Stalin. [Archive]

Brother No. 1

6th November 2009, 22:25

1* Did Stalin kill all those millions of people?

The "millions" are drawn into two things. Myth and historical anaylsis.

Myth would included Stalin killed 40 milllion,30 million,etc but on gthe historical analysis this is where we can get more then one answer or no answers at all. Micheal Ellmans "Soviet Repression Statistics: a few comments" tells us a total of 12 million were repressed but of those 12 million only 4.4 were killed. *Great Purges reference* Of these 4.4 million we can divide this into non-intetional (not intented by the Party,Central committee,etc) And justifable. The Non-intetional goes to 3 million and we can futher put this into more sections.

GULAG: 1.5 million
Trial/transport/etc: 0.5 million
executed by state: 1 million

But I'm betting your saying "if the state/GULAG killed them wouldnt that be justifable?" and to this I say: no.

I say this for many were killed by self-interent, opportunists,etc trying to gain rank, more "glory" or just for the sake of removing an 'enemy' you didnt like. Intented by the killers? Yes. Intented by the All-Union Communist Party? No.

The justifable goes to 1.4 million which includes terrorists,Nazis,Nazbols,etc in which the ALCP(B) did intend to have them killed.

2* If he did... Did he have a choice about it?

Though he was not the "all powerful dictator" he did have some choice in the economic and political sides of the Soviet Union with the plenums they, the Central committie, had but these became rare after 1939. The most plenums I've read about were somewhere between 1934 and 1937. The 1936 one was to decide the new consitution which was passed but not to its full image.

( can be found here http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html)

3* If he did... Was it worth it?

It is impressive that he industrilized the country in little over a decade. But there are many faults he could have avoided but yes the collectivization was 'worth it' but it could have been done in a much more organized fashion.

* Any pro's and con's about Stalin and how the USSR was run under his leadership?

Pro: Indsutrlization was a hude success, collectivization went better then what it could had been, the kulaks were beaten, the Leningraf affair stoped before any damage could have been done, survived the Facist invasion.

Con: Buecratic elements that could have been more confused on, opportunists that still survived while those who werent were killed by these said opportunists, not organized in a fashion in which it( collectivization and industrlization) could have went more smoother and with less causalites.

I'd go on but I'm far too tired.

ArrowLance

6th November 2009, 23:05

I feel Stalin was a successful Communist leader. He had the best interests of the working class in mind and did his best to further Socialism in the USSR and, to an extent, the entire world.

The number of people that were killed under Stalin is up for debate, but I don't feel the number means much anyway. It is undeniable, I feel, that some people were killed unjustly, many by accident likely. The purges may have been paranoid but not completely un-called for, some 'innocents' probably got caught up in them. Also, Stalin was not the entirety of the organization in the USSR, he did not personally kill every single person, not an excuse but some perspective.

Stalin designed and enforced policies that did much to industrialize the country, remove reactionaries and other enemies such as the kulaks, and collectivize agriculture. Undoubtedly some things could have been done better, they always can be in retrospect. Under Stalin the USSR did deal the fatal blow to the Nazi's in Germany and liberated many European countries on the way. But do not forget the blood and spirit of the citizens of the USSR, their enthusiasm and resolve is what really gave the USSR the advantage.

robbo203

6th November 2009, 23:18

Well, can I add an extra question then....
.... what is to be learned from Stalin that could be applied to the current struggle for socialism?

How not to achieve socialism. Although if you want to struggle for a foul state capitalist dictatorship, Stalin is your man

Olerud

6th November 2009, 23:19

STALIN IS OUR GRAND LORD ALL HAIL STALIN. HE WILL LEAD US INTO THE LIGHT 4EVAAAAAAAAAAA :) xxxxxx

Yeah he was a capable leader....

ArrowLance

6th November 2009, 23:21

STALIN IS OUR GRAND LORD ALL HAIL STALIN. HE WILL LEAD US INTO THE LIGHT 4EVAAAAAAAAAAA :) xxxxxx

Yeah he was a capable leader....

Now that's the spirit! :laugh:

Pogue

6th November 2009, 23:34

The "millions" are drawn into two things. Myth and historical anaylsis.

Myth would included Stalin killed 40 milllion,30 million,etc but on gthe historical analysis this is where we can get more then one answer or no answers at all. Micheal Ellmans "Soviet Repression Statistics: a few comments" tells us a total of 12 million were repressed but of those 12 million only 4.4 were killed. *Great Purges reference* Of these 4.4 million we can divide this into non-intetional (not intented by the Party,Central committee,etc) And justifable. The Non-intetional goes to 3 million and we can futher put this into more sections.

GULAG: 1.5 million
Trial/transport/etc: 0.5 million
executed by state: 1 million

But I'm betting your saying "if the state/GULAG killed them wouldnt that be justifable?" and to this I say: no.

I say this for many were killed by self-interent, opportunists,etc trying to gain rank, more "glory" or just for the sake of removing an 'enemy' you didnt like. Intented by the killers? Yes. Intented by the All-Union Communist Party? No.

The justifable goes to 1.4 million which includes terrorists,Nazis,Nazbols,etc in which the ALCP(B) did intend to have them killed.

Though he was not the "all powerful dictator" he did have some choice in the economic and political sides of the Soviet Union with the plenums they, the Central committie, had but these became rare after 1939. The most plenums I've read about were somewhere between 1934 and 1937. The 1936 one was to decide the new consitution which was passed but not to its full image.

( can be found here http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html)

It is impressive that he industrilized the country in little over a decade. But there are many faults he could have avoided but yes the collectivization was 'worth it' but it could have been done in a much more organized fashion.

Pro: Indsutrlization was a hude success, collectivization went better then what it could had been, the kulaks were beaten, the Leningraf affair stoped before any damage could have been done, survived the Facist invasion.

Con: Buecratic elements that could have been more confused on, opportunists that still survived while those who werent were killed by these said opportunists, not organized in a fashion in which it( collectivization and industrlization) could have went more smoother and with less causalites.

I'd go on but I'm far too tired.

What a fucking disgusting abuse of maths and statistics, do you cretins get off on this shit?

ArrowLance

6th November 2009, 23:36

What a fucking disgusting abuse of maths and statistics, do you cretins get off on this shit?

Perhaps, but what really completes the fantasy is your anger.

. . .

Thank You. . .

Pogue

6th November 2009, 23:39

Perhaps, but what really completes the fantasy is your anger.

. . .

Thank You. . .

I guess the cliquish feeling of self satisfaction when the couple of dozen members of the Stalin society write a paper 'proving' Stalin in fact was responsible for no innocent person's death is what completes this sick cycle of scuminess. I love how Polish Soviet was actually trying to balance the books of Stalin's killings: It wasn't 40 million, 30 million or even 10 million, only 4 million...thats fucking sick.

ArrowLance

6th November 2009, 23:42

I guess the cliquish feeling of self satisfaction when the couple of dozen members of the Stalin society write a paper 'proving' Stalin in fact was responsible for no innocent person's death is what completes this sick cycle of scuminess. I love how Polish Soviet was actually trying to balance the books of Stalin's killings: It wasn't 40 million, 30 million or even 10 million, only 4 million...thats fucking sick.

I have no problem admitting that some less than ideal things happened under Stalin, I just don't feel they warrant complete dis-ownership of him as a Communist. I also feel he had many successful policies and programs.

CELMX

6th November 2009, 23:50

1* Did Stalin kill all those millions of people?

The statistics provided by bourgeois historical analysts that claim that stalin killed millions of people probably includes people that die of natural deaths, or for that matter, anyone that died in the USSR.

same goes with any other communist leader you hear "killed 1,000,000,000 people!!!"

RotStern

6th November 2009, 23:52

Satin!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stalin.

YOU SAw SATIN!

Radical

6th November 2009, 23:57

I feel Stalin was a successful Communist leader. He had the best interests of the working class in mind and did his best to further Socialism in the USSR and, to an extent, the entire world.

Stalin was undoubtably a successful Communist Leader. He fullfilled his historic mission. His policies transformed a peasant feudal society into an industrial superpower.

The statistics provided by bourgeois historical analysts that claim that stalin killed millions of people probably includes people that die of natural deaths, or for that matter, anyone that died in the USSR.

same goes with any other communist leader you hear "killed 1,000,000,000 people!!!"

Let us not forget that Trotskyists and Anarchists frequently support and help the bourgiouise with these highly innaccurate claims. I am just thankful that it is Leninism that has prospered worldwide and not Trotskyism.

robbo203

7th November 2009, 00:03

Stalin was a genuine Communist that always tried to act in the interests of the working class. However, Stalin did make mistakes and Stalin's Russia was not my ideal utopia. But I shall always defend him as a Leninist that stayed loyal to Anti-Revisionism and constructing Socialism. He engineered the Idea's of Marx and Lenin and resisted the savage Counter-Revolutionaries, Careerists and Opptunists that stood within the State.

All Communists should acknoledge Stalin to be a genuine Communist that fought tirelessly to act in the interests of the working class.

Apart from this nonsensical drivel there is a further point to consider - why all this "Great Man" theorising? Stalin obviously didnt actually kill millions of people all by himself. Saying that is a kind of shorthand for the regime which Stalin headed. But sometimes I get the feeling that some people on this site tend to conflate or confuse what is figurative with what is literally the case.

The "Great" only appear to tower over us because we are on our knees. The Stalin worshippers/arselickers amongst us evidently would like us wage slaves to remain in this posture

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 00:15

ArrowLance

7th November 2009, 00:37

Stalin was a fucking lunatic. He was totalitorian leader who did murder millions of people b/c they challenged his authoritative and oligarchical rule. The fact he is worshipped is amazing to me. To say that millions of people had it coming is just as fucking insane as stalin. I mean holy shit the dude ordered his workers around and most of the people who died were FUCKING WORKERS, and unless im wrong the liberation of the worker was the whole point of socialism. The man killed more people then hitler's holocaust and the japanese rape of nanking combined. Do not be blinded into thinking that he had good ideas and did what he did for those ideas. He didn't create a golden age. The golden age for the workers and people in the ussr was when they knocked down the fucking berlin wall.

This is utter crap. I don't really see any Stalin worship that isn't satirical. Most people that were killed and sent to GULAG did, in fact, have it coming. Workers can be reactionary too and must be dealt with. Other criminals must also be dealt with.

Radical

7th November 2009, 00:43

Stalin was a fucking lunatic. He was totalitorian leader who did murder millions of people b/c they challenged his authoritative and oligarchical rule. The fact he is worshipped is amazing to me. To say that millions of people had it coming is just as fucking insane as stalin. I mean holy shit the dude ordered his workers around and most of the people who died were FUCKING WORKERS, and unless im wrong the liberation of the worker was the whole point of socialism. The man killed more people then hitler's holocaust and the japanese rape of nanking combined. Do not be blinded into thinking that he had good ideas and did what he did for those ideas. He didn't create a golden age. The golden age for the workers and people in the ussr was when they knocked down the fucking berlin wall.

You really do sound like everything you know has come directly from the mainstream media.

+ Way to go with using bourgiouise terms such as Totalitarian - Which was purposly created as a propaganda tactic to attack Lenin and Stalin.

Not that I care at all about your ideas. You're idea's are so irrelivent in society today that you can easily be described as a little tiny dot on the face of this earth. - Goodluck with your hopeless revolution. NOT

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 01:04

This is utter crap. I don't really see any Stalin worship that isn't satirical. Most people that were killed and sent to GULAG did, in fact, have it coming. Workers can be reactionary too and must be dealt with. Other criminals must also be dealt with.

Whats utter crap. He massasscred millions of his people. And what the fuck do you mean that they must be dealt with? Liberation of the worker is our goal and yet you seem to think that the slavery and brutality put on these workers was just. And why did people have it coming, because they thought different or believed that stalin was wrong, okay big brother you want to go and call the fucking thought police. Yes there were criminals but they didn't deserved to be worked death and neither did any worker. Quite frankly i thought this forum was against fascism, not in openly promoting it.

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 01:10

You really do sound like everything you know has come directly from the mainstream media.

+ Way to go with using bourgiouise terms such as Totalitarian - Which was purposly created as a propaganda tactic to attack Lenin and Stalin.

Not that I care at all about your ideas. You're idea's are so irrelivent in society today that you can easily be described as a little tiny dot on the face of this earth. - Goodluck with your hopeless revolution. NOT

So now it is bourgiousie of me to use a fucking dictionary. Im glad you would love to live in a dictatorship without the right to use a fucking word. What kinda of propaganda are talking about. THE MAN WAS A FUCKING MURDERER and i dont need any fucking capitalist to tell me that i could just listen to any major socialist thinker in 50's outside of the ussr.

Hopeless revolution you say? Ya when you worship or even defend stalin your chances for revolution are so much greater!, not. And you know what i know im a little fucking dot on earth but maybe you could get your head out of you ass with the rest of the stalinists and realize that so was stalin.

