Stalin???

[Red Isa]

Supposedly Joseph Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and I don't think he was a true Marxist or Socialist or anything, I believe that he just wanted the power. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want to know your opinions about him please. :)

[hugsandmarxism]

Stalin thread number 50837294056

[Искра]

Here you have discussion about Stalin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-thread-all-t100814/index.html)

[Искра]

Stalin thread number 50837294056
Well if each victim wants one...

[hugsandmarxism]

Well if each victim wants one...

Sure, if you trust Robert Conquest and his long list of fascist "sources."

[Искра]

Sure, if you trust Robert Conquest and his long list of fascist "sources."
I don't trust anybody. I counted them myself.

[hugsandmarxism]

I don't trust anybody. I counted them myself.

You saucy anarchist you ;)

[Искра]

You saucy anarchist you ;)
Tell me baby :cool:

[hugsandmarxism]

For the OP, I suggest reading Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, and in addition, some of the things he's actually wrote. The bourgeois have worked hard to write history that serves their own consciousness. I'll edit this post to add some sources for you.

Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html) good book for busting through most lies about stalin

Stalin and the Struggle for Deomcratic Reform (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html) challenges the narrative of Stalin as "dictator

Economic Problems of the USSR (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch02.htm) by Stalin

Fraud, Famine and Fascism (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm)about the creation of one particular myth about Stalin from the Nazis

The Assassination of Julius Ceasar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO_Ldn2H4o) by Michael Parenti talks about who writes our history and why (important for understanding the purposes of the anti-stalin narrative)

for more, check out the Marxist-Leninists group on Revleft.

[KarlMarx1989]

All you need to know about Stalin is that he ruined all the progress of the Russian Revolution and gave all Capitalists a completely distorted view of actual Socialism and especially Communism.

[Durruti's Ghost]

He wasn't as bad as the bourgeoisie would have you believe. He was still a fuckhead, though.

[Manifesto]

I would not know about him killing more people than Hitler (as in I do not know the true factors in that) but I have heard people call him more evil than him (Mao is usually first). They are usually related to the death tolls though.

[Red Isa]

I know he wasn't as bad as the Bourgeoisie, but I do think that he used acts of terrorism to make himself intimidating. He shifted from Bolshevik ideas into a Dictatorship, basically. He claimed to be a communist but really he was just the opposite. He did distort the view of socialism in the eyes of the uneducated masses. They believe that what Stalin did was communism, when really it was pure corruption.

[Tatarin]

Supposedly Joseph Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and I don't think he was a true Marxist or Socialist or anything, I believe that he just wanted the power.

I guess anyone can be a Marxist or Socialist, nothing says they have to act like one though. Not that I defend Stalin, but endless more misery is going on every day under capitalism. You just don't hear about it.


He shifted from Bolshevik ideas into a Dictatorship, basically.

That entirely is up to you. To stir up the argument: how could Stalin get that power in the first place?


He did distort the view of socialism in the eyes of the uneducated masses. They believe that what Stalin did was communism, when really it was pure corruption.

That's an interesting problem in on itself. It shows that it is dangerous to concentrate power and let that power decide what communism is.

[spiltteeth]

Basically Stalin could have had a much freer more socialist society.

But 14 capitalist nations invaded russia, there was still alot of aftermath from the civil war, and finally, Stalin predicted that they only had 10 yrs to completely unify and industrialize a dirt poor nation before the west invaded.

So he cracked down hard and he was right - Nazi's invaded and they were defeated due to his tough industrialization.

Would I wanna live under Stalin? No
Would I wanna live under Hitler? HELL no.
I'd like to live in Narnia.
These were the choices in the real world.

Does that excuse the extreme nature of his political terror, the personality cult, or shipping moderates to the gulag? Absolutely not.

But this was siege socialism in the real world, which can get ugly and messy.

[ArrowLance]

Stalin was a great guy. A bit paranoid, maybe. A bit strict, sometimes. Overall he guided the Soviet Union, in my opinion, successfully through the hardships it faced and did work to further communist advancement.

[Prairie Fire]

The greatest Marxist-Leninist theoretician of the Period of 1923-1954.

PM me for more information.

[FSL]

The nicest thing about Stalin is the myth around him. 120.000.000 million people perecuted. Yeah baby. Let them tremble at the prospect of a communist revolution. Let them tremble.


On a more serious note, I mostly agree with his policies but he must also be held partly accountable for allowing revisionist elements to grow and capture positions of importance inside the party.

[Niccolò Rossi]

PM me for more information.

Why not share with us, PF?

[Spawn of Stalin]

All you need to know about Stalin is that he ruined all the progress of the Russian Revolution and gave all Capitalists a completely distorted view of actual Socialism and especially Communism.
Yeah, that's all you need to know, because if you actually bother to read about Stalin, you are in danger of learning the facts and you could start to like the guy, so don't read about him, Heaven forbid, you might actually turn into a Marxist-Leninist, and that would be just awful. Let these liberals suppress the truth, and we can all live happy libertarian lives, and it will be as if Stalin never existed, we could even ban his name from public use.

Actually, KarlMarx1989, unsurprisingly, I disagree with you, so how about recommending some books of internet pages to read? As opposed to launching an unwarranted attack on glorious Comrade Stalin.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

the nicest thing about stalin is the myth around him. 120.000.000 million people perecuted. Yeah baby. Let them tremble at the prospect of a communist revolution. Let them tremble.


On a more serious note, i mostly agree with his policies but he must also be held partly accountable for allowing revisionist elements to grow and capture positions of importance inside the party.
kke?

[ComradeRed22'91]

i agree with hugsn'marxism.

[FSL]

kke?



100%

[NecroCommie]

It's easy for us westerners to judge the decisions he made since we have the luxury of our comfy choices. Whatever Stalin did or did not do no doubt has reasons ranging from personal vendettas (not excusable) all the way to material condititions (excusable, if not understandable). You can believe for the reasons you want, but high distortion of his actions in the west is a fact. Be highly sceptic of anything people say about his choices (or lack of them).

[Искра]

100% Stalinist indoctrination :cool:

[Kayser_Soso]

It's easy for us westerners to judge the decisions he made since we have the luxury of our comfy choices. Whatever Stalin did or did not do no doubt has reasons ranging from personal vendettas (not excusable) all the way to material condititions (excusable, if not understandable). You can believe for the reasons you want, but high distortion of his actions in the west is a fact. Be highly sceptic of anything people say about his choices (or lack of them).


Good points. I'm not even going to get into this hornet's nest, since I deal with it enough when arguing with capitalists- you know, the enemy.

The fact is though- if you support socialism of any kind in the public arena, the hardcore capitalists, the ones with real power, are ALWAYS going to point to the Stalin myth, every time.

Oh I'm sorry- did you say you were a Trotskyite and claim things would have been different under his leadership? TOUGH SHIT- Communism inevitably leads to Stalin!!!! 40 MILLION KILLED!!!

Oh are you an anarchist, and you say you have some alternative form of socialism? You'll lose, and STALINISTS will take over!!! 60 MILLION KILLED!! ANIMAL FARM!!!

So you're a left Communist, and you say your alternative theory is different from that of Stalin? Forget it- human nature will inevitably drive people into a Stalinist dictatorship!! 120 MILLION KILLED!!! 1984!!! SHOES!!!

Face the facts- Obama is being compared to Stalin right now. You think that anyone marching around with a red flag, even if it's half-black, ISN'T going to be tarred with the Stalin brush? You think their ideologues can't come up with dozens of crimes of anarchists and Trotskyites, whether real or imagined? Do you really think any of them are going to slam their fists on their writing desks and say, "GODDAMNED ANARCHISTS!!! WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-STALIN!!!"

It's called "class struggle" for a reason. They are not going to be merciful to anyone who dares raise the issue of class struggle or struggle in the name of the working class. So you might as well give up propping up(and sometimes surpassing) the standard propaganda line about Stalin, because from the perspective of the enemy, there's no difference between you and them, and the enemy has its advantages in the schools, the churches, and the media.

Stalin was one man in a particular place, at a particular time in history. As the above poster pointed out- he was faced with incredibly difficult decisions without a basis of experience to go off of. Sometimes he made the wrong decisions, believed the wrong people, etc. but he also made crucial decisions that were successful and taught us much about the practical application of socialism. His leadership played a decisive role in difficult times, and while we may study his real mistakes and attempt to avoid them, remember that it is not up to us as to what dangers we would face after a revolution- that is in the hands of the enemy.

