that Trotskyists criticize events like the Chinese Revolution just because they are celebrated by "Marxist-Leninists", rather it's because we don't view those events as socialist revolutions on the grounds that in no case did the working class play the central role in overthrowing capitalism and establishing its own state. Nor do we advocate a "Trotskyist revolution" or believe that it is possible for a revolution, in the Marxist sense of the word, to be carried out by a bunch of people who share the same views - revolutions are carried out by classes, and as such we Trotskyists support working-class revolutions, of which the only example thus far is the October Revolution.


Teln3t asked for explanations for Stalin, not against him. I think the user was just interested in people's views on what he should say when people try and use Stalin against him in a debate.


Being a Dictator doesn't make somebody an evil person

In what way do you consider Lenin a dictator? For the record, I don't view history or sociological analysis in terms of a particular individual being a dictator, because Marxists acknowledge that however much power an individual might accumulate within a particular organization or political system, all societies are fundamentally class societies, under the rule of a particular class, such that the actions of governments and individuals are constrained by the interests of the class on which they are dependent. I wrote a criticism of the concept of dictatorship here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/concept-dictatorship-t115519/index.html?t=115519&highlight=information) from a Marxist perspective.

[red cat]

It's not that Trotskyists criticize events like the Chinese Revolution just because they are celebrated by "Marxist-Leninists", rather it's because we don't view those events as socialist revolutions on the grounds that in no case did the working class play the central role in overthrowing capitalism and establishing its own state. Nor do we advocate a "Trotskyist revolution" or believe that it is possible for a revolution, in the Marxist sense of the word, to be carried out by a bunch of people who share the same views - revolutions are carried out by classes, and as such we Trotskyists support working-class revolutions, of which the only example thus far is the October Revolution.



I think that what people mean by a "Trotskyist revolution" is one in which the associated revolutionary communist party will officially acknowledge Trotskyism as the continuation of Marxism-Leninism.

[spiltteeth]

Here's what Mao thought :


After Lenin's death Stalin as the chief leader of the Party and the state creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defend the legacy of Leninism against its enemies - the Trotskyites, Zinovievities and other bourgeois agents - Stalin expressed the will and wishes of the people and proved himself to be an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. The reason Stalin won the support of the Soviet people and played an important role in history was primarily that he, together with the other leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, brought about the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditions for the victory of the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler; these victories of the Soviet people conformed to the interests of the working class of the world and all progressive mankind. It was therefore quite natural for the name of Stalin to be greatly honoured throughout the world. But having won such high honour among the people both at home and abroad by his correct application of the Leninist line, Stalin erroneously exaggerated his own role and counterposed his individual authority to the collective leadership, and as a result certain of his actions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-Leninist concepts he himself had propagated....


Marxist-Leninists hold that leaders play a big role in history. The people and their parties need forerunners who are able to represent the interests and will of the people, stand in the forefront of their historic struggles, and serve as their leaders. But when any leader of the Party or the state places himself over and above the Party and the masses, instead of in their midst, when he alienates himself from the masses, he ceases to have all-round, penetrating insight into the affairs of the state. As long as this was the case, even so outstanding a personality as Stalin could not avoid making unrealistic and erroneous decisions on certain important matters... During the later part of his life, Stalin took more and more pleasure in this cult of the individual and violated the Party's system of democratic centralism and the principle of combining collective leadership with individual responsibility. As a result, he made some serious mistakes: for example, he broadened the scope of the suppression of counter- revolution; he lacked the necessary vigilance on the eve of the anti- fascist war; he failed to pay proper attention to the further development of agriculture and the material welfare of peasantry; he gave certain wrong advice on the international communist movement, and, in particular, made a wrong decision on the question of Yugoslavia. On these issues, Stalin full victim to subjectivism and one-sidedness and divorced himself from objective reality and from the masses.

