Hailing Mass Murderers

[AK]

This is not intended to flame anyone on RevLeft.
Why is it that so many of you Revlefters think of Communist leaders such as Stalin and Pol Pot your heroes and idloise them when they were such brutal killers? I understand they had their good points but why would you idolise them when they ordered massacres and purges against common people, who I thought we were supposed to be fighting for?

[FSL]

This is not intended to flame anyone on RevLeft.
Why is it that so many of you Revlefters think of Communist leaders such as Stalin and Pol Pot your heroes and idloise them when they were such brutal killers? I understand they had their good points but why would you idolise them when they ordered massacres and purges against common people, who I thought we were supposed to be fighting for?


Also not interested in flaming, but why do so many people make uneducated comments thinking they 're contributing anything? It happens all the time.


Reason is that some people have looked around and learnt stuff you ignore. Because they 're smarter/more hard-working than you.
You can always change your ways of course but I lose faith in people as time goes by. :crying:

PS I won't even start on your obvious strawmans as they 're not the point here, the point is people -marxists!- insisting on not studying history/marxism and just taking whatever is readily presented to them.
PS2 Bad mood, at least it's Friday...

[9]

Presumably the "Pol Potist" usergroup, if that is what the OP is referring to, is actually supposed to be a joke. I think it's in poor taste, but then again, it doesn't really make a difference what I think about it as it isn't my usergroup.

[AK]

Presumably the "Pol Potist" usergroup, if that is what the OP is referring to, is actually supposed to be a joke. I think it's in poor taste, but then again, it doesn't really make a difference what I think about it as it isn't my usergroup.

Hmm It probably would've been best to check that. But why would people praise Stalin even when they know what he did. Many sources are exagerrated but it's still a significant amount and inexcusable.

[Robespierre2.0]

Hmm It probably would've been best to check that. But why would people praise Stalin even when they know what he did. Many sources are exagerrated but it's still a significant amount and inexcusable.

I think it's inexcusable to put Stalin and Mao in a 'mass murderers' category but not every other head of state of every other nation ever.

The fact is, all governments commit atrocities. During the pre-WWII period the Western Allies were responsible for plenty of unnecessary and unjust deaths (the Bengal famine comes to mind).
Trying to place Stalin and Mao into a separate category, of leaders who are somehow 'more bloodthirsty' than the leaders of the western capitalist states is nothing more than a tactic used by the bourgeois media to discredit socialism- to claim that their hands were clean in an era when, due to global economic meltdown, social upheaval, and the rise of fascism, everybody was forced to get their hands bloody to some extent.

The difference, however, is that when Stalin used violence, he always did so with the goal of socialism and the liberation of the working class in mind. Unfortunately, in difficult situations, like the one the Soviet Union under Stalin was in, many innocents get caught in the crossfire, and I'm sure Stalin was aware of that, but revolution is a bloody mess, and it's not like miscarriages of justice never occur in the west, anyway.

Oh, and he didn't target 'common people'. As I said, unfortunately, many innocent commoners suffered because it was an era of distrust and fifth columns, but the problem of kulak saboteurs and Nazi spies was a very real one.

[Pogue]

I think it's inexcusable to put Stalin and Mao in a 'mass murderers' category but not every other head of state of every other nation ever.

The fact is, all governments commit atrocities. During the pre-WWII period the Western Allies were responsible for plenty of unnecessary and unjust deaths (the Bengal famine comes to mind).
Trying to place Stalin and Mao into a separate category, of leaders who are somehow 'more bloodthirsty' than the leaders of the western capitalist states is nothing more than a tactic used by the bourgeois media to discredit socialism- to claim that their hands were clean in an era when, due to global economic meltdown, social upheaval, and the rise of fascism, everybody was forced to get their hands bloody to some extent.

The difference, however, is that when Stalin used violence, he always did so with the goal of socialism and the liberation of the working class in mind. Unfortunately, in difficult situations, like the one the Soviet Union under Stalin was in, many innocents get caught in the crossfire, and I'm sure Stalin was aware of that, but revolution is a bloody mess, and it's not like miscarriages of justice never occur in the west, anyway.