[Glenn Beck]

Face the facts- Obama is being compared to Stalin right now. You think that anyone marching around with a red flag, even if it's half-black, ISN'T going to be tarred with the Stalin brush? You think their ideologues can't come up with dozens of crimes of anarchists and Trotskyites, whether real or imagined? Do you really think any of them are going to slam their fists on their writing desks and say, "GODDAMNED ANARCHISTS!!! WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-STALIN!!!"

This is what it all boils down to, really, what you think about Stalin's leadership is more of an academic interest than anything else. What really matters is that participating in intra-leftist struggles that border on what is essentially red-baiting only strengthens the hegemony of the liberal discourse. It does not have the intended effect of producing a commensurate increase in the position of ones own sect, it's a fool's game.

[gorillafuck]

The greatest Marxist-Leninist theoretician of the Period of 1923-1954.

PM me for more information.
Shouldn't you just post it?

[hugsandmarxism]

More things to read:

The Cult of the Individual (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm) battles the notion of Stalin fueling his own personality cult

Marxism and the National Question (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html) by Stalin (another important work of his)

Stalin's debate with HG Wells (http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm) challenges the narrative that he was incompetent


This is what it all boils down to, really, what you think about Stalin's leadership is more of an academic interest than anything else. What really matters is that participating in intra-leftist struggles that border on what is essentially red-baiting only strengthens the hegemony of the liberal discourse. It does not have the intended effect of producing a commensurate increase in the position of ones own sect, it's a fool's game.

As usual, Glenn Beck is spot on.

[hugsandmarxism]

All you need to know about Stalin is that he ruined all the progress of the Russian Revolution and gave all Capitalists a completely distorted view of actual Socialism and especially Communism.

This is particularly silly. First of all, define how he "ruined all progress" of the Russian revolution? If that were truly the case, then material relations and conditions would have reverted entirely to what they were under the czar. Considering the building of industry, advancement of agriculture, and being able to wage (and win) a war that the under developed Russian Empire could never have DREAMED of waging (much less winning).

To your second point: do you really think CAPITALISTS need anyone to give them a "distorted view" of socialism and communism? This willfully ignores all the anti-communist propaganda going back to Marx's time.


He wasn't as bad as the bourgeoisie would have you believe. He was still a fuckhead, though.

At least you're not drinking the cappie/nazi coolaid and buying into the grossest distortions of history the Cold War era has to offer, which is more than I can say for alot of people on this site and in the left generally.


I would not know about him killing more people than Hitler (as in I do not know the true factors in that) but I have heard people call him more evil than him (Mao is usually first). They are usually related to the death tolls though.

Well, well... why am I not surprised that one who's politics are based in metaphysics to use, frankly, utterly useless ethical mysticism to analyize history? Or, even better, hearsay. Is it just me, or is some of the left too damn lazy to study, and would rather point themselves in the direction that the wind is blowing than put foreward to challenge the preconceived notions one has, which were ultimately developed as a result to the consciousness of the class society we fight against? Is it not troubling that supposed anti-capitalists have no problem parroting bourgeois politicians, historians, and other agents of that ideology, and only seek to challenge that narrative when it concerns their immediate political convictions? Seriously.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

One question I must ask Anarchists, and I've never gotten a straight answer:

Y'all don't believe the bourgeois lies about the history of imperialism, you don't believe the lies that the media tells you in this day-and-age, and yet you swallow the lies and distortions about past revolutionary experiences. I think it's a serious failing of method that Anarchists seem to take up bourgeois methodology on that area of history and theory alone.

[Dante the Marxist]

I myself am no fan of stalinism, but if we look into, stalinists are the same as the rest of us other than thier view of a historical figure. This would make no difference in the event of revolution, and all this arguing about something that is over and done with is a handicap to revolution. So lets shake hands and agree to disagree!

[swirling_vortex]

Well, it's important to note that both sides were flinging poo at each other. I don't believe he was the Heavenly Father the CPSU made him out to be, nor do I believe he was somehow a bumbling retard the West portrayed him to be.

What impresses me about Stalin is that he essentially did what was thought to be economically impossible: Achieve significant growth through the use of central planning. While all the capitalist economists were ranting on about how it wouldn't work, Lenin and Stalin managed to get the Soviet Union from a 3rd world peasant land to a 2nd world superpower. In fact, I'd say with the introduction of capitalist reform after the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia (with the exception of densely populated areas like Moscow) is slipping back into a 3rd world status.

[Dante the Marxist]

Well, it's important to note that both sides were flinging poo at each other. I don't believe he was the Heavenly Father the CPSU made him out to be, nor do I believe he was somehow a bumbling retard the West portrayed him to be.

What impresses me about Stalin is that he essentially did what was thought to be economically impossible: Achieve significant growth through the use of central planning. While all the capitalist economists were ranting on about how it wouldn't work, Lenin and Stalin managed to get the Soviet Union from a 3rd world peasant land to a 2nd world superpower. In fact, I'd say with the introduction of capitalist reform after the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia (with the exception of densely populated areas like Moscow) is slipping back into a 3rd world status.
There is no doubt in my mind that Stalin was intelligent, or that he gave the Soviet Union tremendous economic, military, and political strength. However, the means matter more than the ends in my view. For example, I would love to win the revolution, but I would not want to do it by nuking every city. So it is nice to have a powerful socialist nation, but not for it to get this power from brutality and supression.

[spiltteeth]

There is no doubt in my mind that Stalin was intelligent, or that he gave the Soviet Union tremendous economic, military, and political strength. However, the means matter more than the ends in my view. For example, I would love to win the revolution, but I would not want to do it by nuking every city. So it is nice to have a powerful socialist nation, but not for it to get this power from brutality and supression.

Man's progress is always founded on blood, this is the real world.

USSR was surrounded by a world of capitalist imperialist hostility on the outside, and plenty of conflict on the inside.

[Dante the Marxist]

Man's progress is always founded on blood, this is the real world.

USSR was surrounded by a world of capitalist imperialist hostility on the outside, and plenty of conflict on the inside.
Yeah, but Stalin waaaaay over did it. All he really needed to do was find the capitalist spies instead of arresting anyone who showed signs of "thought crime".

[Stranger Than Paradise]

One question I must ask Anarchists, and I've never gotten a straight answer:

Y'all don't believe the bourgeois lies about the history of imperialism, you don't believe the lies that the media tells you in this day-and-age, and yet you swallow the lies and distortions about past revolutionary experiences. I think it's a serious failing of method that Anarchists seem to take up bourgeois methodology on that area of history and theory alone.

No it is not the bourgeois lies we believe. I understand some of the western media's portrayal of Stalin and I agree it has been distorted and exagerrated but that still does not mean I think he is a great socialist. Personally I feel he is an enemy of the working class and that is not based on bourgeois lies but based on the USSR being state-capitalist with the bourgeosie being the bureaucrat party class.

[Dante the Marxist]

No it is not the bourgeois lies we believe. I understand some of the western media's portrayal of Stalin and I agree it has been distorted and exagerrated but that still does not mean I think he is a great socialist. Personally I feel he is an enemy of the working class and that is not based on bourgeois lies but based on the USSR being state-capitalist with the bourgeosie being the bureaucrat party class.
I agree with most of that statement, but state-capitalism requires private property.

[spiltteeth]

Yeah, but Stalin waaaaay over did it. All he really needed to do was find the capitalist spies instead of arresting anyone who showed signs of "thought crime".

Well, I would say he over did it, it but not "waaaaay" over did it; perhaps waay, with 2 a's.

[Dante the Marxist]

Well, I would say he over did it, it but not "waaaaay" over did it; perhaps waay, with 2 a's.
We leftists can talk like 5 year olds sometimes:lol:...

Maybe 6 a's was to much. How about 4?

[Kayser_Soso]

Yeah, but Stalin waaaaay over did it. All he really needed to do was find the capitalist spies instead of arresting anyone who showed signs of "thought crime".


Finding the capitalist spies and internal insurgents, as well as bureaucrat types trying to gain the system is a lot easier said than done. People weren't arrested for "thought crime". This is from 1984.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes he was repressive and not someone who I admire. However I do believe his crimes were bad enough without having to exaggerate them to absurd proportions.

[Dante the Marxist]

Finding the capitalist spies and internal insurgents, as well as bureaucrat types trying to gain the system is a lot easier said than done. People weren't arrested for "thought crime". This is from 1984.
1984 is taken directly from Soviet Russia, even George Orwell said so.