The cult of the individual is a rotten carry-over from the long history of mankind. The cult of the individual is rooted not only in the exploiting classes but also in the small producers. As is well known, patriarchism is a product of small-producer economy...
The struggle against the cult of the individual, which was launched by the Twentieth Congress, is a great and courageous fight by the communists and the people of the Soviet Union to clear away the ideological obstacles blocking their advance...
It must be pointed out that Stalin's works should, as before, still be seriously studied and that we should accept all that is of value in them, as an important historical legacy, especially those many works in which he defended Leninism and correctly summarized the experience of building up the Soviet Union. But there are two ways of studying them - the Marxist way and the doctrinaire way. Some people treat Stalin's writings in a doctrinaire manner and therefore cannot analyse and see what is correct and what is not and everything that is correct they consider a panacea and apply indiscriminately, and thus inevitably they make mistakes. For instance, Stalin put forward a formula that in different revolutionary periods the main blow should be so directed as to isolate the middle-of-the-road social and political forces of the time. This formula of Stalin's should be treated according to circumstances and from a critical, Marxist point of view. In certain circumstances it may be correct to isolate the middle forces, but it is not correct to isolate them under all circumstances. Our experience teaches us that the main blow of the revolution should be directed at the chief enemy and to isolate him, whereas with the middle forces, a policy of both uniting with them and struggling against them should be adopted, so that they are at least neutralized; and'as circumstances permit, efforts should be made to shift them from their position of neutrality to one of alliance with us in order to facilitate the development of the revolution. But there was a time - the ten years of civil war from 1927 to 1936 - when some of our comrades crudely applied this formula of Stalin's to China's revolution by turning their main attack on the middle forces, singling them out as the most dangerous enemy; the result was that, instead of isolating the real enemy, we isolated ourselves and suffered losses to the advantage of the real enemy. In the light of this doctrinaire error, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China during the period of the anti-Japanese war formulated a policy of developing the progressive forces, winning over the middle-of-the roaders, and isolating the diehards for the purpose of defeating the Japanese aggressors...
Some people consider that Stalin was wrong in everything. This is a grave misconception.

Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist, yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committed several gross errors without realizing that they were errors. We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times. Taken as a whole the international communist movement is only a little over hundred years old and it is only thirty-nine years since the victory of the October Revolution; experience in many fields of revolutionary work is still inadequate. Great achievements have been made, but there are still shortcomings and mistakes.... Reactionary forces the world over are pouring ridicule on this event: they jeer at the fact that we are overcoming mistakes in our camp. But what will come of all this ridicule? There is not the slightest doubt that these scoffers will find themselves facing a still more powerful, forever invincible, great camp of peace and socialism, headed by the Soviet Union, while the murderous, bloodsucking enterprises of these scoffers will be in a pretty fix.
__________________

[Spawn of Stalin]

It's not that Trotskyists criticize events like the Chinese Revolution just because they are celebrated by "Marxist-Leninists", rather it's because we don't view those events as socialist revolutions on the grounds that in no case did the working class play the central role in overthrowing capitalism and establishing its own state. Nor do we advocate a "Trotskyist revolution" or believe that it is possible for a revolution, in the Marxist sense of the word, to be carried out by a bunch of people who share the same views - revolutions are carried out by classes, and as such we Trotskyists support working-class revolutions, of which the only example thus far is the October Revolution.
Do you or do you not acknowledge the need for a vanguard? Keeping in mind that as a self-proclaimed Leninist your answer will probably most definitely be yes, on an international level I haven't seen Trotskyists working towards this. I won't dispute the fact that you don't think that the Cuban Revolution or the Chinese Revolution or whatever was of a working class nature, you're a Trotskyist and more importantly you're entitled to your opinions so that's fair in my book. So let's work on the assumption that the Cuban Revolution was not a socialist revolution, well, Fidel Castro freed the nation from a dictatorship of military proportions, taught them to read, write, how to cure sick people, how to harvest sugar, and a thousand other things, this is just a fraction of Marxism-Leninism's heritage. Trotskyism however, claims seventy years of talking about revolution, revolution which may never happen, revolution which sounds eerily similar to the revolution which anarchists hope for.

When I talk about Trotskyist revolutions I don't mean one where we all go on strike and carry portraits of Trotsky around Trafalgar Square and Lindsey German stands on top of a tank and announces that this is indeed, a Trotskyist revolution, when I say Trotskyist revolution I am talking about a hypothetical revolution whereby the vanguard follows the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky, this hasn't happened yet. Do you see what I'm getting at? Marxist-Leninists make small compromises which leads to big changes in society, the Cuban Revolution did not make use of a working class vanguard, the working class did not free themselves, Fidel Castro freed them, but, they were freed, the end justifies the means without a doubt. Now there are people who take everything Marx said at face value, and they talk about him like he was a prophet whose instructions must be followed carefully and precisely, they use it as an excuse to not support China or Cuba, but by those standards even October was not a true Marxist revolution. I've heard people say that the peasantry is a "non-revolutionary class", and when you ask why, the only answer they can come up with is "Marx said so". So I have no problems making use of the peasantry or of Foco style guerrilla tactics, time is running out so we've got to get shit done, the world isn't perfect, unfortunately, if it was we would all be anarchists living in Communist Utopia. Like I said, no problems with Trotskyists or Trotskyism, we can co-exist, that's fine, but please know what you're criticising, so don't just criticise people on the basis that they're doing something "wrong", because they're doing something, which is more than can be said for many revolutionary leftists.