LOLseph Stalin

7th November 2009, 01:20

Hopeless revolution you say? Ya when you worship or even defend stalin your chances for revolution are so much greater!, not. And you know what i know im a little fucking dot on earth but maybe you could get your head out of you ass with the rest of the stalinists and realize that so was stalin.

Well to be fair, Anarchists have never led any major world revolutions. Coincidence? I think not. ;)

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 01:25

Well to be fair, Anarchists have never led any major world revolutions. Coincidence? I think not. ;)

Well is it a coincidence that all "major world revolutions" led by so called communists have either led to state capitalist or totalitorian states? I think not.

khad

7th November 2009, 01:27

The "millions" are drawn into two things. Myth and historical anaylsis.

Myth would included Stalin killed 40 milllion,30 million,etc but on gthe historical analysis this is where we can get more then one answer or no answers at all. Micheal Ellmans "Soviet Repression Statistics: a few comments" tells us a total of 12 million were repressed but of those 12 million only 4.4 were killed. *Great Purges reference* Of these 4.4 million we can divide this into non-intetional (not intented by the Party,Central committee,etc) And justifable. The Non-intetional goes to 3 million and we can futher put this into more sections.

GULAG: 1.5 million
Trial/transport/etc: 0.5 million
executed by state: 1 million

But I'm betting your saying "if the state/GULAG killed them wouldnt that be justifable?" and to this I say: no.

I say this for many were killed by self-interent, opportunists,etc trying to gain rank, more "glory" or just for the sake of removing an 'enemy' you didnt like. Intented by the killers? Yes. Intented by the All-Union Communist Party? No.

The justifable goes to 1.4 million which includes terrorists,Nazis,Nazbols,etc in which the ALCP(B) did intend to have them killed.

You actually added those figures a bit wrong, mate.

That's 3 million dead under repression total. 1.4 million is the number out of the 12 million which would be "justifiably repressed," classified as terrorists and insurrectionists under international law. This figure would include dissident-turned-Stalinist Alexander Zinoviev, who was involved in an assassination plot and later figured that he deserved to go to jail for terrorism.

There is also evidence to suggest that 12 million is an underestimate due to the revolving door nature of the Soviet prison system. I've seen reasonable projections reaching up to 18-20 million (of course, some could be counted multiple times due to reincarceration). Annual prison censuses only tell part of the story since, due to the nature of pardons and early releases, up to a third the prison population would turn over to release in any given year (2-3 years being the average sentence). Of course, there are also deaths due to complications of imprisonment years after release, which typically occurred with older inmates and those who developed diseases like tuberculosis.

Of the 1.5 million deaths recorded in GULAG-administered prisons, about 1/2 occurred in WW2 when there was a national famine. After the war death rates declined to under 1% annually. The point being that there was no systematic attempt to murder these prisoners--as conditions improved towards the end of the war, the death rate fell off sharply as food and medicine became available.

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 01:31

Shut up you former liberal Democrat.

Former is the key word. Not many people spurt from the womb with a copy of the communist manifesto in their hands.

ArrowLance

7th November 2009, 02:47

Whats utter crap. He massasscred millions of his people. And what the fuck do you mean that they must be dealt with? Liberation of the worker is our goal and yet you seem to think that the slavery and brutality put on these workers was just. And why did people have it coming, because they thought different or believed that stalin was wrong, okay big brother you want to go and call the fucking thought police. Yes there were criminals but they didn't deserved to be worked death and neither did any worker. Quite frankly i thought this forum was against fascism, not in openly promoting it.

Massacred? Reactionaries have to be eliminated, regardless of their class, by any means or the revolution will not be safe. I agree the liberation of the worker is our goal, but we have to remove the reactionaries to ensure this can happen. You can scream 'massacre!' 'slavery!' 'brutality!' as much as you like, these are just your petty liberal interpretations based on bourgeoisie propaganda against the USSR and Stalin.

If you want to act in such a liberal manner and sacrifice the revolution to the reactionaries because your hand is too weak, why support revolution in the first place.

People who are a danger to the revolution have it coming, must be destroyed with no mercy, and most likely some 'innocents' will be captured in our fury. But otherwise we would be betraying them, to allow reactionaries to steal their future. They MUST be dealt with. Many will be among the workers, but they should not be protected on that basis.

Your idea of Stalin as some power hungry dictator who eliminated his enemies out of personal spite is wrong. Stalin eliminated members who he thought were a danger to the revolution. And sure, out of paranoia and passion, perhaps some undeserving 'innocents' were eliminated. But this is the price of revolution, it is not easy, and sacrifices will most likely need to be made.

Implying that the opposite of your Liberalism is Fascism is low. Implying that the Soviet Union was Fascist is historically inaccurate by almost any political description of the term. It shows an extreme misunderstanding of the Soviet Union and its revolution.

I am against Fascism (and Liberalism) and these are not terms you should throw lightly. I think you should appologize for calling me and the Soviet Union Fascist. It was a bitter remark that shows great disrespect, not so much for me, but the Soviets themselves.

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 03:18

Massacred? Reactionaries have to be eliminated, regardless of their class, by any means or the revolution will not be safe. I agree the liberation of the worker is our goal, but we have to remove the reactionaries to ensure this can happen. You can scream 'massacre!' 'slavery!' 'brutality!' as much as you like, these are just your petty liberal interpretations based on bourgeoisie propaganda against the USSR and Stalin.

If you want to act in such a liberal manner and sacrifice the revolution to the reactionaries because your hand is too weak, why support revolution in the first place.

People who are a danger to the revolution have it coming, must be destroyed with no mercy, and most likely some 'innocents' will be captured in our fury. But otherwise we would be betraying them, to allow reactionaries to steal their future. They MUST be dealt with. Many will be among the workers, but they should not be protected on that basis.

Your idea of Stalin as some power hungry dictator who eliminated his enemies out of personal spite is wrong. Stalin eliminated members who he thought were a danger to the revolution. And sure, out of paranoia and passion, perhaps some undeserving 'innocents' were eliminated. But this is the price of revolution, it is not easy, and sacrifices will most likely need to be made.

Implying that the opposite of your Liberalism is Fascism is low. Implying that the Soviet Union was Fascist is historically inaccurate by almost any political description of the term. It shows an extreme misunderstanding of the Soviet Union and its revolution.

I am against Fascism (and Liberalism) and these are not terms you should throw lightly. I think you should appologize for calling me and the Soviet Union Fascist. It was a bitter remark that shows great disrespect, not so much for me, but the Soviets themselves.

The bolshevick revolution was nothing more than a palace revolution swapping a monoarchy for totalitorian oligarchy.

What the hell do you mean by remove the reactionaries, to kill upwards of 30 million people just so you can have a bunch of big statues and monolithic monuments of fascism. And how am i a petty liberal, im saying genocide is wrong. To say mass murder is okay as long as it serves a cause is what led to the destruction of the french revolution and it is FUCKING FASCISM. You say id sacrifice the revolution to the reactionaries because of my weak hand, so should i be stalin and throw marx out the window and create one of the most powerful states in the world and brainwash my people into being a bunch of chimps who love me and fear everyone else. You talk of the killing of innocents as if ehh they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The man killed many higher ups just because he feared they were after his position. He didn't care for the people or the workers in his heart, but instead he was blinded by his love for himself and power. And you are blinded and brainwashed by the same thing, just like the chimps of the ussr.

Where the hell did i ever say liberalism in my other posts. I am an anarchist and believe that states are wrong and lead to just as much harm as capitalism. Yes i believe that genocide is wrong but i thought that was a human quality to think murder wrong but i can see now that brainwashed ussr chimps lack that quality.

As long as you suppot stalin or even just defend him you will always be a fascist, anti-communist, and anti-egaltarianist. Who am i going to apologize to because id like to say sorry to all the workers out there who have been used as slave labor to prop up fascist government like the ussr and im sorry to all the brainwashed chimps out there, send my your address and ill send you card. I care about the workers and the people but they weren't soviets they were just under soviet control.

ArrowLance

7th November 2009, 03:45

The bolshevick revolution was nothing more than a palace revolution swapping a monoarchy for totalitorian oligarchy.

What the hell do you mean by remove the reactionaries, to kill upwards of 30 million people just so you can have a bunch of big statues and monolithic monuments of fascism. And how am i a petty liberal, im saying genocide is wrong. To say mass murder is okay as long as it serves a cause is what led to the destruction of the french revolution and it is FUCKING FASCISM. You say id sacrifice the revolution to the reactionaries because of my weak hand, so should i be stalin and throw marx out the window and create one of the most powerful states in the world and brainwash my people into being a bunch of chimps who love me and fear everyone else. You talk of the killing of innocents as if ehh they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The man killed many higher ups just because he feared they were after his position. He didn't care for the people or the workers in his heart, but instead he was blinded by his love for himself and power. And you are blinded and brainwashed by the same thing, just like the chimps of the ussr.

Where the hell did i ever say liberalism in my other posts. I am an anarchist and believe that states are wrong and lead to just as much harm as capitalism. Yes i believe that genocide is wrong but i thought that was a human quality to think murder wrong but i can see now that brainwashed ussr chimps lack that quality.

As long as you suppot stalin or even just defend him you will always be a fascist, anti-communist, and anti-egaltarianist. Who am i going to apologize to because id like to say sorry to all the workers out there who have been used as slave labor to prop up fascist government like the ussr and im sorry to all the brainwashed chimps out there, send my your address and ill send you card. I care about the workers and the people but they weren't soviets they were just under soviet control.

Liberal or Ignorant, there is no other option for you. You are a first type i would want destroyed in order to protect the revolution, so this may very likely be why you hate Communism. It would destroy you.

Comrade Anarchist

7th November 2009, 03:52

Liberal or Ignorant, there is no other option for you. You are a first type i would want destroyed in order to protect the revolution, so this may very likely be why you hate Communism. It would destroy you.

If your fascist revolution succeeded i'd make sure i would be trying my best overthrow your totalitorian state. I don't hate communism and in fact i love the idea, what i do hate is when fascists call themselves communist.

Stranger Than Paradise

7th November 2009, 08:20

Here it is again the liberal brigade. A group of Leninists who cannot help but let any argument with an Anarchist devolve into a shouting match over how they are a liberal.

robbo203

7th November 2009, 09:44

ZeroNowhere

7th November 2009, 11:44

Well to be fair, Anarchists have never led any major world revolutions. Coincidence? I think not. ;)
Well, to be fair, no major world revolutions have resulted in socialism. Coincidence? I think not.

mosfeld

7th November 2009, 12:52

I don't see the point in defending Stalin on this forum, really. Every once in a while supporters of Stalin will make genuine arguments which smash liberal, bourgeois narrative arguments by ultra-lefties against Stalin, the problem being the ultra-lefties never fucking read them and a week later when some Revleft noob makes a new thread about Stalin the ultra-lefties still use the same bourgeois narrative liberal arguments, e.g that Stalin killed 40 million people or some bullshit.

There have been over 300 threads about Stalin and we get a new one every week. How about using the fucking search button? We even have a sticky Stalin thread.

Defending Comrade Stalin isn't something easily done in one message board post, but a great comrade, Prairie Fire, has done her best to do so. Here are some of her longer posts in defense of Stalin and the Soviet Union under his leadership.

From 'Stalinism is Right-Wing' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1510600&postcount=42)
From 'The Stalin-Hitler pact' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1529684&postcount=8)
From 'The nature of Stalinism'' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1453746&postcount=9)

Our class enemies will always try and demonize our movement and tarnish the name of our leaders, the same as we do to them. This is class struggle. When examining history, follow proletariat narrative of things and not the bourgeois one. What you heard about Uncle Joe on the history channel, on wikipedia, at school, at church and in the papers is bullshit. Here's what you should be fucking reading, comrades.

Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html)
Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html)
Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union (http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm)

khad

7th November 2009, 13:52

Here it is again the liberal brigade. A group of Leninists who cannot help but let any argument with an Anarchist devolve into a shouting match over how they are a liberal.
How about the anarchist "let's ignore the question and scream AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE about Fascism" brigade?

Original Question:

1* Did Stalin kill all those millions of people?

2* If he did... Did he have a choice about it?

3* If he did... Was it worth it?

4* If he didn't... What do you think really happened?

Andropov

7th November 2009, 14:22

to kill upwards of 30 million people just so you can have a bunch of big statues and monolithic monuments of fascism.
Evidence please to your outrageous remark you petty-bourgeois liberal preaching bleeding heart?
Crying over dead reactionarys?
Ohh FFS, go hug a tree or smash a window or what ever you do in your spare time because you most definetly are not a Leftist.

narcomprom

7th November 2009, 14:48

im still wondering about people managing to keep faith in stalin's absurd and arbitrary twists of marxian and leninist concepts. apparently he was building communism and eradicating western spies, reactionary assassins and enemies of the people, he was a genius of thought and a great mathematician.

look up yezhovschina, look up the show trials. of course there is bourgeois propaganda, but there also facts, declassified documents and your very own common sense.