[Spawn of Stalin]

He was basically a British spy and a staunch anti-Leninist, I hardly think he's worth paying any attention to. Orwell was the Bill O'Reilly of his time.

[Dante the Marxist]

He was basically a British spy and a staunch anti-Leninist, I hardly think he's worth paying any attention to. Orwell was the Bill O'Reilly of his time.
If you read his books, he is an anti-imperialist and considers himself a socialist.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Hey, I never denied this, I've got copies of Animal Farm and 1984 on my bookshelf, and they are both excellent works of fiction. Orwell may have identified as a socialist but that doesn't change the fact that he grassed up suspected Communists to British intelligence. In short, he was a wanker and a pioneer in the modern anti-Communist movement.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes he was repressive and not someone who I admire. However I do believe his crimes were bad enough without having to exaggerate them to absurd proportions.

That's exactly the main problem. Yes, he may have done some bad shit(although he certainly did alot of good as well), but the Capitalists have grossly exaggerated the death tolls. Some sources set it almost as high as 100 million alone for Mao.

[Sir Comradical]

That's exactly the main problem. Yes, he may have done some bad shit(although he certainly did alot of good as well), but the Capitalists have grossly exaggerated the death tolls. Some sources set it almost as high as 100 million alone for Mao.

100 million for Mao. Now that's lol.

[LOLseph Stalin]

100 million for Mao. Now that's lol.

Haha, I know. That's generally the accepted number among most Capitalists for all the deaths combined.

[Sir Comradical]

Haha, I know. That's generally the accepted number among most Capitalists for all the deaths combined.

The capitalists should focus on their own crimes which are up there in the hundreds of millions. There's a good chapter in Noam Chomsky's 'Failed States' where he compares India and China in terms of social indicators and so on. He concludes that one could make the assertion that capitalism in India killed tens of millions of people in the post-colonial era.

[hugsandmarxism]

Haha, I know. That's generally the accepted number among most Capitalists for all the deaths combined.

You can see a pattern in the inflation of body counts with the evolution of right wing policies during the cold war era. The Reagan days were particularly symptomatic of an escalation to anti-communist, "hurr hurr communism=genocide" rhetoric. Just consider some of the movies coming out at the time, reprinting of "horror stories," all to guide the public to a more conservative position towards the eastern block, and to make Reagan's imperialist ambitions more palatable to the mainstream. These fables grow more bizarre and grotesque whenever right-wing fear-mongers see something to be gained. It's a line of discourse that serves a purpose.

[Lyev]

Although Stalin claimed to be following and carrying on the good work of Lenin, he killed most of the old Bolsheviks, Trotsky included, he didn't really seem to be pro-worker. He tried to discipline the work-force, it seems he was incredibly strict when it came to punishing those who had missed, or were late for work. Under Stalin, particularly in the 30's, if you were fired you were stripped of your right to own an apartment and blacklisted from getting future work altogether. This totally made real the threat of starvation for lots of people, while I'm sure Stalin and his buddies were living it up in their mansions upon mountains of cash. Although, he did bring Russia into modern world, but, then again, such rates of growth seem alien to true a advocation of socialism.

but, just my two cents, I'm sure someone else is gonna whole-heartedly disagree with me.

[Kayser_Soso]

Although Stalin claimed to be following and carrying on the good work of Lenin, he killed most of the old Bolsheviks, Trotsky included, he didn't really seem to be pro-worker. He tried to discipline the work-force, it seems he was incredibly strict when it came to punishing those who had missed, or were late for work. Under Stalin, particularly in the 30's, if you were fired you were stripped of your right to own an apartment and blacklisted from getting future work altogether. This totally made real the threat of starvation for lots of people, while I'm sure Stalin and his buddies were living it up in their mansions upon mountains of cash. Although, he did bring Russia into modern world, but, then again, such rates of growth seem alien to true a advocation of socialism.

but, just my two cents, I'm sure someone else is gonna whole-heartedly disagree with me.

Epic fail. "He" tried to discipline the workforce? No, there was this thing called the law. You see, even under socialism, people are still thinking in a capitalist way. People still think of themselves rather than looking at the big picture. And your bizarre anecdote about losing apartments came from where exactly? Do you have any idea how hard it was to get fired under the Stalin regime if you were an ordinary worker? Living it up in mansions on mountains of cash? No.

Suggest reading Stalin: A New History by Sarah Davies(actually a collection of different recent works by several scholars).

[Kayser_Soso]

The capitalists should focus on their own crimes which are up there in the hundreds of millions. There's a good chapter in Noam Chomsky's 'Failed States' where he compares India and China in terms of social indicators and so on. He concludes that one could make the assertion that capitalism in India killed tens of millions of people in the post-colonial era.


Should, but they won't, and they never will.

[Kayser_Soso]

1984 is taken directly from Soviet Russia, even George Orwell said so.


Oh really? So the USSR had an anti-sex league? 2 minutes hate? George Orwell never set foot in the USSR. He met some Trotskyites in Spain and basically swallowed everything they said about the USSR.

[spiltteeth]

Although Stalin claimed to be following and carrying on the good work of Lenin, he killed most of the old Bolsheviks, Trotsky included, he didn't really seem to be pro-worker. He tried to discipline the work-force, it seems he was incredibly strict when it came to punishing those who had missed, or were late for work. Under Stalin, particularly in the 30's, if you were fired you were stripped of your right to own an apartment and blacklisted from getting future work altogether. This totally made real the threat of starvation for lots of people, while I'm sure Stalin and his buddies were living it up in their mansions upon mountains of cash. Although, he did bring Russia into modern world, but, then again, such rates of growth seem alien to true a advocation of socialism.

but, just my two cents, I'm sure someone else is gonna whole-heartedly disagree with me.

Actually, work was very soft, it was common practice for workers to leave work in the middle of the day to go shopping, plus work was guaranteed.

[bailey_187]

he killed most of the old Bolsheviks, Trotsky included

Budyonny, Dzerzhinsky, Frunze, Joffe, Kalinin, Kirov, Kollontai, Krasikov, Litvinov, Molotov, Shaumyan, Sverdlov, Voroshilov, Yurovsky, Ordzhonikidze, Zhdanov - all Old Bolsheviks who were not executed

Trotsky was in no way an "old bolshevik", he joined the Bolsheviks in 1917.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well, you gotta do what you gotta do, right? Once it became apparent that the Bolsheviks were the winning team, Trotsky figured the best course of action would be to join them, I don't think he banked on Russia ending up quite the way it did though. Oh well.

[Red Isa]

Oh really? So the USSR had an anti-sex league? 2 minutes hate? George Orwell never set foot in the USSR. He met some Trotskyites in Spain and basically swallowed everything they said about the USSR.

Orwell fabricated most of the things in that book (hence: fiction) but the "thought crime" idea actually happened in the time of Stalin's power. It was diagnosed as "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia." Instead of "thoughtcrime". This condition is in actuality, nonexistent, but it was used by Stalin to commit people who threatened him into asylums, which were basically jails. So Orwell did take the idea, he merely altered the name. As for the others, they were just things that he believed would be possible in time if Stalin's reign continued.

:hammersickle:

[spiltteeth]

Orwell fabricated most of the things in that book (hence: fiction) but the "thought crime" idea actually happened in the time of Stalin's power. It was diagnosed as "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia." Instead of "thoughtcrime". This condition is in actuality, nonexistent, but it was used by Stalin to commit people who threatened him into asylums, which were basically jails. So Orwell did take the idea, he merely altered the name. As for the others, they were just things that he believed would be possible in time if Stalin's reign continued.

:hammersickle:

This is true, however less than 1,000 people were institutionalized with this diagnosis in al the decades of Stalin's rule, and I should mention many russian psychologists still uphold it as a valid diagnosis today.
After reading the reports, I am convinced the doctors were absolutely sincere and consciously not politically motivated. In fact, I think America's psychological institutions are far more set up as power constructs to enforce ruling class hegemony.
Although there were a small handful of controversial institutions, such as that of Leonid Plyushch and Zhores Medvedev.

[Red Isa]

This is true, however less than 1,000 people were institutionalized with this diagnosis in al the decades of Stalin's rule, and I should mention many russian psychologists still uphold it as a valid diagnosis today.
After reading the reports, I am convinced the doctors were absolutely sincere and consciously not politically motivated. In fact, I think America's psychological institutions are far more set up as power constructs to enforce ruling class hegemony.
Although there were a small handful of controversial institutions, such as that of Leonid Plyushch and Zhores Medvedev.