[Irish commie]

Do you or do you not acknowledge the need for a vanguard? Keeping in mind that as a self-proclaimed Leninist your answer will probably most definitely be yes, on an international level I haven't seen Trotskyists working towards this. I won't dispute the fact that you don't think that the Cuban Revolution or the Chinese Revolution or whatever was of a working class nature, you're a Trotskyist and more importantly you're entitled to your opinions so that's fair in my book. So let's work on the assumption that the Cuban Revolution was not a socialist revolution, well, Fidel Castro freed the nation from a dictatorship of military proportions, taught them to read, write, how to cure sick people, how to harvest sugar, and a thousand other things, this is just a fraction of Marxism-Leninism's heritage. Trotskyism however, claims seventy years of talking about revolution, revolution which may never happen, revolution which sounds eerily similar to the revolution which anarchists hope for.

When I talk about Trotskyist revolutions I don't mean one where we all go on strike and carry portraits of Trotsky around Trafalgar Square and Lindsey German stands on top of a tank and announces that this is indeed, a Trotskyist revolution, when I say Trotskyist revolution I am talking about a hypothetical revolution whereby the vanguard follows the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky, this hasn't happened yet. Do you see what I'm getting at? Marxist-Leninists make small compromises which leads to big changes in society, the Cuban Revolution did not make use of a working class vanguard, the working class did not free themselves, Fidel Castro freed them, but, they were freed, the end justifies the means without a doubt. Now there are people who take everything Marx said at face value, and they talk about him like he was a prophet whose instructions must be followed carefully and precisely, they use it as an excuse to not support China or Cuba, but by those standards even October was not a true Marxist revolution. I've heard people say that the peasantry is a "non-revolutionary class", and when you ask why, the only answer they can come up with is "Marx said so". So I have no problems making use of the peasantry or of Foco style guerrilla tactics, time is running out so we've got to get shit done, the world isn't perfect, unfortunately, if it was we would all be anarchists living in Communist Utopia. Like I said, no problems with Trotskyists or Trotskyism, we can co-exist, that's fine, but please know what you're criticising, so don't just criticise people on the basis that they're doing something "wrong", because they're doing something, which is more than can be said for many revolutionary leftists.

You appear to contradict yourself here comrade as Stalin seemed very intent on followind marx to the word when it came to the Spanish civil war when it suited him, refusing to support the revolution saying that the country was not at an advanced enough stage and supporting the return of a capitalist sytem and quashing the revolution.

[Spawn of Stalin]

And I have absolutely no problem with people following Marx, I didn't say that I did, in fact I think it should be encouraged, but changing the rules a little, provided it can work in our favour, is also something I support.

[Irish commie]

But how can you explain the counter revolutionary actions of stalin during the spanish civil war?

[Irish commie]

Also jibe at Lindsey German a little childish and such attitudes not very helpful if trying to form a wider left alternative especially when i hear things about the politics of the CPGB being quite labourite.

[Spawn of Stalin]

But how can you explain the counter revolutionary actions of stalin during the spanish civil war?
How can you explain such accusations?