Zanthorus

7th November 2009, 14:55

Here's my analysis of the Stalin/USSR question:

- First of all the anti-moralists are kidding themselves. They may go on about historical materialism leading inevitably to socialism making morality unnecessary however they usually go back on this after a while. Face it, claims about 'exploitation' and 'alienation' are useless without a fundamental sense of right and wrong. Now their might be a communist or socialist out there who supports it simply because of historical materialism and doesn't believe in exploitation etc however I find it mind bogglingly unlikely. After all if you believe the revolution is inevitable why do anything to support it? It'll happen anyway without you doing anything. In fact as Gramsci notes historical materilaism can be used to explain anti-moralists by noting that they usually arise at times when the proletarian movement isn't going anywhere as a source of comfort however is quickly abandoned in favour of positive action once the movement starts to pick up again.

- The key lesson of Stalin era USSR is that Dictatorships can't be consistently made to work in the interests of the proletarian revolution. This is true regardless of wether you think that Stalin was an evil monster or a glorious socialist leader whose achievments were betrayed by Kruschev.

In fact I think this second point is true for a lot of disputes within socialism, that they are questions of historical interpretation rather than tactics and thus not really important. For example I believe that the Russian revolution should never have happened the way it did. The Bolsheviks should have aided the worker controlled soviets instead of bringing them under the control of the party. Of course they did have very little to go on apart from the Paris Commune but as the Mahknovist movement shows the ideas of workers self-management were there, the bolsheviks merely failed to recognise them. However most of those who support the Bolsheviks will still recognise the importance of self-management and worker control even if they believe that it wasn't the Bolsheviks fault for failing to recognise this. Even with differing historical analysis, the conclusions are still the same.

Muzk

7th November 2009, 15:17

Pure sectarian thread, not worth reading

FSL

7th November 2009, 15:30

Here it is again the liberal brigade. A group of Leninists who cannot help but let any argument with an Anarchist devolve into a shouting match over how they are a liberal.

The anarchist crying over the number of deaths does help, doesn't he?

Because all violence is to be condemned and we 're all people who should just hug each other, right? right?

h0m0revolutionary

7th November 2009, 16:57

The anarchist crying over the number of deaths does help, doesn't he?

Because all violence is to be condemned and we 're all people who should just hug each other, right? right?

Pacifism is alien to the anarchist tradition. We do not deplore violence, we accept the necessity of a violent revolution and we don't pretend blood will not be split.

However, we don't fetishise violence. Moreover and all-together more relevent to your point, we don't appluad bloodthirstly state capitalists who murder millions of people from our own class, for their political affiliations, their expression of political and sexual freedom and their truely revolutionary convictions.

Irish commie

7th November 2009, 17:14

Irish commie

7th November 2009, 17:28

as i said earlier another pointless argument we all see stalin from a diffrent perspective but it should not stop us grouping together to start a revolution.

though i would be more than a bit worried if arrowlance was in charge as he might go on a purge to kill all "reactionaries" trotskyist, anarchists and left communists probably included.

do you not see that people are not inherently right wing and that it is a far better dea to teach them the error of there ways than kill them.

ZeroNowhere

7th November 2009, 18:00

Evidence please to your outrageous remark you petty-bourgeois liberal preaching bleeding heart?
Crying over dead reactionarys?
Ohh FFS, go hug a tree or smash a window or what ever you do in your spare time because you most definetly are not a Leftist.I couldn't have phrased that any better myself.

First of all the anti-moralists are kidding themselves. They may go on about historical materialism leading inevitably to socialism making morality unnecessary however they usually go back on this after a while.Morals are unscientific, and scientific people should not make moral arguments. Marxism is a science, and therefore Marxists should be scientific and reject morality, rights and so on as the liberal concepts they are. We should instead follow the example of scientific people such as Paul von Oberstein.

Andropov

7th November 2009, 19:12

So yets just kill all our political opponents then shall we:rolleyes:
Why not?

Andropov

7th November 2009, 19:15

Morals are unscientific, and scientific people should not make moral arguments. Marxism is a science, and therefore Marxists should be scientific and reject morality, rights and so on as the liberal concepts they are.
Outstanding ZN, outstanding.
Unfortunatley I suspect the bleeding heart liberals will fail to grasp these fundamentals of Marxism.
You deserve a Red Star for your contribution to this debate.
:star2:

ArrowLance

7th November 2009, 19:19

So yets just kill all our political opponents then shall we:rolleyes:

I honestly don't see the problem with this. Are you saying enemies of the proletariat deserve to have a fair chance?

ArrowLance

7th November 2009, 19:22

So if I were an opponent of the state capitalist regime and declared myself a communist in favour of non-market stateless alternative to capitalism would I need to be massacred as well? Well that speaks volumes...

See, the problem with knee jerk authoritarians like you is that you cannot see that the ends and the means must be in harmony. One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that you stand not a snowballs chance in hell of realising the "liberation of the worker", if you rely upon the fascistic method of bumping off anyone and everyone who happens to disagree with you. The means you use will determine the end you achieve which in the case of the stalinist dictatorship was a hellhole

It has not much to do with disagreeing, more to do with being an enemy of the proletariat.

See, the problem with knee jerk liberals like you is that you cannot see that reactionaries don't deserve fair game. One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that you stand not a snowballs chance in hell of realising the "liberation of the worker", if you rely upon the liberal method of defending class enemies. The means you use will determine the end you achieve, which in the case of liberal pissing is having the revolution betrayed by weak hands. Which just leads to a back step to a bourgeoisie dictatorship, which is a hellhole.

Lyev

7th November 2009, 19:35

Morals are unscientific, and scientific people should not make moral arguments. Marxism is a science, and therefore Marxists should be scientific and reject morality, rights and so on as the liberal concepts they are.

I don't understand. The ultimate aim of communism, basically, is freedom. But how can we be fighting for freedom when we sacrifice such fundamentals as 'rights' and 'morality'?

ArrowLance

7th November 2009, 19:38

I don't understand. The ultimate aim of communism, basically, is freedom. But how can we be fighting for freedom when we sacrifice such fundamentals as 'rights' and 'morality'?

As I believe it is being thought, rights are a liberal concept in that they are awarded to class enemies. If we maintain the 'rights' of the bourgeoisie and reactionaries, the revolution will fail. Also, rights are a bit imagined, why sacrifice the long term goal of a successful revolution in fear of stepping on a few 'innocents' rights?

As for morality, it is a subjective term. In a sense, is there any higher morality than that of protecting the revolution for the freedom of the proletariat?

Andropov

7th November 2009, 19:40

I don't understand. The ultimate aim of communism, basically, is freedom. But how can we be fighting for freedom when we sacrifice such fundamentals as 'rights' and 'morality'?
Ohh dear ohh dear.
Please define "freedom" for me.
You do love to cling to your nonsensical liberal sensibilities.

Muzk

7th November 2009, 19:42

Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters

Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element - reminds you of something?

Red Rosa now has vanished too.
She told the poor what life is about,
And so the rich have rubbed her out.
May she rest in peace.

:cursing:

Stalin would have thrown me into a gulag, btw, just as much as Guevara, Rosa, Liebknecht, etc.

Zanthorus

7th November 2009, 20:10

Outstanding ZN, outstanding.
Unfortunatley I suspect the bleeding heart liberals will fail to grasp these fundamentals of Marxism.
You deserve a Red Star for your contribution to this debate.
:star2:

I don't understand. The ultimate aim of communism, basically, is freedom. But how can we be fighting for freedom when we sacrifice such fundamentals as 'rights' and 'morality'?

Guys I'm pretty sure ZeroNowhere was kidding when he was talking about morality. Paul Von Oberstein is a character from the manga series legend of the galactic heroes who has cybernetic eyes and no emotions.

hugsandmarxism

7th November 2009, 20:30

Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters

There are two sorts of freedom: freedom of and freedom from. Freedom of, in bourgeois democracy, has been the freedom of exploitation. Freedom from, in bourgeois democracy, has always been freedom of exploiters from the exploited. As such, "freedom" in this system is a tool for maintaining hegemony. Little freedoms are given to the underclass to help build the illusion of democracy, but at the end of the day, these "freedoms" pose no real threat to the system as it stands, because true power is in the hands of those who own society, who exploit workers for their labor. Hence freedom in class society is meaningless, being that freedom requires the power to exercise said freedom that does not exist for all.

This is the power game as it exists. It allows the chief deprivers of freedom to justify their exploitation, allows them to make a case for themselves when their exploitation is challenged. "Woe is me!" says the banker, "those freedom hating communists have deprived me of my freedom to run my business!" "Woe is me!" says the slave holder, "those yanks are depriving me of my freedom to run my plantation by making my hard-earned slave-property forefit!"

If we want to change this dynamic, to reverse its roll so that it is the workers and toiling masses who have the power to exercise freedom and their exploiters crushed under freedom's boot-heel, than we must be willing to deprive our class enemies of freedom, in order to exercise our power with the goal of securing freedom in its truest form. This is how class war works, and this is the central theme in any revolution.

Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element - reminds you of something?

Red Rosa now has vanished too.
She told the poor what life is about,
And so the rich have rubbed her out.
May she rest in peace.

:cursing:

Capitalism has general elections, where you are free to choose between bourgeois putz's who will never truly represent your interests. Capitalism has freedom of the press, where you can write your little papers and have them end up in gutters and trash bins whilst the coporate-manufactured propaganda, with it's seeming "diversity" of opinion going all the way from the center right wing to the far right wing, dictates the prevailing consciousness in society. Capitalism says you are entitled to your opinion, as long as you remain unwilling to do anything about it (lest you be locked up or murdered by the state for acting on your opinions against the state).

Freedom without power, like peace without justice, is a farce just like the one described above. And whilst the bourgeois as a class exists, they will have a power that threatens the power of workers. Their power must be taken away from them before we are allowed the luxury of freedom for all, and the injustice of class must be done away with before human society will know peace. These are the tasks of the proletariat seeking liberation.

Stalin would have thrown me into a gulag, btw, just as much as Guevara, Rosa, Liebknecht, etc.

Sure, if you challenged the Soviet system, which was seen as the best chance for Soviet workers to be liberated. You're telling me you wouldn't against those who would blatantly see revolution betrayed? You're telling me you wouldn't exercise power against those you perceive as enemies of worker's power? Then you may as well join with a bourgeois party and try to work within the system, because you are bound to achieve the same results with this attitude.

Irish commie

7th November 2009, 20:57

Why not?

because there would be very few people left and it seems unesecary when persuation can be used. Also that view is quite fascistic just kill anyone who gets in our way that kind of talk aint goin to encourage people towards revoltution and isnt very marxist.

Irish commie

7th November 2009, 21:10

I honestly don't see the problem with this. Are you saying enemies of the proletariat deserve to have a fair chance?

Often they are as a result capitalist propoganda which is not necesarily there own fault. you and red revolutionary are really starting to scare me, i wouldnt want to be part of any revolution that your in control of. and how do you defin the enemies of the proletariat?? you may see that as many of the proletariat, i have working class friends who arent very political or are cynical of communism due to western propoganda should we shoot them to becasue thy wouldnt be too many people left alive if you did that. There should be no need to randomly going round killing our opponents after the revolution as it will not matter due to popular support of the proleteriat. I dont think marx woul approve of the tactic of killing anyone wh opposes things. There would be a witch hunt with people randomly declaring others as liberals. communism is ultimate democracy whereeverything is controlled by the people therefore how could you have though crime.

Quite frankly you are a nutjob and i dont understand how you are allowed on this forum with such authoritarian views which are certainly not communist. You are the type of person who helps the capitalist propoganda machine due to your scary authoritarian views which could easily drive people away form communism.

gorillafuck

7th November 2009, 21:58

red cat

7th November 2009, 22:09

Muzk

7th November 2009, 22:21

Sure, if you challenged the Soviet system, which was seen as the best chance for Soviet workers to be liberated..

I have a RIGHT to challange everything! By taking this right from me, nothing remains but beaurocracy based on a dogma, fighting everything even THINKING about criticizing the system.

Question everything, look behind the things! Isn't that what marxism is about? Even the liberals need the freedom to express their views! Once they are proven wrong, why would they still be liberals? Oppressing someone because of their ideals is wrong, as soon as this happens society will not move on anymore, it will be stuck in time, no new thoughts will be developed. Freedom of mind is NEEDED for a healthy, growing society, where everyone can be whatever he wishes.