I do agree with you. But let me bring up China for a moment. There, if you criticize the government you are committed to basically a prison, and many more people are diagnosed. In this case, it is definitely politically driven. The government has too much power.

[The Ben G]

Let me put it this way. The soviet union would be a ton more better if stalin was not leading the country after WWII.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Let me put it this way. The soviet union would be a ton more better if stalin was not leading the country after WWII.
Maybe, or maybe not. Who the fuck care?

[Lyev]

Epic fail. "He" tried to discipline the workforce? No, there was this thing called the law. You see, even under socialism, people are still thinking in a capitalist way. People still think of themselves rather than looking at the big picture. And your bizarre anecdote about losing apartments came from where exactly? Do you have any idea how hard it was to get fired under the Stalin regime if you were an ordinary worker? Living it up in mansions on mountains of cash? No.

Suggest reading Stalin: A New History by Sarah Davies(actually a collection of different recent works by several scholars).


Actually, work was very soft, it was common practice for workers to leave work in the middle of the day to go shopping, plus work was guaranteed.

I'm not sure the phrase 'Epic fail' was a prerequisite for that reply. I'm sure there is 'this thing called law', I was just kinda brainstorming though, I haven't really formed a composite opinion on Stalin yet, I need to read up on him. My 'bizarre' anecdote was Wikipedia. Although, my point is, as far as I can see, that workers didn't seem to have much power under Stalin.

Sorry, I didn't really know how lax he was with work; I suppose it makes sense, he absolutely needed people to work. Although, it's really hard, when looking this kinda stuff up, to distinguish between bourgeois, pro-Stalinist, and Trotskyist anti-Stalinist propaganda.

I have a question though, if work was so lax and people really did 'leave work in the middle of the day' how were such high targets met under the five-year plans? Isn't it true that those who didn't work were sent to the gulags? And Stalin felt it necessary to give higher wages to those he thought 'deserved' it? I imagine the workers felt as thought they were under huge pressure to meet quotas. Between 1928 and '32 it's estimated some 127,000 workers died due to the hazardous working conditions. I think some miners worked for up to 18 hours a day.

[Kayser_Soso]

I'm not sure the phrase 'Epic fail' was a prerequisite for that reply. I'm sure there is 'this thing called law', I was just kinda brainstorming though, I haven't really formed a composite opinion on Stalin yet, I need to read up on him. My 'bizarre' anecdote was Wikipedia. Although, my point is, as far as I can see, that workers didn't seem to have much power under Stalin.

From Wikipedia- exactly. Hence the phrase- "epic fail".



Sorry, I didn't really know how lax he was with work; I suppose it makes sense, he absolutely needed people to work. Although, it's really hard, when looking this kinda stuff up, to distinguish between bourgeois, pro-Stalinist, and Trotskyist anti-Stalinist propaganda.


I have a question though, if work was so lax and people really did 'leave work in the middle of the day' how were such high targets met under the five-year plans? Isn't it true that those who didn't work were sent to the gulags? And Stalin felt it necessary to give higher wages to those he thought 'deserved' it? I imagine the workers felt as thought they were under huge pressure to meet quotas. Between 1928 and '32 it's estimated some 127,000 workers died due to the hazardous working conditions. I think some miners worked for up to 18 hours a day.[/QUOTE]

Targets were met because in those days people were extremely enthusiastic, and many people volunteered to work extra time(see the Stakhanovite movement). This led to a sort of spiral of competition where people tried to out-do one another. Plus the state was providing education, healthcare, recreation, etc- far better in comparison to what existed in the Russian Empire previously. In addition to this, the USSR was importing a lot of the latest technology from the USA, Germany, etc.

[Kayser_Soso]

Let me put it this way. The soviet union would be a ton more better if stalin was not leading the country after WWII.

And just how would the country have won WWII without him?

[Vendetta]

And just how would the country have won WWII without him?

Probably with another dude as leader.

[Kayser_Soso]

Probably with another dude as leader.

Funny you mention that. Chris Bellamy in his book Absolute War actually proposes the idea that Tukhachevsky may very well have carried out a coup in the USSR before or after 1941. The results of a Tukhachevsky coup might have led to an actual German-Soviet alliance, something "too terrible to imagine."

[spiltteeth]

I'm not sure the phrase 'Epic fail' was a prerequisite for that reply. I'm sure there is 'this thing called law', I was just kinda brainstorming though, I haven't really formed a composite opinion on Stalin yet, I need to read up on him. My 'bizarre' anecdote was Wikipedia. Although, my point is, as far as I can see, that workers didn't seem to have much power under Stalin.

Sorry, I didn't really know how lax he was with work; I suppose it makes sense, he absolutely needed people to work. Although, it's really hard, when looking this kinda stuff up, to distinguish between bourgeois, pro-Stalinist, and Trotskyist anti-Stalinist propaganda.

I have a question though, if work was so lax and people really did 'leave work in the middle of the day' how were such high targets met under the five-year plans? Isn't it true that those who didn't work were sent to the gulags? And Stalin felt it necessary to give higher wages to those he thought 'deserved' it? I imagine the workers felt as thought they were under huge pressure to meet quotas. Between 1928 and '32 it's estimated some 127,000 workers died due to the hazardous working conditions. I think some miners worked for up to 18 hours a day.

In general work was extremely lax and mellow, one of the reasons being the harder people worked the more quotas they got, but since their pay remained the same either way work places set a very mellow work pace.

However, the big exception was that Stalin figured imperialist invasion was imminent, and he only had perhaps 10 yrs to act.
So he forced industrialization building an entirely new industrial base east of the urals in the middle of the frozen steppes in the middle of nowhere safe from invasion, and indeed, people worked an incredible amount, suffered terribly, froze to death, starved, and died.
Then, in 1944, the Nazi's attacked, and thanks to these truly heroic workers sacrifice, it was the weapons produced there that eventually defeated the Nazi's.

[spiltteeth]

I do agree with you. But let me bring up China for a moment. There, if you criticize the government you are committed to basically a prison, and many more people are diagnosed. In this case, it is definitely politically driven. The government has too much power.

I agree, with all the threats around I understand Stalin's actions, but even so they were somewhat excessive.
However, China has little excuse, the USSR was surrounded by an entire world hostile to it, desperate to bring it down, from the inside and out.

I agree though, without being directly responsible to the people it is simply too much power for one person - see Yeltsin.

[Zanthorus]

I agree though, without being directly responsible to the people it is simply too much power for one person - see Yeltsin.

That almost leads into what I was going to say.

My view is it doesn't matter wether you believe that Stalin was a monster or that Stalin was a socialist hero who was betrayed by Kruschev. Either way it's pretty clear that with a dictatorship it's hit and miss. You might get a glorious soviet leader or you might end up with a snivelling Bourgeois lapdog. A dictatorship isn't really the best way to defend a revolution.

[Kayser_Soso]

That almost leads into what I was going to say.

My view is it doesn't matter wether you believe that Stalin was a monster or that Stalin was a socialist hero who was betrayed by Kruschev. Either way it's pretty clear that with a dictatorship it's hit and miss. You might get a glorious soviet leader or you might end up with a snivelling Bourgeois lapdog. A dictatorship isn't really the best way to defend a revolution.


This is a good point. One problem with the Bolshevik revolution is that they were mostly flying blind, with little experience to go off of(save for the Paris Commune). It took years just to create a constitution for the Union(1936, specifically). As we all know, when the US constitution was drafted, its rights did not apply to all people, and only recently has it become possible for people to trust in things like Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Assembly(and even those rights got trampled on recently). The thing with law is that there is theory and practice; law has to be tested, precedent set. Along with that, a series of checks and balances must be implemented in order to separate authority from interest.

We can then see that one of the major weaknesses in the USSR was that people could hold many titles at one time. Yezhov, a traitor, held a number of titles simultaneously, for example. Worst of all he had reached the top of the secret police organization. Another weakness was the fact that while the 1936 constitution provided free elections by secret ballot, with party and non-party(as well as civic organization) candidates, these elections were for the Supreme Soviet, whereas many of the most important political decisions in the USSR were determined by the Politburo or CC of the CPSU.

See, this is constructive criticism of real-world socialism. This is how we make progress.