Oh, and he didn't target 'common people'. As I said, unfortunately, many innocent commoners suffered because it was an era of distrust and fifth columns, but the problem of kulak saboteurs and Nazi spies was a very real one.

Yes, all governments commmit atrocities, thats why we reject bourgeoisie governments, including those of Stalin and Mao.

[scarletghoul]

Ha, so people have never committed atrocities without official governments? Anarchists have never forced collectivisation and burnt churches? Puh-lease..

Cmde. Mantis has it spot on.

[Искра]

What's wrong with burning churches and how can you compare it with starving people or exploiting them for "state capitalist machinery"? Just because Maoist guerillas look cool that doesn't mean that they are right.

[FSL]

...



Just a few things. We can assume, as it's reasonable that some innocents did get in the crossfire as that's reasonable, seeing the distrust which is normal when all the world is literally out to get you and the "zeal" shown by lower rank party members during periods of unrest.

But

a) The first to criticize these actions was the party itself
b) Nothing suggests that these phenomena were widespread. Most of the punishments seem to have come to those that brought them to themselves.


Pogue, those anarchists that bombed the party headquarters in Moscow, killing many innocents? I 'm sure they got their fair share of Gulag time.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Not to mention that the anarchists executed church worshippers without giving them fair trial.

[Pogue]

Not to mention that they executed church worshippers without giving them fair trial.

LOL

:lol:

[ComradeOm]

The difference, however, is that when Stalin used violence, he always did so with the goal of socialism and the liberation of the working class in mind. Unfortunately, in difficult situations, like the one the Soviet Union under Stalin was in, many innocents get caught in the crossfire, and I'm sure Stalin was aware of that, but revolution is a bloody mess, and it's not like miscarriages of justice never occur in the west, anywayI've brought you up on this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/old-communist-regimes-t112352/index.html?p=1484407) but its worth quoting the post in full. Perhaps this time you'll respond. Or anyone else who wishes to defend Stalin's bloody purges/campaigns:



EN Egorova (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
GF Fedorov (Central Committee) (Assassinated 1937)
AF Ilin-Zhenevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
LB Kamenev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)
MS Kedrov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
FP Khaustov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
NV Krylenko (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
M Latis (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
KA Mekhonoshin (Military Organisation) (Executed)
VP Miliutin (Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
VI Nevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
SK Ordzhonikidze (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1937)
MA Saveliev (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
AG Shliapnikov (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
IT Smilga (Central Committee) (Executed 1938)
IN Stukov (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
MP Tomsky (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1936)
PA Zalutsky (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
GE Zinoviev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)

Recognise a few names on this list? I'm sure you do. This is a very small sample of prominent Petrograd Bolsheviks who were active in the capital during 1917. Like I said, a tiny sample of Stalin's total victims. But I want to focus on these for a minute because I doubt you give a damn about the countless victims who have not had their names recorded. Each of the above furthered the revolutionary cause in 1917 (a few also were good Stalinists afterwards) and served with distinction on the various Bolshevik organisations and committees. The names above vary from party leaders* to those who worked tirelessly at grassroots level. Revolutionary heroes, one and all

Certainly they were responsible for a state that provided "free education, medicine, and housing". Their revolutionary credentials are impeccable yet they ended up murdered by a despot who cared for nothing but his own personal power. There is no excuse for these deaths and they, and the countless others of Stalin's personal political opponents, did not deserve the fate they ultimately received

Now you can talk all you want about 'crypto-Trots' or whatever you like. That's bullshit and if you can't see that then its solely because of your own narrow-mindedness. But I'm not going to let you pretend that these names tried to 'step outside the Party' or tried to destroy the USSR. They were the heroes without whom the latter would not have existed. To dismiss them as somehow 'legitimate targets' is a thundering disgrace and a damning indictment of your own ideology

*Interesting enough, of the nine-man Central Committee elected in April 1917 only one reached the 1940s. Three (Sverdlov, Lenin and Nogin) died of natural causes but the remaining five were executed on Stalin's orders


Oh, and he didn't target 'common people'. As I said, unfortunately, many innocent commoners suffered because it was an era of distrust and fifth columns, but the problem of kulak saboteurs and Nazi spies was a very real one.Oh? That might come as a surprise to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens who were deliberately targeted simply because of their ethnic background. Or can you explain away the 'national operations' of the NKVD?