A totally oppressive state-capitalist society where the beaurocratic government thinks it does everything in the right way is... you know, and this is why Trotsky opposed it.

gorillafuck

7th November 2009, 22:22

Marxist analysis rests on the manner in which different classes react to social contradictions and modify the society. The way each class reacts is largely shaped by what the majority of the individuals of that class think is beneficial or harmful to them. So we can define anything that is beneficial to the proletariat as "good" and the harmful ones as "bad".
What makes things beneficial to the proletariat necessarily "good" if we cannot base any views off of morality? Why is the minority exploiting the majority "bad"?

red cat

7th November 2009, 22:26

What makes things beneficial to the proletariat necessarily "good" if we cannot base any views off of morality? Why is the minority exploiting the majority "bad"?

Because the proletariat gets exploited that way.

gorillafuck

7th November 2009, 22:29

Because the proletariat gets exploited that way.
That's moralistic to oppose exploitation.

(I'm sort of playing devils advocate for the sake of having my own questions and misunderstandings answered)

red cat

7th November 2009, 22:34

That's moralistic to oppose exploitation.

(I'm sort of playing devils advocate for the sake of having my own questions and misunderstandings answered)

What I am suggesting is that we assign the properties like morals and goodness to phenomena basing on their effects on the proletariat.

hugsandmarxism

7th November 2009, 22:36

I have a RIGHT to challange everything! By taking this right from me, nothing remains but beaurocracy based on a dogma, fighting everything even THINKING about criticizing the system.

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land." - Mao Zedong

I agree with that statement. I also agree that there were problems in the soviet union in which contradictions among the people were confused with contradictions between the people and their enemies. However, I can understand the repression of those who actively want to overthrow the system and challenge by force (i probably should have clarified this; my bad) being that the defeat of the dictatorship of the proletariat is playing into the hands of the enemy.

Question everything, look behind the things! Isn't that what marxism is about? Even the liberals need the freedom to express their views! Once they are proven wrong, why would they still be liberals? Oppressing someone because of their ideals is wrong, as soon as this happens society will not move on anymore, it will be stuck in time, no new thoughts will be developed. Freedom of minds is NEEDED for a healthy, growing society, where everyone can be whatever he wishes.

Yes, we need to question, and live beyond the cage of dogma, but we don't need to give a platform to counter-revolutionaries. Non-platformist antifascists understand this notion well.

But seriouly, can everyone "be whatever he wishes?" What if I want to be a rapist, a capitalist exploiter, a fascist, or what not? Aren't you going to respect my opinion too? Are you going to allow me to be truly free to attain these ends? I'd hope not.

A totally oppressive state-capitalist society where the beaurocratic government thinks it does everything in the right way is crap, and this is why Trotsky opposed it.

I'm not going to sat much about Trotsky, other than he considered himself heir apparent to Lenin, committed repressive acts against anarchists, and would likely have been made out to be an Orwellian straw-man like Stalin was had history taken a different turn.

Libertarian communism all the way

Have fun with that.

Muzk

7th November 2009, 22:41

Yes, we need to question, and live beyond the cage of dogma, but we don't need to give a platform to counter-revolutionaries. Non-platformist antifascists understand this notion well.But who DECIDES what is counter revolutionary?

But seriouly, can everyone "be whatever he wishes?" What if I want to be a rapist, a capitalist exploiter, a fascist, or what not? Aren't you going to respect my opinion too? Are you going to allow me to be truly free to attain these ends? I'd hope not.Freedom of mind, of discussion, not crime.

Opposites fighting each other, the better one wins! What about discussions? What about theories? If you restrict one of them because you consider it (insert word) there won't be any progress in society! Yes, even socialism can be made better! I don't want to live in a society where people are put into jail because of how they think. That just promotes a whole new kind of racism! If we let the inner communist sectarian wars take over reality, we have lost. The nazis hold on to each other.

hugsandmarxism

7th November 2009, 22:51

But who DECIDES what is counter revolutionary?

The dictatorship of the proletariat.

Freedom of mind, of discussion, not crime.

And your characterization of the Soviet Union is that none of this existed ever? Or in the PRC? Are you going on the traditional Orwellian caricature of socialism?

You understand what I'm saying? Dialectical materialism, opposites fighting each other, the better one wins! What about discussions? What about theories? If you restrict one of them because you consider it (insert word) there won't be any progress in society! Yes, even socialism can be made better!

See the Mao quote, actually read my posts other than responding to one line or so. Discussions, theories, struggling together to find the correct line are what I'm about (I guess I'm more of a Maoist). Bad ideas need to be defeated by better ideas, though those who act on those ideas and try to destroy revolutionary gains through violence, sabotage, and the like deserve repression. People who merely have counter-revolutionary ideas don't deserve repression, but they don't have a right to linger in the party either.

Muzk

7th November 2009, 22:56

The dictatorship of the proletariat.

Revolutionary party, you mean (not trying to be provocative :P)

but they don't have a right to linger in the party either.Right of discussion! Lenin had such a thing too, where they would discuss, vote&decide, and everyone would stick to the ideas in the end... even if they did not feel they were the right ones

I do read your posts, but if I quote the whole thing it gets kinda messy.
I didn't get the quote btw. Flowers? Wut?

and I really hate talking about the USSR... there are different sources from different people who would benefit from their own kind of sources... I never know who I'm supposed to believe...

hugsandmarxism

7th November 2009, 23:04

Revolutionary party, you mean

The party is not monolithic in my opinion. It can be mistaken, and when that happens, revolution needs to be renewed to maintain the revolutionary character of the party. See the Cultural Revolution on details on how that might take place.

Right of discussion! Lenin had such a thing too, where they would discuss, decide, and everyone would stick to the ideas in the end... even if they did not feel they were the right ones

Yep. Though if they are blatantly counter-revolutionary, Lenin would agree they don't belong in the party.

I do read your posts, but if I quote the whole thing it gets kinda messy.
I didn't get the quote btw. Flowers? Wut?

:closedeyes:

Hugs. Do you want to put me into jail now?

:laugh:

No. Not at all. Though if you try to fight against revolution, via sabotage or violence or what have you, I'd support such a measure (though I'd advocate they not be too harsh, since I like ya, and have a bias ;)). If you merely seek to bring up grievances about how things are being done, and want to voice a contrary opinion, for the sake of keeping revolution honest, I'd support you in that endeavor. :)

Muzk

7th November 2009, 23:08

T If you merely seek to bring up grievances about how things are being done, and want to voice a contrary opinion, for the sake of keeping revolution honest, I'd support you in that endeavor. :)

So what if like in the GDR I would try to revolutionize the beaurocratic state into a workers state again? Like a step back of a failed attempt? That's what you'd support? =D

What if you are the state? Wouldn't you like to stay? Preserve your own power, because you think you're right? (same shit with parties in "parliamentary democracy", btw)

I like leninism too, but I cba to defend the USSR really... and I like my freedom of opinion :D it's a great plus of capitalism(the only one?), it's what people actually need to develop a mind for socialism

hugsandmarxism

7th November 2009, 23:20

So what if like in the GDR I would try to revolutionize the beaurocratic state into a workers state again? Like a step back of a failed attempt? That's what you'd support? =D

Yes, bureaucratization needs to be combated. Stalin thought so (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html), as did Mao.

What if you are the state? Wouldn't you like to stay? Preserve your own power, because you think you're right?

Sure you would. Just as the bourgeois won't overthrow themselves, neither will petty bureaucrats. Hence, when the state has taken this revisionist (and thus, counter revolutionary turn) the masses should be mobilized to combat this, as was the case in China during the GPCR.

Power corrupts, and it's damn right

So what, just give up then? Rather than figure out how to secure power for the working class, don't bother taking power at all? The proletariat must seize power, and must come to terms with the best way to use that power for the building of socialism and communism, and against those who would seek to thwart these efforts. That is our task, and we must understand the failures and successes at previous attempts to do this to perfect the model and achieve our goals.

I like leninism too, but I cba to defend the USSR really... and I like my freedom of opinion :D

So do I. I'm certainly critical of some actions of the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, but I also understand that these things didn't take place in a vaccume; there was a clear context to what happened in every instance, and we have to take that into consideration before we make judgments.

revolution inaction

7th November 2009, 23:59

I do read your posts, but if I quote the whole thing it gets kinda messy.
I didn't get the quote btw. Flowers? Wut?

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

and I really hate talking about the USSR... there are different sources from different people who would benefit from their own kind of sources... I never know who I'm supposed to believe...

don't believe, think for your self

robbo203

8th November 2009, 00:05

It has not much to do with disagreeing, more to do with being an enemy of the proletariat..

The enemy of the proletariat was the friggin state capitalist ruling class that ran the Soviet Union in the first place. So what would you propose to do about them

See, the problem with knee jerk liberals like you is that you cannot see that reactionaries don't deserve fair game. One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that you stand not a snowballs chance in hell of realising the "liberation of the worker", if you rely upon the liberal method of defending class enemies. The means you use will determine the end you achieve, which in the case of liberal pissing is having the revolution betrayed by weak hands. Which just leads to a back step to a bourgeoisie dictatorship, which is a hellhole ..

The problem is of course that in your stalinist fantasy land who gets to decide who is reactionary and who is not. Anyone who opposes your red bourgeoisie is ..er..by definition a "reactionary". Including us Marxists , anarchists and others.

Apart from that you rather miss the point dont you? The point is not about defending your class enemies but what you do with them. Do you line them up against the wall and despatch them by firing squad just becuase they happen to be a member of the capitalist class,eh? If so poor old Freddy Engels wouldnt have stood a chance. Call me a wet liberal but I would rather be that than a sad sicko who gets off on the thought of bloodlust but who like most of these pathetic armchair revolutionaries wouldnt know which end of a gun to fire from

Muzk

8th November 2009, 00:06

don't believe, think for your self

Wish I had a time machine >_>

Andropov

8th November 2009, 00:25

because there would be very few people left and it seems unesecary when persuation can be used.
Not at all, the enemys of the state are a minority.

Also that view is quite fascistic just kill anyone who gets in our way that kind of talk aint goin to encourage people towards revoltution and isnt very marxist.
No I would advise purgeing any enemys of the state who actively undermine the Revolution.
And please do detail for me how its not "very marxist".
You seem to have some kind of misconception that Marx was some tree hugging hippy, he was anything but, he was a realist, a materialst realist who recognised that enemys of the state should be swept away like every archaic relic of a previous epoch.

Die Rote Fahne

8th November 2009, 00:29

revolution inaction

8th November 2009, 00:30

Wish I had a time machine >_>

yeah, me too

hugsandmarxism

8th November 2009, 00:35

Lyev

8th November 2009, 00:39

Ohh dear ohh dear.
Please define "freedom" for me.
You do love to cling to your nonsensical liberal sensibilities.

So you're not fighting for freedom? ...what are you fighting for? Has Mao put a stigma on 'nonsensical liberal sensibilities' like 'freedom'?

Anyway, freedom, for me, in the widest sense is being able to what you want; but equally and even perhaps more importantly, freedom is doing what you want but not to the extent that it impedes on anyone else's freedom.

Andropov

8th November 2009, 00:42

1* Did Stalin kill all those millions of people? -> yes

2* If he did... Did he have a choice about it? -> Yes

3* If he did... Was it worth it? ->No

4* If he didn't... What do you think really happened? -> I'm not sure, but he could have done some less stupid and insane shit and he could have gave himself a decent image.

5* Any pro's and con's about Stalin and how the USSR was run under his leadership? Degerated Worker's State. Stalin was a bastard. Trotsky should have got power from Lenin.
And Anarchists wonder why we dont take them seriously?
Look at this post?
This is not a marxist debate, this is some kids throwing around cliches, debunked bourgeois figures, random reactionary slurs and wrap it in a big smiley Anarchist flag and bobs your uncle they think they are debating Stalin the man.
In other words propaghandi, do better next time.

Pirate turtle the 11th

8th November 2009, 00:51

Anarchists are not looking for the approval of stalinist losers. If we wanted to appeal to your demographic you would see anarchist stalls and paper sellers at animie conventions.

Andropov

8th November 2009, 00:52

So you're not fighting for freedom? ...what are you fighting for? Has Mao put a stigma on 'nonsensical liberal sensibilities' like 'freedom'?
Im fighting for Marxism.
Jesus christ this is embarressing.

Anyway, freedom, for me, in the widest sense is being able to what you want; but equally and even perhaps more importantly, freedom is doing what you want but not to the extent that it impedes on anyone else's freedom.

One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm principle (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Harm_principle). The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others

You do know who Mill is?

Andropov

8th November 2009, 00:53

Anarchists are not looking for the approval of stalinist losers. If we wanted to appeal to your demographic you would see anarchist stalls and paper sellers at animie conventions.
This from an Anarchist?
The mind boggles.

ArrowLance

8th November 2009, 00:55

The enemy of the proletariat was the friggin state capitalist ruling class that ran the Soviet Union in the first place. So what would you propose to do about them

The problem is of course that in your stalinist fantasy land who gets to decide who is reactionary and who is not. Anyone who opposes your red bourgeoisie is ..er..by definition a "reactionary". Including us Marxists , anarchists and others.