[Lyev]

From Wikipedia- exactly. Hence the phrase- "epic fail".

Targets were met because in those days people were extremely enthusiastic, and many people volunteered to work extra time(see the Stakhanovite movement). This led to a sort of spiral of competition where people tried to out-do one another. Plus the state was providing education, healthcare, recreation, etc- far better in comparison to what existed in the Russian Empire previously. In addition to this, the USSR was importing a lot of the latest technology from the USA, Germany, etc.

But wasn't the Stakhanovite movement propaganda jumped on directly by Stalin, so people would work longer hours for him? It's not as if they all suddenly decided to start working harder. Weren't some Stakhanovites beaten up in the steets too? Plus, you say 'the state was providing education, healthcare, recreation etc.' but ‘Apparatchiks’ (party members loyal to Stalin) were prioritised for all the new flats, jobs and holidays, right?


In general work was extremely lax and mellow, one of the reasons being the harder people worked the more quotas they got, but since their pay remained the same either way work places set a very mellow work pace.

However, the big exception was that Stalin figured imperialist invasion was imminent, and he only had perhaps 10 yrs to act.
So he forced industrialization building an entirely new industrial base east of the urals in the middle of the frozen steppes in the middle of nowhere safe from invasion, and indeed, people worked an incredible amount, suffered terribly, froze to death, starved, and died.
Then, in 1944, the Nazi's attacked, and thanks to these truly heroic workers sacrifice, it was the weapons produced there that eventually defeated the Nazi's.

Stalin didn't fully care about the army though, didn't he purge army and police officers? Where are your sources, by the way, for work being 'very mellow'?

Why are you people trying to defend Stalin, anyway? Isn't it a lot easier, in the name of Marxism and communism, to simply denounce him? It's glaringly obvious he killed millions of people unnecessarily; he ordered Trotsky to be killed and all of Trotsky's books were banned under Stalin so why are you siding with Stalin? Stalin killed all of the old Bolsheviks too, bar about 3.

[spiltteeth]

But wasn't the Stakhanovite movement propaganda jumped on directly by Stalin, so people would work longer hours for him? It's not as if they all suddenly decided to start working harder. Weren't some Stakhanovites beaten up in the steets too? Plus, you say 'the state was providing education, healthcare, recreation etc.' but ‘Apparatchiks’ (party members loyal to Stalin) were prioritised for all the new flats, jobs and holidays, right?



Stalin didn't fully care about the army though, didn't he purge army and police officers? Where are your sources, by the way, for work being 'very mellow'?

Why are you people trying to defend Stalin, anyway? Isn't it a lot easier, in the name of Marxism and communism, to simply denounce him? It's glaringly obvious he killed millions of people unnecessarily; he ordered Trotsky to be killed and all of Trotsky's books were banned under Stalin so why are you siding with Stalin? Stalin killed all of the old Bolsheviks too, bar about 3.

First, party members did indeed get new flats, nothing comparable to the politicians in europe or USA though.
For instance, in USA, the difference between the top earners and the bottom ones are 10,000 to 1.
In Stalin's USSR, the wealth difference was at most 5 to 1.
No one was getting super rich.

The workers were breaking their necks not for Stalin, but because they believed Stalin when he said we have 10 yrs to turn a dirt poor sickly nation into a defensible power before imperialists invade us - and he was right. The workers did it for their families and country (and, incidentally you - had they not built that base in the Urals we would all be saluting Hitler right now)

And as I say, everything else other than the industrial base in the Urals had an extremely humane, easy going work environment, none of which has ever existed in capitalist countries.


It's glaringly obvious he killed millions of people unnecessarily

Where in heck did you ever get this from? Please don't say Glenn Beck.

I condemn Stalin for sending thousands (not millions) of political moderates to the gulag, the excess of political terror he utilized, the excessive curbing of free speech, the propaganda he used (again, nothing nearly approaching the propaganda in USA or Europe of course) and the personality cult.
But there was also a hell of alot of good in the USSR that all people ought to uphold, or at least put into context.
We should learn, and take what's good.

As for my sources, there are many, (and plenty of pro-stalinist literature out there) but a readable nurtreal source is 'Black Shirts and Reds'- by parenti

[Lyev]

First, party members did indeed get new flats, nothing comparable to the politicians in europe or USA though.
For instance, in USA, the difference between the top earners and the bottom ones are 10,000 to 1.
In Stalin's USSR, the wealth difference was at most 5 to 1.
No one was getting super rich.

The workers were breaking their necks not for Stalin, but because they believed Stalin when he said we have 10 yrs to turn a dirt poor sickly nation into a defensible power before imperialists invade us - and he was right. The workers did it for their families and country (and, incidentally you - had they not built that base in the Urals we would all be saluting Hitler right now)

And as I say, everything else other than the industrial base in the Urals had an extremely humane, easy going work environment, none of which has ever existed in capitalist countries.

Where in heck did you ever get this from? Please don't say Glenn Beck.

I condemn Stalin for sending thousands (not millions) of political moderates to the gulag, the excess of political terror he utilized, the excessive curbing of free speech, the propaganda he used (again, nothing nearly approaching the propaganda in USA or Europe of course) and the personality cult.
But there was also a hell of alot of good in the USSR that all people ought to uphold, or at least put into context.
We should learn, and take what's good.

As for my sources, there are many, (and plenty of pro-stalinist literature out there) but a readable nurtreal source is 'Black Shirts and Reds'- by parenti

Ok, fair enough.

Not millions, but thousands; the point is, under Stalin, people suffered, that is undeniable. There was also the famines, but whether Stalin actually had sufficient power to deal with this kind of thing is highly subjective. There's some good in Stalin and some bad, as there is with everyone. 'In Stalin's USSR, the wealth difference was at most 5 to 1.' There is still a gulf though, why settle for a compromise? I don't think Stalin was a true communist though, but, again, that's highly subjective. I will say this though; that arguing over dead guys doesn't really encourage solidarity between comrades and it certainly doesn't further the cause of revolutionary left. Can we all just be friends? (By the way Glenn Beck is a massive wanker.)

[Kayser_Soso]

But wasn't the Stakhanovite movement propaganda jumped on directly by Stalin, so people would work longer hours for him? It's not as if they all suddenly decided to start working harder. Weren't some Stakhanovites beaten up in the steets too? Plus, you say 'the state was providing education, healthcare, recreation etc.' but ‘Apparatchiks’ (party members loyal to Stalin) were prioritised for all the new flats, jobs and holidays, right?

Wrong. Splitteeth already dealt with this in detail, but I will add that people didn't work longer hours for "him". The problem with this whole post is everything is "he did this" and "he did that". Stalin's principle title was General Secretary of the Communist Party. Yes he exercised a lot of influence personally, and was often decisive, but he also delegated a lot. In the majority of politburo decisions in one particular year were made without him being present, when he wasn't even within telephone contact with Moscow(he wrote letters). (See Stalin: A New History, J. Arch Getty's chapter) Does this sound like a micromanaging megalomaniac?

More importantly, where Stalin pushed things through in the politburo in a supposedly undemocratic way- he did not actually change the way the system in the politburo worked. If one criticizes the manner in which Stalin used the politburo, they must also do the same for how Lenin used it, as the records now show that Stalin's actions with the politburo were pretty much the same as those of Lenin.




Stalin didn't fully care about the army though, didn't he purge army and police officers? Where are your sources, by the way, for work being 'very mellow'?

LOL WUT? The military was top priority. The Soviet army was extremely advanced, though still struggling to produce more arms and update outdated models before time was up. By 1941 they had already produced some groundbreaking weapons that would become war winners later on.

Indeed, the purge harmed the military(but there was evidence that it was necessary, something admitted by none other than Churchill himself), but only in the sense that reorganization became neccessary and a lot of experienced middle-level officers were lost(most were simply dismissed). However, plenty of works show that from the very day of 22 June, there were Soviet units fighting to the death, and the Soviets immediately began to learn from their mistakes. This is supported by the work of David M. Glantz, quite possibly the foremost expert on the Red Army in the English speaking world, as well as Chris Bellamy, and even supported by the German analysis compiled after the war by such Nazis-turned-US Army-consultants like Erhard Rauss.



Why are you people trying to defend Stalin, anyway? Isn't it a lot easier, in the name of Marxism and communism, to simply denounce him? It's glaringly obvious he killed millions of people unnecessarily; he ordered Trotsky to be killed and all of Trotsky's books were banned under Stalin so why are you siding with Stalin? Stalin killed all of the old Bolsheviks too, bar about 3.