[FSL]

I've brought you up on this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/old-communist-regimes-t112352/index.html?p=1484407) but its worth quoting the post in full. Perhaps this time you'll respond. Or anyone else who wishes to defend Stalin's bloody purges/campaigns:



EN Egorova (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
GF Fedorov (Central Committee) (Assassinated 1937)
AF Ilin-Zhenevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
LB Kamenev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)
MS Kedrov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
FP Khaustov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
NV Krylenko (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
M Latis (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
KA Mekhonoshin (Military Organisation) (Executed)
VP Miliutin (Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
VI Nevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
SK Ordzhonikidze (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1937)
MA Saveliev (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
AG Shliapnikov (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
IT Smilga (Central Committee) (Executed 1938)
IN Stukov (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
MP Tomsky (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1936)
PA Zalutsky (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
GE Zinoviev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)

Recognise a few names on this list? I'm sure you do. This is a very small sample of prominent Petrograd Bolsheviks who were active in the capital during 1917. Like I said, a tiny sample of Stalin's total victims. But I want to focus on these for a minute because I doubt you give a damn about the countless victims who have not had their names recorded. Each of the above furthered the revolutionary cause in 1917 (a few also were good Stalinists afterwards) and served with distinction on the various Bolshevik organisations and committees. The names above vary from party leaders* to those who worked tirelessly at grassroots level. Revolutionary heroes, one and all



Kamenev and Zinoviev even voted against having an armed uprising just days before the revolution. The only ones that voted no. Saying they were prominent leaders and not saying that they were those prominent leaders that didn't want the revolution to happen isn't so fair, is it now?

And what would this prove even if they were all the most perfect examples of a revolutionary in 1917? If they came to stand for interests of others and not the workers, are they innocent victims? Try supporting their positions at that time without bringing forth what had they done decades ago.

[ComradeOm]

Kamenev and Zinoviev even voted against having an armed uprising just days before the revolution. The only ones that voted no. Saying they were prominent leaders and not saying that they were those prominent leaders that didn't want the revolution to happen isn't so fair, is it now?Amazingly they were not immediately executed for their opinions. Then again, the Bolshevik party of 1917 tolerated differences of opinion and both Kamenev and Zinoviev went on to play productive roles during the revolutionary years

But then perhaps all Stalin's later policies/actions should be dismissed because he supported Kamenev in recognising the Provisional Government in early 1917?


And what would this prove even if they were all the most perfect examples of a revolutionary in 1917?Because according to the typical defence of Stalin supplied by his apologists, this would mean that the revolution of 1917 was led by those in "contact with White Guard circles and the German fascists". Do you believe this to be the case? Do you believe that the entire surviving leadership of the Bolsheviks from 1917, with the exception of Stalin of course, consequently sought to restore the capitalist regime that they had worked so hard to overthrow?

It is typical Stalinist bunk to portray these revolutionaries, many of whom had been good Bolsheviks for decades, as German spies, fascists, and White sympathisers. Few regimes were as proficient at executing revolutionaries as Stalin's USSR

[Искра]

Not to mention that the anarchists executed church worshippers without giving them fair trial.
And Bolsheviks send them to Den Hague? :lol:
btw. sources please

[Pogue]

Kamenev and Zinoviev even voted against having an armed uprising just days before the revolution. The only ones that voted no. Saying they were prominent leaders and not saying that they were those prominent leaders that didn't want the revolution to happen isn't so fair, is it now?

And what would this prove even if they were all the most perfect examples of a revolutionary in 1917? If they came to stand for interests of others and not the workers, are they innocent victims? Try supporting their positions at that time without bringing forth what had they done decades ago.

Do you think all of those people deserved to be killed?

[Искра]

Victims of anarchism are not something to be laughed at. You make me sick.:crying:
I think that you should watch what you write because you could become Anarchist in the next few seconds. Drastic changes are common at your age. You could end up being liberal in the end.