Also jibe at Lindsey German a little childish and such attitudes not very helpful if trying to form a wider left alternative especially when i hear things about the politics of the CPGB being quite labourite.
Which CPGB are you talking about? CPGB (PCC) have in the past encouraged their supporters to vote Labour but I'd hardly call them Labourites, and CPGB-ML are anything but Labourites. Regardless, that is not the point, you take issue with my comment about Lindsey German, you think it was childish, well I think it's childish to make jabs at Stalin, you know, especially when trying to form a wider left alternative, the only difference is, Stalin was a great socialist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Do you or do you not acknowledge the need for a vanguard?There seems to be a confusion over terminology here. Strictly speaking, a vanguard is not something you can support or see as necessary, as it is a social phenomenon, and not a particular course of action, or a normative solution to a dilemma. A vanguard is simply the most advanced section of a movement or group, in terms of political consciousness and activity, and so unless you think that it is possible for the working class to all have the same level of consciousness, something which is flatly denied by empirical experience, or that no workers are capable of becoming class conscious and recognizing the objective need for a socialist revolution, you have to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a vanguard. The question we have to grapple with is what the role of the vanguard should be in relation to the rest of the class, and I argue that the vanguard should constitute itself as a political organization, embodying democratic decision-making and dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, whilst also being open to any who want to become a member of that organization regardless of their political experience or level of theoretical knowledge, with the role of this organization being to intervene in all the struggles of the class, and to fight for radical strategies and analysis within those struggles in order to win the rest of the class over to a revolutionary position and combat the influence of reformists. It is by showing people that you have strategies and ideas that let them win that you gain their confidence, not having dreary meetings about Stalin, or inviting representatives of capitalist states like the PRC to speak at your meetings. This is what Lenin meant when he described the role of the revolution as being "the tribune of the oppressed" and the important thing to keep in mind here is that when we talk about intervening in struggle we are concerned not only with "bread-and-butter" issues like strikes, but also campaigns which may not share the same direct relation to production but are nonetheless important and indicative of capitalism's destructiveness and disregard for human wellbeing, such as the anti-war movement, the anti-fascist struggle, and the movement to defend abortion rights, amongst others.


Fidel Castro freed the nation from a dictatorship of military proportionsIt seems a bit much to claim that Fidel Castro did any of those things single-handedly, as most Cuba enthusiasts point to the 1959 general strike to show that the revolution was made by the working class, although they generally don't tell you that the new union leaders the workers elected during the course of that strike were, in most cases, dismissed by the government as soon as it had established itself, particularly in the autumn, when the labour ministry intervened to purge about half of them without organizing new elections for their replacement, including David Salvador, one of the 26 July Movement’s most significant trade union leaders, who was arrested in 1960. The key issue here however is that whilst the gains you mentioned are important and deserve to be defended, they are all democratic gains, compatible with capitalism, and as such do not indicate that Cuba is a society under the rule of the working class any more than Britain having legislation relating to the eight-hour day and the right of workers to unionize makes Britain a socialist country. It is also important that these gains are coming under attack and will only be defended and advanced if the working class confronts the ruling bureaucracy.


whereby the vanguard follows the path of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky, this hasn't happened yet. I don't understand what you mean - a revolutionary party has succeeded in its role if workers carry out and defend a socialist revolution, involving the seizure of the means of production, the abolition of wage-labour, the establishment of a proletarian state based on industrial democracy and recallable delegates, and socialist planning, whereby society as a whole decides on what should be produced, and how investment should be allocated. This did not happen in Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, North Korea, or any of the countries you regard as socialist.


the Cuban Revolution did not make use of a working class vanguard, the working class did not free themselves, Fidel Castro freed themPutting aside the idea of a single individual being able to free anyone, which suggests a view of history centered around individuals, and not classes*, if you believe that the working class emancipating itself is an "optional extra" and not a necessary part of a socialist revolution, and that it is actually possible for workers to be liberated and capitalism abolished by an external force that has nothing to do with the working class in terms of its class composition but nonetheless claims to act on behalf of that class, then it would seem that in order to turn the entire world socialist the only thing a powerful country like the Soviet Union or the PRC would have to do is wage wars of aggression against the rest of the world or individual regions and establish its own system once those other countries have been annexed, even if workers have no role whatsoever. This is not only problematic in itself, in that it entirely dispenses with the notion of the working class transforming itself through the process of struggle and revolution into a class for itself, and becoming the subject of history, it is also problematic because it leaves the role of socialists entirely ambiguous - what is the point of us supporting working-class struggles and trying to raise the confidence of the class if socialism can be created by an invading army?

*Just to expand on this - how can an individual make a revolution? Surely a revolution is a process by which one class overthrows another, to paraphrase Mao? Which class carried out the revolution in Cuba?

[Irish commie]

We can agree to disagree about stalin, i admit i have been educated in a bergoise system so may be wrong however due to the potral of stalin in the UK it is easier not to defend stalin as many turn of and count you as a mad authoritarian as soon as they here the name of stalin so find it easier to criticize him themselves and distance themselves form them. However to form a wider left alternative these diffrences must be put aside including your clear disdane for the SWP, which im not a member of by the way.