We don't seek to do what is easy- we seek to do what is right. Do you think that by denouncing Stalin, the ruling class will shut up and engage us on equal terms? Did that work for Khruschev? Tito, or any number of Trotskyites? Such people have benefited in various ways for their direct and indirect services to the bourgeoisie, but in the end they always lose. You think that Stalin was the first Communist to be accused of killing millions of people unneccessarily? Back in Stalin's day, it was Lenin who was said to have killed 30 million, and obviously a lot of that number would have had to have come from the Russian Civil War, when the man in command of the Red Army waaaaaaaaaaaaas.....that's right, Trotsky.

The problem is you keep saying Stalin did this or he did that, when the fact is that life in the Soviet Union was far more complicated than what Stalin thought, said, or did. If everything had gone according to Stalin's personal wish, we might all be living in a socialist world today- far more peaceful and yes, free, the sacrifices having been made long before in the early period of revolution, just as past mode's of production came into this world drenched in blood. But the fact is that history, the Soviet Union, and the state which it overthrew was far too big for any man, including Stalin.

[Radical]

If you think Stalin just wanted power, I dont think you know ANYTHING about him but the Western Propaganda. I dont even think Trotskyists stood to the level of accusing him of being a power-hungry monster.

Lenin was just as evil and murderous as Stalin. People seem to purposly forget that.

[Kayser_Soso]

Ok, fair enough.

Not millions, but thousands; the point is, under Stalin, people suffered, that is undeniable. There was also the famines, but whether Stalin actually had sufficient power to deal with this kind of thing is highly subjective.

People suffered under every past society. What is your point? You plan to overthrow the capitalist order and somehow do it without suffering? Don't you think that at least those whom you expropriate won't "suffer" in some way?




There's some good in Stalin and some bad, as there is with everyone. 'In Stalin's USSR, the wealth difference was at most 5 to 1.' There is still a gulf though, why settle for a compromise? I don't think Stalin was a true communist though, but, again, that's highly subjective. I will say this though; that arguing over dead guys doesn't really encourage solidarity between comrades and it certainly doesn't further the cause of revolutionary left. Can we all just be friends? (By the way Glenn Beck is a massive wanker.)

I admire your honesty and genuine attempts to discuss these issues. As for the differentials, this is a good question because I am a member of a party which supports quite radical(as in radically small) differentials. But we have to have differentials for the fact that after a revolution, people are still used to living by the ways of the capitalist system. In that system, the intellectual jobs get all the dough, and the garbage collector is looked down on. I live in Russia and I can tell you that the Tajik, Uzbek, etc. streetsweepers and garbage collectors are treated like a class of Hindu dalits- untouchables who are not noticed at all by the middle-class professionals who rely on their labor to maintain some sanitation in this city.

Now how do we bridge the gap between two kinds of professions like that? We can easily inspire solidarity between say, restaurant workers and construction workers, but many technical employees with decent salaries are convinced they have nothing in common with such people. What is more, there is theoretically a reason why doctors, lawyers, and technicians are partially justified in earning large salaries- namely that they must spend more time studying and working to achieve their position; this is especially relevant when their education was paid for by themselves or their family.

In a socialist society(and they did this in the USSR and other socialist nations), they tried to educate more workers, and to a large extent succeeded(though the USSR lost many during the war, and thus Stalin was again pushing the need to train more "red cadres" from the workers, as well as raise the cultural/technical level of all workers, as written in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR). For the Soviets and other countries, "red cadres" were especially necessary because prior to the revolution, the few technically competant people were usually bourgeois types or had bourgeois sympathies.


Differentials will be necessary for some time after any socialist revolution. Thankfully though, the means and opportunity to train more workers in technical fields(and cross-train them to do a variety of things) is far easier thanks to computer literacy(and regular literacy for that matter), a higher base level of technical proficiency, etc.


Though this ties in with the last post I made, I will say again- never get to thinking that the ruling class will somehow treat your view of socialism fairly just because you denouce Stalin. There's a reason why neo-liberals and hawks still rule the roost in world politics. Might as well do your best to understand the truth about Stalin. If you're going to get into this movement- go all the way.

It reminds me of this old Japanese samurai proverb:

"Under the falling blade flows a river of hell. Jump in, and you just might float."

[Kayser_Soso]

If you think Stalin just wanted power, I dont think you know ANYTHING about him but the Western Propaganda. I dont even think Trotskyists stood to the level of accusing him of being a power-hungry monster.

Lenin was just as evil and murderous as Stalin. People seem to purposly forget that.


Look, there are plenty of bourgeois hacks that call Che Guvara a murderer, and look how few people he killed. Hell, we "Hoxhaists" get flak for supporting a Stalinist, when the guy we supposedly see as "the dear Albanian leader" ran a country where executions were only in the triple digits, and not suprising given the amount of armed insurgencies that were routinely caught invading the country thanks to double agent Kim Philby.

Let me let you in on a secret- to the ruling class, if you kill ONE person in the name of socialism, it was too many. Because we, the workers, are not allowed to use violence unless we become members of those state institutions which are authorized to do so. During the Cold War, the academic body counters diligently thought of new ways to attribute more deaths to Communism. They were never concerned with the deaths that occured due to capitalism; their righteous indignation in the name of human rights virtually disappeared with the USSR.

[Lyev]

People suffered under every past society. What is your point? You plan to overthrow the capitalist order and somehow do it without suffering? Don't you think that at least those whom you expropriate won't "suffer" in some way?

I admire your honesty and genuine attempts to discuss these issues. As for the differentials, this is a good question because I am a member of a party which supports quite radical(as in radically small) differentials. But we have to have differentials for the fact that after a revolution, people are still used to living by the ways of the capitalist system. In that system, the intellectual jobs get all the dough, and the garbage collector is looked down on. I live in Russia and I can tell you that the Tajik, Uzbek, etc. streetsweepers and garbage collectors are treated like a class of Hindu dalits- untouchables who are not noticed at all by the middle-class professionals who rely on their labor to maintain some sanitation in this city.

Now how do we bridge the gap between two kinds of professions like that? We can easily inspire solidarity between say, restaurant workers and construction workers, but many technical employees with decent salaries are convinced they have nothing in common with such people. What is more, there is theoretically a reason why doctors, lawyers, and technicians are partially justified in earning large salaries- namely that they must spend more time studying and working to achieve their position; this is especially relevant when their education was paid for by themselves or their family.

In a socialist society(and they did this in the USSR and other socialist nations), they tried to educate more workers, and to a large extent succeeded(though the USSR lost many during the war, and thus Stalin was again pushing the need to train more "red cadres" from the workers, as well as raise the cultural/technical level of all workers, as written in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR). For the Soviets and other countries, "red cadres" were especially necessary because prior to the revolution, the few technically competant people were usually bourgeois types or had bourgeois sympathies.


Differentials will be necessary for some time after any socialist revolution. Thankfully though, the means and opportunity to train more workers in technical fields(and cross-train them to do a variety of things) is far easier thanks to computer literacy(and regular literacy for that matter), a higher base level of technical proficiency, etc.


Though this ties in with the last post I made, I will say again- never get to thinking that the ruling class will somehow treat your view of socialism fairly just because you denouce Stalin. There's a reason why neo-liberals and hawks still rule the roost in world politics. Might as well do your best to understand the truth about Stalin. If you're going to get into this movement- go all the way.

It reminds me of this old Japanese samurai proverb:

"Under the falling blade flows a river of hell. Jump in, and you just might float."

You bring up some really relevant points; how to condition people from a capitalist mode of thinking into a socialist one?

'the few technically competant people were usually bourgeois types or had bourgeois sympathies.' < This quote too is a good point. Often in capitalist society the bourgeoisie are the only ones given the opportunity to such an education.



Though this ties in with the last post I made, I will say again- never get to thinking that the ruling class will somehow treat your view of socialism fairly just because you denouce Stalin. There's a reason why neo-liberals and hawks still rule the roost in world politics. Might as well do your best to understand the truth about Stalin. If you're going to get into this movement- go all the way.

It reminds me of this old Japanese samurai proverb:

"Under the falling blade flows a river of hell. Jump in, and you just might float."

To be honest I don't care what the bourgeoisie think of my political views. I take back what I said about denoucing Stalin, it's not really that any part of history needs, or necessarily should be 'denounced'. We simply look at all the facts in the most unbiased way possible and come to a reasonable conclusion.