Apart from that you rather miss the point dont you? The point is not about defending your class enemies but what you do with them. Do you line them up against the wall and despatch them by firing squad just becuase they happen to be a member of the capitalist class,eh? If so poor old Freddy Engels wouldnt have stood a chance. Call me a wet liberal but I would rather be that than a sad sicko who gets off on the thought of bloodlust but who like most of these pathetic armchair revolutionaries wouldnt know which end of a gun to fire from

You see, your problem is you have no understanding of any revolutionary ideas, or not in the Marxist sense. You think that all enemies are only enemies because those in charge don't like them, therefore those 'enemies' are in fact innocent. I'm sorry you are so hopelessly brainwashed with liberal tales of evil Stalin and the 'red bourgeoisie.'

You don't understand that reactionaries are a major problem and the revolution must be defended. And the workers may not have the tools necessary to out play the bourgeoisie in a new revolution. This is where leadership comes into play. Leaders help guide the workers into successful utilizing the state to defeat their enemies. Revolution doesn't mean shit if you allow the reactionaries to take control, allow the bourgeoisie back into power.

FSL

8th November 2009, 01:41

If nothing can be viewed as "bad" unless it's scientific, then what is "bad" about capitalism? Being opposed to exploitation (and senseless murder, and rape) is a standpoint based off of morality.

That's an honest question that I would like clarified by those alleging that people should never base views off of their own morals (I know that morality is not a concrete thing, but people obviously develop their own sense of morality)

How can people even talk of morality? What is good is good and what is bad is bad and these things just are? Are we back to Plato again?

Exploitation in capitalism is a reason to be admired. The more people you exploit and the more you exploit them, the better chances of being a "rolemodel", "someone who drives the economy forward".

Workers being exploited is the economic base of society and the image of the succesful businessman is part of the superstructure that arises accordingly, through education, mass media, even the prevalent "ethos".
It isn't "bad", it is financially harmful to the workers and in the socialist superstructure it then gets a negative meaning.

Violence in the same way isn't bad or good in general. In capitalism, violence is often defence of homeland, of security, of the people's rights. This violence is only negative when seen from a workers' point of view. Because it is used to break their strikes or invade their countries and rip it off any resourses.

You honestly can't be a "genuine" leftist (as in one that not only strives for change but understands what that means) when you 've made that choise on the basis of morals. Socialism is the period of systematic opression of the rulling class by the workers. This opression does not aim in keeping them in check, like it happened in slave-owning societies or like today, but instead in getting rid of any class differences. Whatever serves that purpose is considered "moral". If the country has to deal with an insurrection by people reacting to reforms, if these people react to reforms because these reforms would be against their interests in the moment or whatever interests they believe they could have in the future, if dialogue fails, then yeah the tanks are sent in. And people driving the tanks are then praised and their families are proud of them and artists find inspiration in them. Same thing with ordering executions or prison sentences.
It isn't done because it is fun, it is done because it helps. It helps keep the country afloat, the revolution going. And it is not bad. If it helps the workers defend their power and when everything else has failed, it is very good. In fact, brilliant.

FSL

8th November 2009, 02:28

Anyway, freedom, for me, in the widest sense is being able to what you want; but equally and even perhaps more importantly, freedom is doing what you want but not to the extent that it impedes on anyone else's freedom.

Stranglely freedom for you is exactly the same as freedom for the capitalist class and not what it 'd be in a classless society.

You might want to read marx's economic and philosophical manuscripts if you're interested or curious. There is a nice slogan that even hippies would love, goes something like "One person's freedom isn't where someone else's freedom ends, it's where it begins." You are free to exist with other people, next to them and not against them. You are free of god instead of free to believe in any god. Bourgeois freedoms are replaced, not simply "extended to everyone" or some other thing like that.

The enemy of the proletariat was the friggin state capitalist ruling class that ran the Soviet Union in the first place

This arguement is presented pretty often so can someone dive a bit more into it?

For example, what were the laws/institutions that rose as a result of that exploitation? Every capitalist country protects private property, what did state capitalist countries where party officials were the rulling class protect?

How did that exploitation take place? A capitalist gets earnings from the shares he owns. In Soviet Union every single thing we are assuming was property of the Secretariat? Were they taking the profits? What part of them? If they lived of off the profits then why wasn't it a state policy to have all companies pursuit profits in the first place?

People operating the state machinery are often presented with "opportunities". Is the accountant of an autonomous collective to be blindly trusted? If he did take more than his share at a point does that mean the collective has failed and not simply that he needs to be removed? If a politician is bribed, then we aren't talking about capitalism? Even though the money of that bribe is what many capitalists would earn in a matter of hours? There is nepotism in many countries. Doesn't the bourgeoisie rule in them? Isn't their property, their profits protected?

In what concrete ways did party members stand above others. How did they institutionalize their power. What did this power amount to. Could anyone answer these questions?

Drace

8th November 2009, 03:09

Other than Another View of Stalin, can anybody give me something else to read that defends Stalin against the myth of being a massive murderer?

robbo203

8th November 2009, 11:17

You see, your problem is you have no understanding of any revolutionary ideas, or not in the Marxist sense. You think that all enemies are only enemies because those in charge don't like them, therefore those 'enemies' are in fact innocent. I'm sorry you are so hopelessly brainwashed with liberal tales of evil Stalin and the 'red bourgeoisie.'.

Stop trying to evade the point with this piss-poor drivel. The issue is not who is the enemy (though that is an interesting question - would the capitalist, Frederich Engels, be classed as an "enemy" in your stalinistic fascist state and promptly shot?). The issue is what to do with the "enemy". You seem to be motivated by the puerile bloodlust of the armchair terrorist. Shot the lot of 'em cos they are "reactionary". This is truly pathetic. You dont have even the first glimmerings of awareness of an understanding of human psychology. You reap what you sow, mate. Violence will breed violence and an authortarian mind set to boot which will destroy any hope of a truly decent and humane society (oops my "liberal" sentiments showing up again!). The ends and the means have to be in harmony. Anyone who thinks communism can be achieved by force of arms and tyrannical measures needs to check into a clinic pronto for some serious therapy. Violence can only ever be a last resort and purely for defensive reasons. A revolutionary strategy positively based on violence and ruthless oppression will kill any prospect of revolution dead on the spot

You don't understand that reactionaries are a major problem and the revolution must be defended. And the workers may not have the tools necessary to out play the bourgeoisie in a new revolution. This is where leadership comes into play. Leaders help guide the workers into successful utilizing the state to defeat their enemies. Revolution doesn't mean shit if you allow the reactionaries to take control, allow the bourgeoisie back into power.

I understand very well that reactionaries are a problem including reactionaries like you that cravenly defend a vicious state capitalist regime like the Soviet Union and a disgusting tyrant like Stalin on the cringing not to say servile grounds that workers are like sheep that need "leaders" to shepherd them to the promised land. In your anti-marixst views it is not possible for workers to emancipate themselves - the first and foremost principle of socialist revolution. It is people like you that are the real obstacle to a comunist revolution . If we took your advice that would be a certain recipe for installing the reactionaries in power.

Spawn of Stalin

8th November 2009, 11:19

Lies Concerning the History of the USSR by Mario Sousa (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html) addresses some interesting claims, and destroys them with great ease, explodes the lies about the number of prisoners, the number of those sentenced to death during the purges. It was originally a speech so it's not too long and can be read in a very short time. There is a good chart at the end of the page. You can download a PDF version here (http://www.cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/sousa_liesconcerning.pdf).

Stranger Than Paradise

8th November 2009, 11:25

Spawn of Stalin

8th November 2009, 11:42

Compare that number with the number of people in prison in capitalist nations today and it doesn't seem so outrageous, granted the capitalist justice system is not a very fair one but consider this, Stalin died nearly six decades ago, things have changed since then, a lot, the world has become far more liberal when it comes to crime and punishment. If Stalin was alive today I'm sure things would be much different, there would be a lot less people in prisons and labour camps for starters. Also, Russia was still undergoing massive transformation throughout most of Stalin's premiership, there were always counter-revolutionaries looking for new ways to undo October, and why should Stalin have allowed this? If anyone can give me one good reason why the counter-revolutionaries deserved freedom, or even why they deserved to live, I will eat my bloody hat.

robbo203

8th November 2009, 12:03

For example, what were the laws/institutions that rose as a result of that exploitation? Every capitalist country protects private property, what did state capitalist countries where party officials were the rulling class protect??

State property which was owned in de facto terms by a ruling class as a whole (not individual capitalists) by virtue of their de facto complete control of the state itself to the exclusion of the great majority

How did that exploitation take place? A capitalist gets earnings from the shares he owns. In Soviet Union every single thing we are assuming was property of the Secretariat? Were they taking the profits? What part of them? If they lived of off the profits then why wasn't it a state policy to have all companies pursuit profits in the first place??

Essentially, exploitation in the Soviet Union occured in precisely the same way as it occurs in other capitalist countries - by the working class being paid less value in the form of their meagre wages than the value of the wealth they produced. Out of this surplus value, capital was accumulated permitting the industrialisation oif the Soviet Union in the first place - how else could it have happened? Additionally , the state capitalist ruling class creamed off some of this surplus value for their own consumption disgusied in the form of heavily inflated (and usually multiple) salaries and a huge range of perks, creating one of the most unequal capitalist societies on the face of the earth. There was a stupendous gulf in living standards between ordinary russian workers and the privileged nomenklatura which has been well documented. The way in which profits were distributed may have been somewhat different from the form we associated with western style capitalism - via individual shareholdings - but not the fact of profits. However conventional forms of profit extraction were not unknown - the Soviet Union made a point of luring foreign investors to help finance its industrialisation programme on the grounds that exceptionally high profits could be realised

In what concrete ways did party members stand above others. How did they institutionalize their power. What did this power amount to. Could anyone answer these questions?

In numerous ways Party members stood above ordinary Russian workers. Ive touched on only a few. Check out Buick and Crumps seminal work on the subject State Capitalism: The Wages System under New Management (1987). Power was institutionalised through and embodied in the very structure of decisionmaking itself which was fundamentally hierarchical and top down in nature

Andropov

8th November 2009, 13:06

Ah yeah that charts pretty informative, good old Stalin only 1.7 million people in the Gulags by 1953.
What exactly do you find so outrageous about this figure?
You do realise that the USSR came out of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history which was sponsored and supported by most Western Powers?
Is it so inconceivable that the USSR would round up the whites after the Civil War and any reactionarys especially with the amount of terrorism and sabotage underway in the USSR?

*Viva La Revolucion*

8th November 2009, 13:06

These threads always end up like this.

I remember a while ago hearing an interview with a woman who drew lipstick or something on a picture of Stalin and was imprisoned for ten years. That kind of society is more than 'not ideal'. I don't think you can just kill everyone who disagrees with you, either. Political enemies can be defeated without murder.

revolution inaction

8th November 2009, 13:07

1* Did Stalin kill all those millions of people? -> yes

2* If he did... Did he have a choice about it? -> Yes

3* If he did... Was it worth it? ->No

4* If he didn't... What do you think really happened? -> I'm not sure, but he could have done some less stupid and insane shit and he could have gave himself a decent image.

5* Any pro's and con's about Stalin and how the USSR was run under his leadership? Degerated Worker's State. Stalin was a bastard. Trotsky should have got power from Lenin.

And Anarchists wonder why we dont take them seriously?
Look at this post?
This is not a marxist debate, this is some kids throwing around cliches, debunked bourgeois figures, random reactionary slurs and wrap it in a big smiley Anarchist flag and bobs your uncle they think they are debating Stalin the man.
In other words propaghandi, do better next time.

when was the last time you saw an anarchist say something positive about trotsky? or say things would have turned out ok if a different bolshevik had been in charge?
You don't take us seriously? well i suppose its much easier to shout liberal, bourgeois etc than to understand communist politics.

khad

8th November 2009, 17:28

Ah yeah that charts pretty informative, good old Stalin only 1.7 million people in the Gulags by 1953.
I think the death rate of 0.3% in 1953 is lower than the death rate in the US prison system today

It seems to me that people in the West don't even understand what the GULAG is (thanks to the garbage peddled by ethnonationalist reactionaries like Solzhenitsyn). GULAG is the central ministry of corrective labor, ie a department of corrections, which oversees a wide range of prisons. Not all GULAG administered facilities were the same, nor were all of them particularly harsh, as far as prisons are concerned.