[Spawn of Stalin]

There seems to be a confusion over terminology here. Strictly speaking, a vanguard is not something you can support or see as necessary, as it is a social phenomenon, and not a particular course of action, or a normative solution to a dilemma.
Don't split hairs, you either support a vanguard, or you don't, go talk to some anarchists, ask if they support a vanguard, they don't, you already know this, you're just talking shit to make yourself look like an intellectual, which, you probably are.

A vanguard is simply the most advanced section of a movement or group, in terms of political consciousness and activity, and so unless you think that it is possible for the working class to all have the same level of consciousness, something which is flatly denied by empirical experience, or that no workers are incapable of becoming class conscious and recognizing the objective need for a socialist revolution, you have to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a vanguard.
Did I say anything contrary to this?

The question we have to grapple with is what the role of the vanguard should be in relation to the rest of the class, and I argue that the vanguard should constitute itself as a political organization, embodying democratic decision-making and dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, whilst also being open to any who want to become a member of that organization regardless of their political experience or level of theoretical knowledge, with the role of this organization being to intervene in all the struggles of the class, and to fight for radical strategies and analysis within those struggles in order to win the rest of the class over to a revolutionary position and combat the influence of reformists.
Again, I agree, but all I asked was whether or not you were in favour of a vanguard, it's a black and white issue, I didn't ask what your idea of a vanguard was, I asked if you believed one was necessary.

It is by showing people that you have strategies and ideas that let them win that you gain their confidence, not having dreary meetings about Stalin, or inviting representatives of capitalist states like the PRC to speak at your meetings.
:crying:

This is what Lenin meant when he described the role of the revolution as being "the tribune of the oppressed" and the important thing to keep in mind here is that when we talk about intervening in struggle we are concerned not only with "bread-and-butter" issues like strikes, but also campaigns which may not share the same direct relation to production but are nonetheless important and indicative of capitalism's destructiveness and disregard for human wellbeing, such as the anti-war movement, the anti-fascist struggle, and the movement to defend abortion rights, amongst others.
I don't dispute this, you are preaching to a convert, good sir.

It seems a bit much to claim that Fidel Castro did any of those things single-handedly,
I didn't, you just want to think I did, what you are trying to do is create divides between Marxists. I'm not going to indulge you, I could write ten thousand words about how I agree with you on most of these issues, but I won't, because you'll just come back at me and make me look like a big nasty Stalinist who hates women and blacks and Ukrainians or something like that, it's pointless, surely you've got better things to do, I know I have, don't you have a stack of papers to sell?

[Radical]

We can agree to disagree about stalin, i admit i have been educated in a bergoise system so may be wrong however due to the potral of stalin in the UK it is easier not to defend stalin as many turn of and count you as a mad authoritarian as soon as they here the name of stalin so find it easier to criticize him themselves and distance themselves form them. However to form a wider left alternative these diffrences must be put aside including your clear disdane for the SWP, which im not a member of by the way.

Comrade, There is good valid reason to crititize and attack Trotskyites when they claim to be things they are not. Aslong as Trotskyists dont claim to be Leninists and dont expect leninists to support there counter-revolutionary thoery of permanent revolution, then I dont have much of a problem with them. However, when they purposly use incorrect propaganda thrases such as "Stalinist" to attack loyal Leninists, it becomes another problem.

[BobKKKindle$]