[KarlMarx1989]

if you actually bother to read about Stalin,
how about recommending some books of internet pages
Alright then, I'll bite. What do you have to offer? I read up on the Russian Revolution and only that on top of the current progression of Marx / Engels work, as of now; for there is much to read. Between all the Marx, Engels, and Lenin material; I will try to find the time and patience to read about Stalin. You know what, though, I could just at least know what to read so that once I have read a sufficient amount of Marx / Engels work; I could apply what I know to what I read about Stalin.

So, I ask you; what do you have to offer?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html).

[Kayser_Soso]

Alright then, I'll bite. What do you have to offer? I read up on the Russian Revolution and only that on top of the current progression of Marx / Engels work, as of now; for there is much to read. Between all the Marx, Engels, and Lenin material; I will try to find the time and patience to read about Stalin. You know what, though, I could just at least know what to read so that once I have read a sufficient amount of Marx / Engels work; I could apply what I know to what I read about Stalin.

So, I ask you; what do you have to offer?


Stalin: A New History (compilation of works by different academics, some opposing one another)
Stalin's Wars by Geoffery Roberts

[Black Star]

Overall, I disagree with Stalin in many aspects. It's undeniable his reign saw the rise of totalitarianism. The level of government malevolence and general bleakness is extended to almost fairy tale heights by the Western propaganda machine though. With this said, I believe there was a certain amount of malevolence and arbitrary injustice acted under Stalin that had a greater chance of not happening under Trotsky or different leader. However, with his strict policies, Stalin indeed was able to quickly transform the Soviet Union from an agarian society into an industrial power and maintain the Soviet Union despite Western pressures, both militarily and economically.

[Rjevan]

I could apply what I know to what I read about Stalin.

So, I ask you; what do you have to offer?
Well, hugs provided great links already at the beginning of this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1576489&postcount=9
The basics are "Another View of Stalin" and "Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reforms", which deals with the "authoritarian dictator" myth.

[Red Isa]

That entirely is up to you. To stir up the argument: how could Stalin get that power in the first place?
.

Umm, by killing Trotsky? Wasn't he supposed to be Lenin's successor? Then he was banned from the USSR, moved to Mexico, and was shot. By someone that Stalin is thought to have sent.

[Red Isa]

I want to thank you all for your input. It is appreciated greatly. :)

[red cat]

Umm, by killing Trotsky? Wasn't he supposed to be Lenin's successor? Then he was banned from the USSR, moved to Mexico, and was shot. By someone that Stalin is thought to have sent.
Can you give me some more information on this? Why was Trotsky "supposed" to be Lenin's successor? Who elected him to that position?

[Kayser_Soso]

Umm, by killing Trotsky? Wasn't he supposed to be Lenin's successor? Then he was banned from the USSR, moved to Mexico, and was shot. By someone that Stalin is thought to have sent.

Umm...someone needs to read up on their history. How could he kill Trotsky, then ban him to Mexico? And he WASN'T SHOT either, he was famously killed with an ice axe(rather ironic in that part of Mexico I would think).

[thecoffeecake1]

All you need to know about Stalin is that he ruined all the progress of the Russian Revolution and gave all Capitalists a completely distorted view of actual Socialism and especially Communism.

^

[Drace]

Ive read parts of Another View of Stalin

The Ukrainian Holocaust section left me quite unsatisfied.
It used one or two quotes to defend a whole statement.

For example, his assertion that there was massive kulak opposition, a typhoid epidemic, and drought were all only supported by two personal accounts each.

Quite weak evidence if you ask me


All you need to know about Stalin is that he ruined all the progress of the Russian Revolution and gave all Capitalists a completely distorted view of actual Socialism and especially Communism.

If everything went perfect, capitalists would still find an undesirable of the system and massively exaggerate it.

[KC]

Edit

[Drace]

Another View of Stalin is among the most anti-historic, ideologically driven trash you could read. About 99% of it is false, and the 1% that isn't is pure coincidence. Anyone that references that or suggests it is a wackjob ideologue that is more concerned with being right than understanding the truth.

Back yourself up

[KC]

Edit

[Kayser_Soso]

Ive read parts of Another View of Stalin

The Ukrainian Holocaust section left me quite unsatisfied.
It used one or two quotes to defend a whole statement.

For example, his assertion that there was massive kulak opposition, a typhoid epidemic, and drought were all only supported by two personal accounts each.

Quite weak evidence if you ask me



If everything went perfect, capitalists would still find an undesirable of the system and massively exaggerate it.

Actually there is plenty of evidence of all of those problems mentioned in connection with the famine, but kulak opposition was not a major factor leading to the famine; the bad harvest that year, plus inaccurate reporting from the bottom, were the primary causes. The archival work of Dr. Mark Tauger deals with this issue in depth, and a great deal of it is available online from Tauger's website hosted by the University of West Virginia.

[Kayser_Soso]

Read anything about Stalin and Russian history during his rule that isn't from a Stalinist source. I'm not going to teach you basic Russian history. Just pick anything in the book and go read about it elsewhere. Hell, Martens even admits that it's an ideologically driven work:

"Defending Stalin's work, essentially defending Marxism-Leninism, is an important, urgent task in preparing ourselves for class struggle under the New World Order."

The entire book was about defending Stalin and hence justifying and downplaying all of the crimes committed under his rule. There is a reason this book isn't even addressed in academic circles and solely by those whose ideological affiliations are further supported by it and in some cases even depend on it.

So by your logic we can discount any work about Russian history from a "Trotskyist" source then.

Now you want books addressed in academic circles? Try Stalin: A New History by Sarah Davies. Stalin's Wars by Geoffery Roberts. Try the papers written by J. Arch Getty(oh and he has a lovely one about Trotsky) or Dr. Mark Tauger. None of these individuals are even Communists.

Trotskyists apparently aren't interested in what the latest archival research has uncovered(save for what they think supports their ideas), since it upsets their mythological narrative of the Russian Revolution.

[KC]

Edit

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly, I do have to agree with my anti-revisionist comrades in some respects. I think any socialist should understand that death totals of 20million, 50million or 100million are often plucked out of thin air by people who have not studied a single (or perhaps, single!!) academic source on the subject.

Indeed, even some of the more creditable bourgeois historians such as Ellmann put the total number of people that were executed in peacetime as low as 1.3 million.

Personally, I don't think there is proof of even that number; there are, however, lists from NKVD archives which put the total in the hundreds of thousands. So really, that should be your starting point - to understand that many of the numbers put about are nowhere near reality, and that in all honesty, we will probably never be able to hit the exact, or be in the range of, the total number of people who did indeed perish during peacetime Stalin rule.

From there, you, and only you, have to decide whether the deaths of a hypothetical number of people (to be realistic, call it anywhere from 100,000 to around 1 million), executed by the state for alleged crimes against the state and against socialism, are justified.

All I will say is, be careful not to get sucked into absolutely everything the anti-revisionists say, and don't believe that all of the academic world sides with the links and reading material that they present to you.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In addition, what I often try to do (as I am not so well versed in Marxist theory or literature as others) is gather a variety of sources - from anti-revisionsts, trots and anarchists. Then I find I normally have enough information to make an informed decision.

[FSL]

All I will say is, be careful not to get sucked into absolutely everything the anti-revisionists say



A pro-family message brought to you by DemSoc.

[h9socialist]

Whew! I agree that Stalin has been demonized in the West to an unfair extent. On the other hand, to me, I wonder how Stalin's defenders justify a man like Lavrenti Beria, who was Stalin's henchman. And what about the sham trials and executions of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin? Were those simply bourgeois fabrications?

[bailey_187]

Deutscher's book, I think, paints a much more realistic picture of Stalin than most other works I've read.

Fail.

If you want a "realistic picture" of Stalin then it would be better to read more recent works that can make use of the recently opened archives.

Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941 by Thurston is one of the books i recommend about Stalin

[Kayser_Soso]

Whew! I agree that Stalin has been demonized in the West to an unfair extent. On the other hand, to me, I wonder how Stalin's defenders justify a man like Lavrenti Beria, who was Stalin's henchman. And what about the sham trials and executions of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin? Were those simply bourgeois fabrications?

Lavrenti Beria was far better than traitors like Yagoda and Yezhov, who were directly responsible for the deaths of many innocents. Beria went after the real culprits.