FSL

8th November 2009, 18:11

State property which was owned in de facto terms by a ruling class as a whole (not individual capitalists) by virtue of their de facto complete control of the state itself to the exclusion of the great majority

Essentially, exploitation in the Soviet Union occured in precisely the same way as it occurs in other capitalist countries - by the working class being paid less value in the form of their meagre wages than the value of the wealth they produced. Out of this surplus value, capital was accumulated permitting the industrialisation oif the Soviet Union in the first place - how else could it have happened? Additionally , the state capitalist ruling class creamed off some of this surplus value for their own consumption disgusied in the form of heavily inflated (and usually multiple) salaries and a huge range of perks, creating one of the most unequal capitalist societies on the face of the earth. There was a stupendous gulf in living standards between ordinary russian workers and the privileged nomenklatura which has been well documented. The way in which profits were distributed may have been somewhat different from the form we associated with western style capitalism - via individual shareholdings - but not the fact of profits. However conventional forms of profit extraction were not unknown - the Soviet Union made a point of luring foreign investors to help finance its industrialisation programme on the grounds that exceptionally high profits could be realised

In numerous ways Party members stood above ordinary Russian workers. Ive touched on only a few. Check out Buick and Crumps seminal work on the subject State Capitalism: The Wages System under New Management (1987). Power was institutionalised through and embodied in the very structure of decisionmaking itself which was fundamentally hierarchical and top down in nature

The ownership of means of production was de facto? So in no way did they seek to defend their position, pass it on to their children as every rulling class has done since the dawn of man? Accumulating capital was a necessity and a good thing, don't go into things you can't understand without some education which on this subject you don't seem to have.

And it all comes down to "perks"?!? That barbaric system of opression feeding off of workers' daily agony and struggle offered the "ruling class" perks? Not a collection of Rolls Royce, not trophy wives, nothing like that?

Please do elaborate on the "stupendous gulf" in living standards between bolshevicks and the rest of the workers in 1920s-30s. But I 'm expecting exactly that and not just some perks, like getting yourself a bigger food ration. And as this was the de facto and not de jure state of things is it safe to assume that such a behaviour was tolerated? None of the party members that were thrown out had any accusations of corruption on their back? They were all political victims of the bloodthirsty rulling clique that would stop at nothing, absolutely nothing, in its endless quest for perks?

Lastly, about the foreign investors, you 're either talking about NEP or dreaming.

robbo203

8th November 2009, 19:28

The ownership of means of production was de facto? So in no way did they seek to defend their position, pass it on to their children as every rulling class has done since the dawn of man? Accumulating capital was a necessity and a good thing, don't go into things you can't understand without some education which on this subject you don't seem to have..

You are talking nonsense and clearly dont understand what is meant by "capital". Presumably that comes from not having a grounding in marxian economics. Capital is a socio-economic relationship specific to capitalism. Marx was at pains to point out that means of production do not in themselves constitute capital. "Accumulating capital" is central to capitalism and capitalism alone. Why do you think it is called "capitalism"?

You second point again demonstrates complete ignorance. The catholic church was the major landowner and many of its monasteries and abbeys were hives of industry. in Medieval Europe. Who do you think owned all this? The congregations? Of course not. It was the church as an institution and those who controlled it in de facto terms - the church hierarchy as a whole, not individual members of the clergy. Needless to say the principle of inheritance did not apply here but that did not prevent these holdings being effectively monoplised by a tiny minority. It was the same in the Soviet Union. The ruling class was a de facto ruling class; legal de jure ownership by individuals is not a crucial criterion of class ownership. What counts is what actually exists not what is enshrined in some constitution although I have no doubt that informal mechanisms of inheritance within the ruling class did operate in the Soviet Union - the state capitalists using their privileged positions and connections to place their sons and daughters in similarly privileged positions

And it all comes down to "perks"?!? That barbaric system of opression feeding off of workers' daily agony and struggle offered the "ruling class" perks? Not a collection of Rolls Royce, not trophy wives, nothing like that?
..

It doesnt "all come down to perks" though these were very substantial for the Soviet elite - from dachas to foreign travel to exclusive access to private retail outlets where only communist party members could obtain western goodies and from which ordinary Russian workers were excluded. Inflated and usually multiple salaries was another factor. These were way above what any ordinary Russian worker could even dream of (see below)

Please do elaborate on the "stupendous gulf" in living standards between bolshevicks and the rest of the workers in 1920s-30s. But I 'm expecting exactly that and not just some perks, like getting yourself a bigger food ration. And as this was the de facto and not de jure state of things is it safe to assume that such a behaviour was tolerated? None of the party members that were thrown out had any accusations of corruption on their back? They were all political victims of the bloodthirsty rulling clique that would stop at nothing, absolutely nothing, in its endless quest for perks?
Lastly, about the foreign investors, you 're either talking about NEP or dreaming.

Upon coming to power Lenin effectively abandoned the principle of Uravnilovka concediing in 1918 that "We were forced now to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed a very high remuneration for the services of the bourgeois specialists. All those who are acquainted with the facts understand this, but not all give sufficient thought to the significance of such a measure on the part of the proletarian state. It is clear that such a measure is a compromise, that it is a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule." Stalin hated the idea of equality and railed against it as an "evil". In Russia, the ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased to 1:40 in 1950 (Ossowski S, Patterson S, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite the ratio was more like 1:100! That made the Soviet Union one of the most unequal capitalist societies on the planet. Some amongst this elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success
Simon Pirani has also written much about the extent of inequality in the Soviet capitalist state. Here is an extract from one peice of his:

In 1920, the government ruled that the
highest-paid managers should earn no more
than five times the minimum wage. That soon
went up to eight times. But in 1924 a survey
showed that more than 80,000 state officials
admitted to earning more than the upper limit,
15,000 were on more than 15 times the
minimum and 1500 on 30 times the minimum
– to say nothing of corrupt and illegal
earnings, which everyone knew were
widespread.But that’s not the point. The
Bolsheviks claimed to represent the socialist
future. In 1920 they had agreed to act against
inequality within their own ranks; by 1922
they had effectively changed their minds. A
few weeks after Petrzhek’s resignation, a
party conference decided that 15,000
"responsible officials" had the right to extra
income and priority benefits. Inequality may
have been unstoppable, but now it was being
justified – not for technical specialists or
entrepreneurs, who most socialists grudgingly
accepted needed to be induced to help
economic development, but for supposedly
communist state and party officials.
The issue of material inequality was one
aspect of the much larger problem of the
accumulation of power at the top. And in
1922-23 – that is, under Lenin’s government,
before the rise of Stalin – authoritarian
hierarchies were multiplying. Workers could
see it in communist factory managers who
often treated worker dissidents, including
fellow communists, to methods of workplace
discipline reminiscent of tsarism
http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/dilemma208.pdf

Lyev

8th November 2009, 20:13

Im fighting for Marxism.
Jesus christ this is embarressing.

I'm confused... I thought Marxism was freedom.

Stranglely freedom for you is exactly the same as freedom for the capitalist class and not what it 'd be in a classless society.

You might want to read marx's economic and philosophical manuscripts if you're interested or curious. There is a nice slogan that even hippies would love, goes something like "One person's freedom isn't where someone else's freedom ends, it's where it begins." You are free to exist with other people, next to them and not against them. You are free of god instead of free to believe in any god. Bourgeois freedoms are replaced, not simply "extended to everyone" or some other thing like that.

You just redefined what I typed, didn't you? The specific emphasis in my answer was: not impeding on someone else's freedom. At the moment society is 'free' but it's only freedom for a privileged few; the bourgeoisie are 'free' to exploit the proletariat as much as they want, under the premise that both parties in the exchange of the commodity (in this case labour) have mutually agree to it. From the Communist Manifesto- 'It [The bourgeoisie] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.'

Drace

8th November 2009, 20:14

Thanks for the link!

But I do not fully agree on it with this excerpt.

He himself had been sentenced in 1946 to 8 years in a labour camp for counter-revolutionary activity in the form of distribution of anti-Soviet propaganda. According to Solzhenitsyn, the fight against Nazi Germany in the Second World War could have been avoided if the Soviet government had reached a compromise with Hitler. Solzhenitsyn also accused the Soviet government and Stalin of being even worse than Hitler from the point of view, according to him, of the dreadful effects of the war on the people of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn did not hide his Nazi sympathies. He was condemned as a traitor. http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html

The article tries to portray him as a Nazi sympathizer and gives no blame to the Soviet Union for censorship?

Ok nvm I read ahead, and he seems like a total douchebag :)

khad

8th November 2009, 20:56

Thanks for the link!

But I do not fully agree on it with this excerpt.
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html

The article tries to portray him as a Nazi sympathizer and gives no blame to the Soviet Union for censorship?

Ok nvm I read ahead, and he seems like a total douchebag :)
Solzhenitsyn was so reactionary that he alienated many other dissidents who weren't in love with the tsar and the church.

bailey_187

8th November 2009, 21:07

Other than Another View of Stalin, can anybody give me something else to read that defends Stalin against the myth of being a massive murderer?

Sure,

Getty - The Road to Terror
Michael Parenti - Backshirts and Reds
Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia

Drace

8th November 2009, 21:15

Sure,

Getty - The Road to Terror
Michael Parenti - Backshirts and Reds
Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia

Really? Those seem like quite the opposite of what I asked for.

FSL

8th November 2009, 21:19

...

Capital as in the machinery, factories, seeds and such. Getting that is necessary for the economy.
Church wasn't the ruling class in midieval Europe. Nobility was and they did own land and passed it on to their children. Church was an institution that rose in significance as a result of that economic reality to keep people in check and some people in it could enjoy "perks".

Now on to the good stuff.

Trusting your sources,a ratio of 1:40 is actually way way better than anything you could hope to find in a capitalist society among members of the working class. That's comparing minimum wage workers with "golden boys" and leaving capitalists out of the picture alltogether. I am also sure it refers to amount of earnings between workers and high-position managers, not for example the premier of the country.

However, what you don't seem to be aware of is that the revisionists in the party were those that argued for decreasing the importance of central planning, leaving more to be decided by each company and handing out bonuses correspondingly. What measured the success in running a company became not the volume of its production but its sales and profit margin. Soon every company was supposed to be able to completely fund its own investments leaving all enterprises to function in the same way corporations in capitalism do, serving their own interest instead of the interests of the workers. This policy hurt the economy, led to the decrease of satisfaction of people's needs and in further increasing the gap in Soviet society.

So, you are correctly locating a problem that did exist in the USSR but instead attribute it to the people that tried to fight it and argued in party discussions for doing so before it gets out of hand.

To make your day better it wasn't the only problem faced by Soviet Union. Kolhoz ownership of land led to the creation of a group of people that had separate interests than everyone else. They were also represented politically by the revisionism in the party. In 1958, machinery used in farming was bought off by them (up until then it was nationally owned) making them almost independent form the workers. The quotas they had to give to the state went down, the amount of food products they sold in the market went up. Their taxes were reduced, their debt was often erased. Anti-revisionists argued for uniting these kolhozes in larger ones with the aim of turning them into sovkhozes alltogether.

Other problems had to do with the production of a number of goods as commodities. Instead of them being given a nominal "price" or being completely free, many products were treated the same as in a capitalist society. The anti-revisionists argued that this should be curtailed, while the revisionists wanted to extend this to all the economy, in line with them aspiring to turn every socialist enterprise in a capitalist-like business. Under these circumstances, workers' participation in management weakened further instead of being strengthened.

So, what is the main point? Parties or govenments aren't rulling classes. There are interests of various groups involved in the economy and the way they face off eachother decides who gets political control. It might be one group, the strongest, or an alliance.

In the Soviet union there did not only exist a working class. There were peasants who at first owned land as individuals, and out of which many continued to do so in form of collectives. The more expensive the bread, the better for them, the worse for the workers.
There also were trained professionals that were invaluable to Soviet Union in its first years. They were used in everything, from the economy to leading the army without themselves necessarily being communists. Again these people bargained with working class aspiring to gain as much as possible.
Even the new generation of trained professionals was often close to them, quite obvious they would since they grew up in such an environment. For example, the army purges in 1938 were aimed at these people, in rooting out the Vlasofs before they could endanger the country.
Members of the intelligentsia had sided with reaction afterbeing dismayed with the revolution. Even Gorky himself wrote letters to Lenin complaining about how this seemed more like a "dictatorship of the muzik" (spelling?) (meaning the country was ruled by its lowest, uneducated elements)with Lenin trying to change his mind.
Lastly, the NEPmen, people that took advantage of the reforms made by Lenin so that the revolution could survive and who aimed at returning to this situation.

The working class was the rulling class. That was reflected in the constitution, in the propaganda, in the country's flag and anthem. In everything that arises as a result of the material conditions. But there were other groups with different interests: a mass of peasants, some intellectuals, educated personel, people who had profited from previous policies. Their interests were championed by revisionists, an increase in the amount of perks was just a nice thing to have. They weren't a rulling class themselves, they didn't vote laws to give themselves any special rights. It was then as it happens now and has happened everytime in history people being the "face" of who's on top in the society, on top of relations of production.

You just redefined what I typed, didn't you? The specific emphasis in my answer was: not impeding on someone else's freedom.