Don't split hairs, you either support a vanguard, or you don't,Not really, every revolutionary accepts that the working class does not have a uniform level of consciousness but by no means all revolutionaries agree that those workers who are most conscious and militant should organize themselves in a way that distinguishes them from the rest of the class, and, even amongst those who do accept the need for organization, not everyone agrees on the form that organization should take, in terms of whether it should be a national or international body, whether its members should accept the decisions of the majority, what its position should be in relation to broader movements and other bodies like trade unions that draw their members from the whole of the working class and not simply its most militant section, and so on. You might think that I'm just quibbling over terminology or trying to look intellectual but I think that these are important differences and if I simply said that I "agree" with the vanguard (whatever that means) then that would make it seem as if you and I hold the same views on the purpose of a revolutionary party, whereas we really don't, because, whereas I believe that a socialist revolution is the act of the working class (not the act of a political party) and that the emancipation of humanity depends on the active involvement of the working class and other oppressed groups, we've just see from your last post that you believe it's possible for capitalism to be overthrown and socialism established without the working class. I'm not misquoting you here or twisting your views - you said "the working class did not free themselves, Fidel Castro freed them" and you also made it clear that you think Cuba is socialist and so the obvious conclusion to draw is that you do not believe that the construction of socialism requires that the working class seize control of the means of production or be conscious of its interests as a class. That we have these differences on the class nature of the Cuban revolution and revolutions in general means that even if we both use terms like "vanguard party" or "revolutionary organization" to describe our views on how workers should go about organizing themselves, clearly we do not understand the relation between the party and the rest of the class in the same way, and our visions of revolutionary change are not the same. A revolution for me is a "festival of the oppressed", it's a process whereby working people take control of their own lives, giving rise to psychological as well as institutional changes, whereas you believe that a bunch of rebels taking control of cities after having waged a guerrilla war in the countryside can be a revolution even when the working population continue living just as they did before, at least in the short term.


I didn't, you just want to think I did, what you are trying to do is create divides between Marxists.I'm not trying to create divides between Marxists, merely drawing out the differences between Marxists and those whose vision of socialism has nothing to do with Marx's observation that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself".


I didn't, you just want to think I didSo, in your view, which class became the ruling class as a result of the Cuban revolution, given that, on your own account, "the working class did not free themselves"?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I consider Cuba to have been a proletarian state from 1959 onwards, so the nature of the ruling class should be obvious really, I'm going to guess that you don't agree with me, and that you'll come back and give me some essay on why the Cuban Revolution had nothing to do with socialism, just to pre-empt that, I don't care, you've proven yourself to have the complete opposite view to me on almost everything (convenient), you're a Trotskyist while I'm a Marxist-Leninist, our respective groups are wildly different on almost every level, if you were willing to have a meaningful debate about Cuba or China then I would happily partake, but you're just trying too hard to disagree with everything I say, the whole place knows it.

Not that any of this has anything to do with Stalin, mind, I suppose by your reckoning Cuba is a Stalinist state, so I guess you got me trumped there pal.

[BobKKKindle$]

I consider Cuba to have been a proletarian state from 1959 onwards, so the nature of the ruling class should be obvious reallyDon't you find it at all problematic to say that a class, in this case the working class, became the ruling class and introduced socialism, signaling the abolition of wage-labour, and the establishment of democratic control of the means of production, despite the fact that, by your own admission, "the working class did not free themselves"?

I find it hard to understand how a class could become the ruling class as a result of something that a group with no organic connection to that class did, and I also find it hard to understand how somehow who holds this position could characterize themselves as a Marxist, given that the main way in which Marx differentiated himself from other theorists who described themselves as socialists (be it the utopians, who thought it was possible to introduce socialism by means of artificial experiments and communes that would demonstrate the ethical and technical superiority of their ideas to the ruling class, allowing the bosses to be won over to the side of the workers, or people like Ferdinand Lasalle, who believed that the bourgeois state could impose socialism from above, and therefore positioned himself as an opponent of democratic reform in Germany) is that, for Marx, socialism can be summed up as follows: the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

You may believe that this is not the case and that socialism can in fact be imposed on the working population without them having achieved class consciousness or taken action in pursuit of their own interests but if you do hold this belief then I don't see why you would look favorably on Marx, given that he spent most of his political life explaining why people such as yourself are wrong, or Lenin for that matter - Lenin's first polemics were directed against people like the narodniks who believed that revolutionary change could come about as the result of isolated attacks against individual officials, such as Alexander II, and also saw themselves as intellectuals, with a unique understanding of what needed to be done to pull Russia out of despotism and feudalism, who could convince the rural population to follow their ideas. Lenin's ideas are oppossed to these assumptions (which you seem to share because you also believe that a revolution can or should be the task of an intellectual minority) in that his vision of the revolutionary party was centered around the principle that a party should not be an organization that is separate from the working class but should instead be an integral part of it, being comprised of workers, and involving itself in all the struggles of the oppressed.


you've proven yourself to have the complete opposite view to me on almost everything (convenient)It's not a matter of convenience, it's just that my vision of socialism and revolution is about working people taking control of their own lives and transforming themselves into the subjects of history, whereas you believe that revolution can be the work of an isolated minority, without workers being aware of their own interests.