[Lyev]

I think it's inexcusable to put Stalin and Mao in a 'mass murderers' category but not every other head of state of every other nation ever.

The fact is, all governments commit atrocities. During the pre-WWII period the Western Allies were responsible for plenty of unnecessary and unjust deaths (the Bengal famine comes to mind).
Trying to place Stalin and Mao into a separate category, of leaders who are somehow 'more bloodthirsty' than the leaders of the western capitalist states is nothing more than a tactic used by the bourgeois media to discredit socialism- to claim that their hands were clean in an era when, due to global economic meltdown, social upheaval, and the rise of fascism, everybody was forced to get their hands bloody to some extent.

The difference, however, is that when Stalin used violence, he always did so with the goal of socialism and the liberation of the working class in mind. Unfortunately, in difficult situations, like the one the Soviet Union under Stalin was in, many innocents get caught in the crossfire, and I'm sure Stalin was aware of that, but revolution is a bloody mess, and it's not like miscarriages of justice never occur in the west, anyway.

Oh, and he didn't target 'common people'. As I said, unfortunately, many innocent commoners suffered because it was an era of distrust and fifth columns, but the problem of kulak saboteurs and Nazi spies was a very real one.

No one is seperating Mao and Stalin from other leaders, why would they? Anyway the point you're trying to make is frankly nonsensical. No one is saying they're less or more blood thirsty than any other capitalist leaders, past or present. Why should other atrocities come into it? Are you saying that just because atrocities have been committed by cappie governments that we should somehow downplay atrocities committed under 'socialism'? What's your point there? And don't give the OP this crap; the goal of socialism and the liberation of the working class in mind- you're kidding no one. 'Liberation of the working class' cannot be given down to the workers. I'll provide you with a quote from Marx you seem to have forgotten- 'The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself', do you understand?

[FSL]

Do you think all of those people deserved to be killed?


Most, yes.
Not specifically among *them* as I can only be sure of what some stood for but generally the purges targeted people who aimed at undermining socialism.

Edit: And to not be labeled a violence fetishist, I 'll say they were worthy of some form of punishment. I have not lived in times of such an "upheaval" as the late 30s were so I trust that this was the "less dangerous" choise.


Amazingly they were not immediately executed for their opinions. Then again, the Bolshevik party of 1917 tolerated differences of opinion and both Kamenev and Zinoviev went on to play productive roles during the revolutionary years

Of course back then the bolshevik party tolerated freedom of opinion. As it always did until the revisionists got on top.

What was not tolerated back then or later was acting against the interests of the workers. As Kamenev and Zinoviev did when, after the comittee voted in favour of the uprising, they went out, broke party line and propagated their disagreement on it happening, endangering its very success. An action that had Lenin -who judged people on their behaviour and not "credentials"- wanting to expell them immediately. Unfortunately, this didn't happen at that time.
Their less-than-friendly stance towards workers got them expelled from the party early in the 30s after all. Their treason was the reason they were executed.


Because according to the typical defence of Stalin supplied by his apologists, this would mean that the revolution of 1917 was led by those in "contact with White Guard circles and the German fascists". Do you believe this to be the case? Do you believe that the entire surviving leadership of the Bolsheviks from 1917, with the exception of Stalin of course, consequently sought to restore the capitalist regime that they had worked so hard to overthrow?

It is typical Stalinist bunk to portray these revolutionaries, many of whom had been good Bolsheviks for decades, as German spies, fascists, and White sympathisers. Few regimes were as proficient at executing revolutionaries as Stalin's USSR

The overwhelming majority of those executed was at that time supporting reactionaries. Make the case why koulaks were nice lads and shouldn't have their land taken away from them if you can, but stop mentioning how great these revolutionaries were without ever going into their positions. Now, taking into account that the USSR was a workers' state, it makes perfect sense that people who didn't agree with its existence would try to overthrow the government. At least judging by their supporters today, who would be more than happy to have seen that happening. Judges went over each case and made their decision that, I believe, was in the benefit of the working class. Everything seems quite ok.