Yes, that was my aim. Not impending on someone's else's freedom is the individualistic concept of freedom. The other person's freedom is in your "impeding", in the relations he and you form. The "just don't bother me" mentality isn't very revolutionary.

bailey_187

8th November 2009, 21:38

Really? Those seem like quite the opposite of what I asked for.

Well, neither are Pro-Stalin or (except Parenti's) Pro-Soviet but they challenge the Cold Warrior view of Stalin. They show how the purges were not the result of Stalin sitting alone in his office decided which innocent person should be killed next.
Parenti's just quotes articles on the numbers who died under Stalin

Also, check out some of Grover Furrs work at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/
Also, you can email him with questions regarding Stalin

Radical

8th November 2009, 22:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IGbjPqFFvA

A Glorious speech by Comrade Stalin celebrating the 24th anniversary of the great October Revolution - Long live the October Revolution!

Drace

8th November 2009, 22:42

Ok thanks
Im still reading the article.
Very interesting read.

To summarize,

Most of the sources portraying Stalin as a mass murderer come from Nazis, fascists, and douchebag Conquest. Their statements were publicized by the mass media through popular and influential publications of Hearst, and McCarthy.

The authors who criticized the Soviet system and of Stalin of killing millions believed the Soviet archives would finally confirm their statements. On the contrary, they proved to show their ridiculous they were.

According to the archives, there was only 2.5 million prisoners in 1939. Of which were only 500,000 were of political.
This was a fetal blow to the opposition.
The 2.5 million prisoners were 2.4% of the Soviet population, compared to the 2.8% for the US. Considering that the USSR was at far worse conditions, being a factor in crime, the Soviet Union was actually more tolerant.

robbo203

9th November 2009, 00:16

Capital as in the machinery, factories, seeds and such. Getting that is necessary for the economy..

You still dont get it do you? "Capital" entails more than just machinery, factories etc. Capital is a social relationship that pertains to C-A-P-I-T-A-L-ism. Saying that it is "necessary for the economy" speaks volumes for your implicitly pro-capitalist outlook

Church wasn't the ruling class in midieval Europe. Nobility was and they did own land and passed it on to their children. Church was an institution that rose in significance as a result of that economic reality to keep people in check and some people in it could enjoy "perks".

..

And you dont get this point either, do you? My point was that the Church as an institution owned a considerable chunk of the land apart from what the nobility owned. The fact that the principle of inheritance did not apply in this case illustrates that it it is not crucial to the continuance of de facto ownership (as was the case also in the Soviet Union). While the Church was not "the" ruling class in Medieval Europe, it was certainly part of or implicated in it

Now on to the good stuff.

Trusting your sources,a ratio of 1:40 is actually way way better than anything you could hope to find in a capitalist society among members of the working class. That's comparing minimum wage workers with "golden boys" and leaving capitalists out of the picture alltogether. I am also sure it refers to amount of earnings between workers and high-position managers, not for example the premier of the country...

Bear in mind that the figure of 1:40 referred only to declared income. If you take into account the very substantial perks and benefits enjoyed by the Soviet capitalist class - the nomenklatura - the figure is much higher. On an international comparative basis there have been several studies that have shown that inequality in the Soviet Union was at least comparable to if not greater than most other capitalist regimes. One study (1993) by Dominique Redor of the University of Paris in 1993
Wage Inequalities in East and West found wage inequalities to be at least comparable to that of the UK. The significance of this is that the Soviet bourgeoisie like their counterparts in the West appropriated surplus value disguised in the form of inflated salaries and fees

However, what you don't seem to be aware of is that the revisionists in the party were those that argued for decreasing the importance of central planning, leaving more to be decided by each company and handing out bonuses correspondingly. What measured the success in running a company became not the volume of its production but its sales and profit margin. Soon every company was supposed to be able to completely fund its own investments leaving all enterprises to function in the same way corporations in capitalism do, serving their own interest instead of the interests of the workers. This policy hurt the economy, led to the decrease of satisfaction of people's needs and in further increasing the gap in Soviet society....

Your analysis is flawed. The importance of central planning in the Soviet Economy is often exaggerated anyway as Ive pointed out elsewhere. Becuase of necessity and for purely logistical reasons if nothing else, a large amount of planning had to be decentralised and left to the state enterprise level. Gosplan plans were repeatedly altered to suit the changing reality and sometimes were not even available to enterprises unril well after commencement of the planning period. The revisionists were only saying what was inevitably going to happen to the soviet economy anyway - that as it became more diversified and complex , centralised intervention was bound to play an even less significant role that the ideologues wanted. And of course the Stalinist ideologues were just as much motivated as the revisionists by the need to extract surplus value from the workers to finance the parasitic state and its programme of industrialisation. In that respect the interests of the workers from the perspective of the Soviet ruling class always took a distant second or third place to the need to make profit

Other problems had to do with the production of a number of goods as commodities. Instead of them being given a nominal "price" or being completely free, many products were treated the same as in a capitalist society. The anti-revisionists argued that this should be curtailed, while the revisionists wanted to extend this to all the economy, in line with them aspiring to turn every socialist enterprise in a capitalist-like business. Under these circumstances, workers' participation in management weakened further instead of being strengthened.....

Dont make me laugh. What workers participaton in management, eh? Ever since Lenin promoted his one man management policy the Soviet Union was characterised by completely hierarchical top down management structures. Like Pirani suggested it was little different from the situation under Tsardom

So, what is the main point? Parties or govenments aren't rulling classes. There are interests of various groups involved in the economy and the way they face off eachother decides who gets political control. It might be one group, the strongest, or an alliance......

In the Soviet Union, if you werent a member of the pseudo communist party your chances of becoming a member of the ruling class were about zero

In the Soviet union there did not only exist a working class. There were peasants who at first owned land as individuals, and out of which many continued to do so in form of collectives. The more expensive the bread, the better for them, the worse for the workers. .....

And of course from a marxian standpoint if a working class existed in the SU then by the same token there must also have been a capitalist class. You cannot have a working class without a capitalist class - they are two sides of the same coin. See Wage Labour and Capital K Marx

The working class was the rulling class. That was reflected in the constitution, in the propaganda, in the country's flag and anthem. In everything that arises as a result of the material conditions. But there were other groups with different interests: a mass of peasants, some intellectuals, educated personel, people who had profited from previous policies. Their interests were championed by revisionists, an increase in the amount of perks was just a nice thing to have. They weren't a rulling class themselves, they didn't vote laws to give themselves any special rights. It was then as it happens now and has happened everytime in history people being the "face" of who's on top in the society, on top of relations of production.
.

Oh come on now - the working class was the ruling class. Belief in fairies residing under toadstools is more plausible than this guff. How pray does the exploited class in society come to be at the same time the top dog in society. You would think that if the workers really had obtained power they would have been in a position to do away with their exploitation, in other words to do away with their status as working class. What actually happened is that a vanguard in the shape of the Bolsheviks took power - claiming to do so on behalf of the workers (to ensure their continued support) - and mutated into a new ruling class whose interests were objectively opposed to the working class

spiltteeth

9th November 2009, 00:25

You still dont get it do you? "Capital" entails more than just machinery, factories etc. Capital is a social relationship that pertains to C-A-P-I-T-A-L-ism. Saying that it is "necessary for the economy" speaks volumes for your implicitly pro-capitalist outlook

And you dont get this point either, do you? My point was that the Church as an institution owned a considerable chunk of the land apart from what the nobility owned. The fact that the principle of inheritance did not apply in this case illustrates that it it is not crucial to the continuance of de facto ownership (as was the case also in the Soviet Union). While the Church was not "the" ruling class in Medieval Europe, it was certainly part of or implicated in it

Bear in mind that the figure of 1:40 referred only to declared income. If you take into account the very substantial perks and benefits enjoyed by the Soviet capitalist class - the nomenklatura - the figure is much higher. On an international comparative basis there have been several studies that have shown that inequality in the Soviet Union was at least comparable to if not greater than most other capitalist regimes. One study (1993) by Dominique Redor of the University of Paris in 1993
Wage Inequalities in East and West found wage inequalities to be at least comparable to that of the UK. The significance of this is that the Soviet bourgeoisie like their counterparts in the West appropriated surplus value disguised in the form of inflated salaries and fees

Your analysis is flawed. The importance of central planning in the Soviet Economy is often exaggerated anyway as Ive pointed out elsewhere. Becuase of necessity and for purely logistical reasons if nothing else, a large amount of planning had to be decentralised and left to the state enterprise level. Gosplan plans were repeatedly altered to suit the changing reality and sometimes were not even available to enterprises unril well after commencement of the planning period. The revisionists were only saying what was inevitably going to happen to the soviet economy anyway - that as it became more diversified and complex , centralised intervention was bound to play an even less significant role that the ideologues wanted. And of course the Stalinist ideologues were just as much motivated as the revisionists by the need to extract surplus value from the workers to finance the parasitic state and its programme of industrialisation. In that respect the interests of the workers from the perspective of the Soviet ruling class always took a distant second or third place to the need to make profit

Dont make me laugh. What workers participaton in management, eh? Ever since Lenin promoted his one man management policy the Soviet Union was characterised by completely hierarchical top down management structures. Like Pirani suggested it was little different from the situation under Tsardom

In the Soviet Union, if you werent a member of the pseudo communist party your chances of becoming a member of the ruling class were about zero

And of course from a marxian standpoint if a working class existed in the SU then by the same token there must also have been a capitalist class. You cannot have a working class without a capitalist class - they are two sides of the same coin. See Wage Labour and Capital K Marx

Oh come on now - the working class was the ruling class. Belief in fairies residing under toadstools is more plausible than this guff. How pray does the exploited class in society come to be at the same time the top dog in society. You would think that if the workers really had obtained power they would have been in a position to do away with their exploitation, in other words to do away with their status as working class. What actually happened is that a vanguard in the shape of the Bolsheviks took power - claiming to do so on behalf of the workers (to ensure their continued support) - and mutated into a new ruling class whose interests were objectively opposed to the working class

What are the numbers on the wage inequality in the Soviet Union?
The studies cited in Parenti's Black shirts and red state 5:1, whereas the average wage discrepancy in capitalist nations was put slightly above 10,000:1.

You say 100:1 put it at one of the most unequal nations on the planet, surly anyone must see this as laughable.

robbo203

9th November 2009, 00:40

What are the numbers on the wage inequality in the Soviet Union?
The studies cited in Parenti's Black shirts and red state 5:1, whereas the average wage discrepancy in capitalist nations was put slightly above 10,000:1.

You say 100:1 put it at one of the most unequal nations on the planet, surly anyone must see this as laughable.

I havent read Parentis book but perhaps you might care to post here the relevant paragraph (with references)where he supposedly makes this outlandish claim. By any objective standards he does appear to be talking a complete load of bollocks. Most studies point to the fact that wage inequality in the Soviet Union was certainly comparable too if not more than most other capitalist regimes

Andropov

9th November 2009, 03:19

I'm confused... I thought Marxism was freedom.

What does that even mean?

Andropov

9th November 2009, 03:21

robbo203

9th November 2009, 08:51

Not at all, in "Socialism Betrayed" the wage disparity was measured as 1:10.

Spiltteeth made the claim that in Michael Parenti's book the "average wage discrepancy" ratio in western capitalist nations was 10,000:1. Now either Spiltteeth has misread Parenti which is what I suspect has happened or Parenti has made the most monumental blunder. There is a simply no way that this is possible. Statistically speaking income data are grouped into percentiles allowing you to compare say the income of the top 10% with the bottom 10%. Of course, in income terms there is considerable inequality ( see for example http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1005) although nothing like 10,000:1 which is totally absurd. Comparing a random billionaire with a random beggar on the street is not statistically meaningful though it might just deliver such a ratio. The distribution of marketable wealth as opposed to just income is of course even more unequal but again nothing like 10,000:1

Regarding the figure from "Socialism Betrayed" (do you have references?) the crucial point is that you omit to say what year this applies to. My point is that in the Soviet Union there was a steady increase in inequality and that this accelerated under Stalin. The ratio of 100:1 quoted Mevedev also takes into account the value of perks enjoyed by the Soviet capitalist class which were considerable and which you dont take into account

There is a very good riposte to Parenti's naive arguments which can be found here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/ice_pick.html. It makes the point that while ordinary Russians were starving the party bosses were living a champagne life with 2000 servants quartered in the Kremlin to service the needs of the new red bourgeoisie. Hypocritical bastards if you ask me

FSL

9th November 2009, 10:21

Statistically speaking income data are grouped into percentiles allowing you to compare say the income of the top 10% with the bottom 10%. Of course, in income terms there is considerable inequality ( see for example http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1005 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1005)) although nothing like 10,000:1 which is totally absurd. Comparing a random billionaire with a random beggar on the street is not statistically meaningful though it might just deliver such a ratio. The distribution of marketable wealth as opposed to just income is of course even more unequal but again nothing like 10,000:1

Ehm, the talk in Soviet Union was about just that, how should the highest salary compare to the minimum wage. If you want to compare that to a present society you do need to compare, say, Bill gates and a random beggar. Including the highest and lowest 10 or 20% of the population will of course smooth out the differences.