If you want to discuss China in-depth, I'm happy to do so, and maybe this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/%5Dhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-revolution-essentially-t119849/index.html?t=119849) article of mine can serve as a starting-point. If you think my analysis is wrong or if you think that I've made factual errors, I invite you to give your opinion.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Bob mate you often have interesting things to say (and other times you talk bollocks) but it becomes unreadable when you over do your sentences and leave out paragraphs.

[Ovi]

So I was wondering if there's a good response against the people who bring up Stalin in a debate...

I understand Stalin was actually the leader of the communist party. But even though him being a dictator is completely the opposite of communism(state less), what do I say?


There has to be a legitimate response that disassociates his actions.

:confused:
What would you say when someone brings up the crimes of his regime? It depends. If you're a socialist then you would say "Screw Stalin, he was a state capitalist who exploited the working class". If you're a stalinist than you'd say something like: "Complete lies! I can't hear you la la la la la"

[manic expression]

Don't you find it at all problematic to say that a class, in this case the working class, became the ruling class and introduced socialism, signaling the abolition of wage-labour, and the establishment of democratic control of the means of production, despite the fact that, by your own admission, "the working class did not free themselves"?

There were plenty of workers in the July 26 Movement, the guerrillas were organized with the urban-based resistance to Batista. Further, comrades like Juan Almeida Bosque were definitely workers from birth to earth. Most importantly, however, the working class at large was responsible for shaping Cuban society after 1959. When land reform was being formulated, thousands of peasants marched to Havana with their machetes to directly take part in the revolutionary process (this was a big part in the capitalist exodus from Cuba after the Revolution); when the toilers of Cuba told the revolutionary vanguard they needed schools more than anything else, countless Cubans volunteered to take part in the literacy drive (even when they risked retribution from right-wing bandits)...what, were they all bourgeois business owners? Cuban society is structured around working-class power because the workers made it what it is today at every stage of its development.

Fidel was trained as a lawyer, yes, but so was Lenin. Don't forget that.

[spiltteeth]

What would you say when someone brings up the crimes of his regime? It depends. If you're a socialist then you would say "Screw Stalin, he was a state capitalist who exploited the working class". If you're a stalinist than you'd say something like: "Complete lies! I can't hear you la la la la la"

I say "I'm glad he killed all them Nazi's and he really helped the Russian people with health care and pulling a backward dirt poor nation into a super-power.
BUT the bureaucracy was insane, the personality cult ridiculous, the paranoia and fear was terrible, and sending hundreds of thousands of moderates to the gulag was awful, although circumstances were tough and it's not so simple."

[punisa]

So I was wondering if there's a good response against the people who bring up Stalin in a debate...

I understand Stalin was actually the leader of the communist party. But even though him being a dictator is completely the opposite of communism(state less), what do I say?


There has to be a legitimate response that disassociates his actions.

:confused:

Well, you could tell them that every men with such a cool mustache should also be allowed to be a cruel dictator :laugh:
Just kidding, obviously :lol:

If you try to defend Stalin, you will fail. We must be honest about his flaws.
You *could* try to mellow things down by explaining that historic moments (like WWII) needed some reconfiguration to the socialist paths.
It is still widely considered that Stalin is the most responsible man for bringing down Hitler.
Besides the good things (unfortunately there were not many), but you could try your chances in digging the archives (I suggest http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/decades-index.htm)

Stalin was by far the most cruelest of them all, but do be prepared that a person you are debating with can throw many bad moves performed by virtually ANY socialist leader that ever existed ! Pol-Pot, Mao, Guevara, Fidel, Tito, Lenin ... just to name a few big names.

All of them had moments when they screwed up "big time". But you must point out that all these mistakes are a great ground to start the research for the future.
Just like capitalists are researching current economic crisis, we too - must learn from the mistakes of our predecessors.

People must be sure that next socialist project will NOT emerge another Stalin.
My personal recommendation (especially if talking to the workers in the west) is to drop the big S(ocialism) all together. At least up to the point where you make them understand their oppression that occurs on a daily basis. And it does happen to everyone, every single person is oppresed. Except of a tiny ruling minority.

So anyway.. good luck. Stalin is dead, long live socialism ! :)

[Manifesto]

Thought about it for a bit and got this: Just ask them to explain Bush.