What evidence do you have that the trials of Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Bukharin were shams?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A pro-family message brought to you by DemSoc.

I am Barack Obama and I support this message.;)

No, I didn't mean it as a slight against you lot, in all fairness. But you have to admit, if you are new to marxism and you don't know Josef from Leon, then it is incredibly easy to take the first few sources that are fed to you and treat them as absolute.

I was just making the point that the OP should consult a range of sources, from a variety of groups, before making a decision. That is all.

[Drace]

Read anything about Stalin and Russian history during his rule that isn't from a Stalinist source. I'm not going to teach you basic Russian history. Just pick anything in the book and go read about it elsewhere. Hell, Martens even admits that it's an ideologically driven work:Discrediting any work that defends Stalin for the reason that it defends Stalin isn't very logical

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Discrediting any work that defends Stalin for the reason that it defends Stalin isn't very logical

Somewhat hypocritical.

You lot do it all the time.

[KC]

Edit

[Drace]

Did I say something wrong? :confused:

[Spawn of Stalin]

No, it's okay, KC was up against a logical argument, and responded accordingly. In other words, couldn't think of anything intelligent to post.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Uh. I don't want to put a damper on the little party here, but isn't there an official "Stalin thread" that this should all be going in?

[hugsandmarxism]

Uh. I don't want to put a damper on the little party here, but isn't there an official "Stalin thread" that this should all be going in?

No no no no no! You've got it all wrong! We NEED to have another individual thread pop up every two weeks on this exact same subject! This is a PRESSING POLITICAL ISSUE that needs to be CONSTANTLY REDRESSED because... what else would we do on RevLeft? Talk about nowadays? No... if there is political capital to be made, we'll bring up shit from over half a century ago and beat a dead horse until everyone on RevLeft can finally agree that STALIN WAS THE BOOGEY MAN!

On a more serious note, I think that if we're going to dance this little dance all the time, we should have a Stalin sub-forum in history like we do with ole' Che, so we don't clutter up the main forum with this sillyness, and have a place to move these threads that pop up in learning. I mean, Che seems eclipsed in Stalin's shadow with how much this community can't stop talking about him... Just a thought.

[mykittyhasaboner]

A subforum seems like a good idea, however it could be just as easy to split all 'Stalin threads' into the sticky thats in History.

[Kayser_Soso]

:rolleyes:

I guess we should take this as acknowledgement of your logically fallacious argument, as Drace so eloquently pointed out.

[KC]

Edit

[mykittyhasaboner]

You can take it for whatever you want; if you think that Another View of Stalin is a work to be taken seriously then I don't want to have anything to do with your "logic".

Why should it not be taken seriously?

[Kayser_Soso]

You can take it for whatever you want; if you think that Another View of Stalin is a work to be taken seriously then I don't want to have anything to do with your "logic".

Actually you are ignoring the other sources I brought up, none of which are even Communist much less "Stalinist". J. Arch Getty also did a great paper on Trotsky's opportunism. How wonderful is it that we now have open archives that totally expose Trotsky's bullshit? But I digress.

Another View of Stalin should be judged on the merits of his sources. Granted, he makes some claims that are weakly supported, and sometimes there are some logical fallacies in his claims, but much of his other claims are sourced and confirmed in other objective sources. Plus, on some issues, the evidence we have today was not yet available to him at the time.

[Drace]

You can take it for whatever you want; if you think that Another View of Stalin is a work to be taken seriously then I don't want to have anything to do with your "logic".

I dont care if the book was written by Hitler. If it has its facts, its just as legitimate.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think this thread should be allowed, but moderated heavily and locked after a short period of time.

The reason being, that there is a difference between high level Stalin type threads in History or Ideology, where there is genuine debate over fine issues, and the more entry level discussions of Stalin in learning, where often a new member asks a different question from a different angle about Stalin, or the USSR under Stalin.

[Invader Zim]

Why not share with us, PF?

Presumably because she realises that if she does her 'information' will aired in a public environment where there are plenty of people to expose it as a-historic bullshit.

As I have said before Stalin was a violently racist , homophobic dictator who sabotaged a revolution and paved the way for a return to capitalism, and imprisoned and murdered millions.



Another View of Stalin should be judged on the merits of his sources.

In which case it should be dismissed anyway. Martens is massively over-reliant on a pitifuly few works creating lengthy ibid strings from worthless a-historic trash such as Doug Tottle's debunked nonsense; his chapters in a few cases contain only a few dozen references, one could legitimately expect more sources and evidence of research from a 1,500 word undergraduate essay than Martens places into entire chapters; and it contains an absolute pausity of primary source material, save published works from the likes of Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, etc, Martens doesn't include any.

[Kayser_Soso]

In which case it should be dismissed anyway. Martens is massively over-reliant on a pitifuly few works, and as far as I am aware his didn't use any primary source material save published works by key figures.

By all means give us an example.

[Invader Zim]

By all means give us an example.

From the edit I made to my previous post:

"Martens is massively over-reliant on a pitifuly few works creating lengthy ibid strings from worthless a-historic trash such as Doug Tottle's debunked nonsense".

If you don't believe that I suggest you example chapter five, which contains a pitiful 46 references 37 of which are to Tottle's drivel. Chapter one contains 31, of 79, references to Ian Grey's book Stalin: Man of History. Chapter 3 contain s only 23 references, 8 of which are from Hiroaki Kuromiya's Stalin's Industrial Revolution: Politics and Workers, 1928--1932. Chapter 4 contains 190 references, the vast majority of which are taken from R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia and Viola, The Best Sons of the Fatherland.

Need I go on?

It isn't as if Marten's didn't have a much secondary literature to go on, masses and masses of literature has been written on Stalinist Russia, but his book is largely based on perhaps a dozen or so books. In short martens failed the most elementary task of the historian, he didn't read enough.

[Kayser_Soso]

From the edit I made to my previous post:

"Martens is massively over-reliant on a pitifuly few works creating lengthy ibid strings from worthless a-historic trash such as Doug Tottle's debunked nonsense".

If you don't believe that I suggest you example chapter five, which contains a pitiful 46 references 37 of which are to Tottle's drivel. Chapter one contains 31, of 79, references to Ian Grey's book Stalin: Man of History. Chapter 3 contain s only 23 references, 8 of which are from Hiroaki Kuromiya's Stalin's Industrial Revolution: Politics and Workers, 1928--1932. Chapter 4 contains 190 references, the vast majority of which are taken from R. W. Davies, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia and Viola, The Best Sons of the Fatherland.

Need I go on?

It isn't as if Marten's didn't have a much secondary literature to go on, masses and masses of literature has been written on Stalinist Russia, but his book is largely based on perhaps a dozen or so books. In short martens failed the most elementary task of the historian, he didn't read enough.


First off, R.W. Davies and Lynne Viola are pretty repsected historians on the subject. As for Tottle, his work was a bit incoherent and isn't really worth much on the subject of the famine, but he did get a few things right. Personally I think Tottle's work is better for demonstrating the true nature of Ukrainian emigre organizations of that era. Only in the last ten or so years did these organizations figure out that they REALLY need to stop using terms like Judeo-Bolshevism.

Off the top of my head I cannot remember when Another View of Stalin was written(I read it along time ago and I don't cite from it), but it is very likely that he wrote it before the work of Dr. Mark Tauger on the issue of the famine.

[Invader Zim]

First off, R.W. Davies and Lynne Viola are pretty repsected historians on the subject.

No doubt, but that doesn't excuse massive over-reliance on their works which, in combination to his near non-existant primary research and (again) clear over-reliance upon nonsense by propagandists like Tottle contradicts your idea that Marten's book can be judged favourably because of its sources. In fact it is one of the most objectional aspects of the book.

[Kayser_Soso]

No doubt, but that doesn't excuse massive over-reliance on their works which, in combination to his near non-existant primary research and (again) clear over-reliance upon nonsense by propagandists like Tottle contradicts your idea that Marten's book can be judged favourably because of its sources. In fact it is one of the most objectional aspects of the book.

First of all Marten's book should be judged claim by claim, like any work of history. For example, his refutation of some of Khruschev's claims regarding Stalin's conduct during the war are indeed correct, confirmed by other sources such as Zhukov's memoirs, which have since been confirmed by other experts like David M. Glantz and Chris Bellamy.

As for his reliance on those two sources, which are credible, it again depends on when his book was published. Once Tauger came on the scene, Robert Conquest himself was eventually forced to give up his "engineered famine" argument.