You're saying that disparity grew under Stalin's administration but choose to ignore the facts, the policies he and other members of the party supported and that were opposed by the revisionists. And if you weren't ignoring these differences, then you would simply and shamelessly side with revisionists, as you did when you claimed there was a fundamental weakness in central planning.

I don't see how this can lead anywhere. You turn a blind eye to the different forces in soviet society, to how they expressed their interests, to the struggle in the party, to the actual laws and reforms it implemented, to prove that russians starved because of a "new red bourgeoisie". At least, many facts have been stated and others with less fanaticism and a clearer mind might be helped.

Andropov

9th November 2009, 18:43

Spiltteeth made the claim that in Michael Parenti's book the "average wage discrepancy" ratio in western capitalist nations was 10,000:1. Now either Spiltteeth has misread Parenti which is what I suspect has happened or Parenti has made the most monumental blunder. There is a simply no way that this is possible. Statistically speaking income data are grouped into percentiles allowing you to compare say the income of the top 10% with the bottom 10%. Of course, in income terms there is considerable inequality ( see for example http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1005) although nothing like 10,000:1 which is totally absurd. Comparing a random billionaire with a random beggar on the street is not statistically meaningful though it might just deliver such a ratio. The distribution of marketable wealth as opposed to just income is of course even more unequal but again nothing like 10,000:1

Regarding the figure from "Socialism Betrayed" (do you have references?) the crucial point is that you omit to say what year this applies to. My point is that in the Soviet Union there was a steady increase in inequality and that this accelerated under Stalin. The ratio of 100:1 quoted Mevedev also takes into account the value of perks enjoyed by the Soviet capitalist class which were considerable and which you dont take into account

There is a very good riposte to Parenti's naive arguments which can be found here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/freeearth/ice_pick.html. It makes the point that while ordinary Russians were starving the party bosses were living a champagne life with 2000 servants quartered in the Kremlin to service the needs of the new red bourgeoisie. Hypocritical bastards if you ask me
In socialism betrayed it quotes American Sociologist Albert Szymanski who did various research on income distribution and living standards within the USSR in 1983.
In this he found that..
The highest paid people in the Soviet Union were prominent Artists, writers, professors, administrators, and scientists who earned as high as 1200 to 1500 rubles a month.
Leading government officials earned as high as 600 rubles a month.
Enterprise directors from 190 to 400 rubles a month.
And workers about 150 rubles a month.
Now as for your mentioning of perks and the like that was enjoyed by many officials within the party aparatus at the time is a fair point.
This would include certain areas of the USSR where corruption was endemic, the likes of Azerbeijan.
Or even the likes of Brezhnevs family who were caught red handed.
The second economy was a majot problem within the USSR from Khruschevs time on because of his petit-bourgeois reformism and grew steadily from his reign until the its explosion under Gorbachov.
But Stalin cannot be blaimed for this.

spiltteeth

10th November 2009, 22:22

I havent read Parentis book but perhaps you might care to post here the relevant paragraph (with references)where he supposedly makes this outlandish claim. By any objective standards he does appear to be talking a complete load of bollocks. Most studies point to the fact that wage inequality in the Soviet Union was certainly comparable too if not more than most other capitalist regimes

The income spread, according to Parenti, pg 50-51 was 5:1 in the soviet union.

As to your UK statistics, surly you must realize how silly they are. First, the rich hid their wealth (as they still do) In fact, during the soviet union they didn't have to report over $300,000 so I really can't imagine where your statistics come from, since NOONE knows the income spread of the UK during that era.

The wealthy didn't have to report most of their wealth until the past 20 yrs, and even now they hide alot of it, so I just can't see where the numbers are coming from for those stats.

The 10,000 :1 is a rough estimate based on estimated profit from businesses in capitalist countries, but no real numbers exist as far as I know.

Unless yr stats are going from whatever the wealthy told the govt. they were making!

robbo203

14th November 2009, 01:24

The income spread, according to Parenti, pg 50-51 was 5:1 in the soviet union.

As to your UK statistics, surly you must realize how silly they are. First, the rich hid their wealth (as they still do) In fact, during the soviet union they didn't have to report over $300,000 so I really can't imagine where your statistics come from, since NOONE knows the income spread of the UK during that era.

The wealthy didn't have to report most of their wealth until the past 20 yrs, and even now they hide alot of it, so I just can't see where the numbers are coming from for those stats.

The 10,000 :1 is a rough estimate based on estimated profit from businesses in capitalist countries, but no real numbers exist as far as I know.

Unless yr stats are going from whatever the wealthy told the govt. they were making!

You said - did you not? - that the "average wage discrepancy" in western capitalist regimes according to studies cied in Parenti's Black shirts and red was put "slightly above 10,000:1". This was in response to my point that the income ratio of high to low wage earners in the soviet Union was 40:1

Now here is no way the figure of 10,000:1 is remotely plausible. Even if you reduced that ratio by a hundredfold it would still be on the high side in my opinion. Parenti has obviously made a monumental blunder here or you are misquoting him. Saying that the "10,000 :1 is a rough estimate based on estimated profit from businesses in capitalist countries" is ridiculous. Do you have any idea what the total wages bill is by comparison with gross pofits for most companies? Capitalism is an unequal society but it is not that unequal!

As to the UK statistics I quoted, you make an elementary mistake of confusing wealth and income. These are not the same thing. The statistics generated by bodies like the Inland Revenue may very well be rough and ready but they are probably unlikely to be so unreliable as not to provide us with at least a reasonable idea of what the spread of income is in the UK.

On the question of the Soviet Union I have come across several sudies which all point to the fact that the income ratio between high and low wage earners was at least comparable to what obtained in the UK if not greater. (I believe Ive quoted one or two of these already). Ossowski and Patterson in, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness ( Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). , put the raio as 40:1 much higher than the figure of 5:1 which you say Parenti gives. The difference may possibly be due to the fact that Parenti overlooks that many among the nomenklatura - the Soviet Unions ruling class - acually enjoyed multiple salaries. Roy Medvedev in Khrushchev: The Years in Power (Columbia University Press. 1976, 540) put the figuire even higher - at 100:1 if you include perks and other forms of payments in kind in the essentially corrupt authoritarain patron-client system that was the soviet union. On purely income differences Medvedev has stated that within the same enterprise the salaries of senior executives ranged from ten to fifty times that of workers

One final thing you have to bear in mind - the time factor. While post revoluionary Russia was an unequal society, inequality really only took off in a big way after the 1930s under Stalin

FSL

14th November 2009, 07:39

Now here is no way the figure of 10,000:1 is remotely plausible. Even if you reduced that ratio by a hundredfold it would still be on the high side in my opinion. Parenti has obviously made a monumental blunder here or you are misquoting him. Saying that the "10,000 :1 is a rough estimate based on estimated profit from businesses in capitalist countries" is ridiculous. Do you have any idea what the total wages bill is by comparison with gross pofits for most companies? Capitalism is an unequal society but it is not that unequal!

Someone earning 1000 euros as a worker (not considering them unemployed, in a part-time job or anything like that) would mean that the highest earner in the society earns 10 millions per month. That seems quite on target considering people have in their lifetime concentrated properties that are estimated in the billions.

And just how cute it is when a socialism opponent does what he does best, apologizing for capitalism.

robbo203

14th November 2009, 09:41

Someone earning 1000 euros as a worker (not considering them unemployed, in a part-time job or anything like that) would mean that the highest earner in the society earns 10 millions per month. That seems quite on target considering people have in their lifetime concentrated properties that are estimated in the billions.

And just how cute it is when a socialism opponent does what he does best, apologizing for capitalism.

Dont be so stupid. Its got nothing to do wih apologising for capitalism (thats rich coming from you, a supporter of state capitalism). Its about being accurate in the arguments you present. There is no mileage in presenting grossly exaggerated and distorted claims. That only gives the apologists for capitalism an excuse to dismiss your arguments as the ravings of a nutjob

The relevant information we are talking about here is the differential earnings beween "low and high wage earners". To be statistically significant your data needs to be organised into percentiles enabling you to compare, say, the bottom 10 percent with the top ten percent. Of course someone earning 10 million a month earns 10,000 more than a waiter earning 1000 euros pm but is that a statistically significant and relevant comparison that sheds light on extent of inequality in a given society as a whole? Obviously not. The sample - 2 people in this case - is far too small to be socially meaningful.

Your problem is that you dont understand statistics...

FSL

14th November 2009, 09:50

The relevant information we are talking about here is the differential earnings beween "low and high wage earners". To be statistically significant your data needs to be organised into percentiles enabling you to compare, say, the bottom 10 percent with the top ten percent. Of course someone earning 10 million a month earns 10,000 more than a waiter earning 1000 euros pm but is that a statistically significant and relevant comparison that sheds light on extent of inequality in a given society as a whole? Obviously not. The sample - 2 people in this case - is far too small to be socially meaningful.

Your problem is that you dont understand statistics...

In the Soviet Union there wasn't a lower-higher 10% comparison, there was a basic wage-highest wage comparison. If you included 10% on either side then you'd have people that earned more than the minimum wage on the lower spectrum and people that earned less than the top salary on the higher spectrum. This would make it seem a more egalitarian society smoothening out the two extremes. But it wasn't what was done.

Can you understand this?

robbo203

14th November 2009, 10:13

In the Soviet Union there wasn't a lower-higher 10% comparison, there was a basic wage-highest wage comparison. If you included 10% on either side then you'd have people that earned more than the minimum wage on the lower spectrum and people that earned less than the top salary on the higher spectrum. This would make it seem a more egalitarian society smoothening out the two extremes. But it wasn't what was done.

Can you understand this?

More evidence that you dont understand statistics. Of course you can compare the bottom 10 percent of earners and the 10 percent of earners in any sample population to arrive at some idea of the "distribution around he mean or average". What on earth are you trying to say here? That 10 percent includes people not among the very top earners? So what? But it still gives a far better idea of the extent of social inequality in society than an individual comparison of the earnings of a millionaire and a waiter in restuarant. Statisics is about generalisations and broad trends

FSL

14th November 2009, 10:42

More evidence that you dont understand statistics. Of course you can compare the bottom 10 percent of earners and the 10 percent of earners in any sample population to arrive at some idea of the "distribution around he mean or average". What on earth are you trying to say here? That 10 percent includes people not among the very top earners? So what? But it still gives a far better idea of the extent of social inequality in society than an individual comparison of the earnings of a millionaire and a waiter in restuarant. Statisics is about generalisations and broad trends

You are comparing Soviet Union to capitalist societies and find it only slightly more egalitarian while ignoring the fact that they measured income disparity in a different way.
Comparing 10% of the population on each end doesn't only give a generalised trend that can better describe society, it will also at all times give a smaller disparity than comparing nothing but the two extremes.

Which means that inequality in capitalist countries measured in the same way as in Soviet Union would be found much larger and correspondigly inequality in the Soviet union measured in the same way as in capitalist countries would be found much smaller.

And that kinda defeats the point you were raising about USSR being an economically polarised country in its first decades.

robbo203

14th November 2009, 11:48

You are comparing Soviet Union to capitalist societies and find it only slightly more egalitarian while ignoring the fact that they measured income disparity in a different way.
Comparing 10% of the population on each end doesn't only give a generalised trend that can better describe society, it will also at all times give a smaller disparity than comparing nothing but the two extremes.

Which means that inequality in capitalist countries measured in the same way as in Soviet Union would be found much larger and correspondigly inequality in the Soviet union measured in the same way as in capitalist countries would be found much smaller.

And that kinda defeats the point you were raising about USSR being an economically polarised country in its first decades.

You are flailing around making all sorts of daft comments. Lets deal with them

I am not comparing the "Soviet Union to capitalist societies". The Soviet Union was a capialist society like every other capitalist society but, that aside, I was not finding " it only slightly more egalitarian". On the contrary it was at least as unequal as any other capitalist society (at least in the post war years) if not more so than some. See the references I cited in support. People who deny this ignore the fact of multiple incomes and extensive perks enjoyed by the nomenklatura - the red bourgeoisie

Then you demonstrate once again your inability or unwillingness to understand statistics. Im not going to push it again. If you dont want to learn then I cant force you. There are none so blind as those who dont wish to see. Just take it from me that it is an elementary tenet of statistical science that the larger the sample population the more reliable or significant the conclusions you reach from such data. Comparing the income of the odd millionaire and the odd waiter is not statistically very significant. One swallow does not make a summer as the saying goes.

Go get hold of a basic book on statistics and you might just learn something