[ComradeOm]

Do you think people cannot change and become class enemies at a later stage if they were revolutionaries once?Clearly they can. Stalin is proof enough of that. But then that is beside my point - that the Stalinist regime oversaw the effective destruction of the revolutionary Bolshevik party. We are not discussing one or two names here but a huge percentage of the party's 1917 leadership (on several levels) who were executed during the 1930s. But then perhaps its simply coincidence that almost every one of Stalin’s political rivals turned out to be “class enemies”


Of course back then the bolshevik party tolerated freedom of opinion. As it always did until the revisionists got on topWhat's depressing is that you probably honestly believe this


What was not tolerated back then or later was acting against the interests of the workers. As Kamenev and Zinoviev did when, after the comittee voted in favour of the uprising, they went out, broke party line and propagated their disagreement on it happening, endangering its very success. An action that had Lenin -who judged people on their behaviour and not "credentials"- wanting to expell them immediately. Unfortunately, this didn't happen at that timeThe Kamenev and Zinoviev case is an interesting example with which to contrast Stalin. Despite Lenin's understandable anger at their actions, there was never any question of expelling them (and certainly not executing them!), and they subsequently went on to prove their "credentials" with high-profile roles during the Civil War years. It is absolutely unthinkable that anyone could have survived such public disagreements with Stalin during or following the purges

This contrast was summed up in the wonderful anecdote (the source of which I unfortunately can't recall) in which Sverdlov, chairing the CC meeting, slapped down Lenin's calls for their expulsion from the party with a curt "That is not how we do things in the Bolshevik party Comrade Lenin". Or something to that effect. A nice story which serves to illustrate the degree of open debate tolerated and encouraged by the pre-Stalinist Bolsheviks. But then you're already on the record in disagreeing with this policy


Everything seems quite ok. Of course, each and every executed was judged "ok" by the Stalinist state. Which suggests that either the Bolsheviks who fought in 1917 defected en masse to the "White Guard and German fascists" (to quote the crime that Bukharin was accused of) or the trials were staged opportunities for Stalin to eliminate his political rivals. I know which I consider to be more plausible but I suspect you'd disagree

[gorillafuck]

Not to mention that the anarchists executed church worshippers without giving them fair trial.
Proof?

[FSL]

What's depressing is that you probably honestly believe this

The Kamenev and Zinoviev case is an interesting example with which to contrast Stalin. Despite Lenin's understandable anger at their actions, there was never any question of expelling them (and certainly not executing them!), and they subsequently went on to prove their "credentials" with high-profile roles during the Civil War years. It is absolutely unthinkable that anyone could have survived such public disagreements with Stalin during or following the purges

This contrast was summed up in the wonderful anecdote (the source of which I unfortunately can't recall) in which Sverdlov, chairing the CC meeting, slapped down Lenin's calls for their expulsion from the party with a curt "That is not how we do things in the Bolshevik party Comrade Lenin". Or something to that effect.


Of course I do, why would I lie?

In the words of Lenin "If that is tolerated, the Party will become impossible, the Party will be destroyed" http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/19.htm

Stalin, following Lenin's example, didn't tolerate acts that undermined socialism and he needs to be recognized for doing so.
That debate was "forbidden" is laughable and this can be proven with The economic problems of USSR where he answers on proposals made by members of the revisionist wing.
Maybe it should have been forbidden though. Ideas like Trotsky's or Bukharin's only serve capitalism, what's the point in having them in a communist party? There is none.



But then that is beside my point - that the Stalinist regime oversaw the effective destruction of the revolutionary Bolshevik party. We are not discussing one or two names here but a huge percentage of the party's 1917 leadership (on several levels) who were executed during the 1930s. But then perhaps its simply coincidence that almost every one of Stalin’s political rivals turned out to be “class enemies


So, the one or two names you brought up to prove that Stalin went after workers aren't so important after they were shown to be against the revolution, working actively against its success, and on the brink of expulsion?

But we must believe that all the other names which you dare not bring up -how wise of you- were in fact true communists with nothing but the wellfare of workers at heart?

[bailey_187]

I've brought you up on this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/old-communist-regimes-t112352/index.html?p=1484407) but its worth quoting the post in full. Perhaps this time you'll respond. Or anyone else who wishes to defend Stalin's bloody purges/campaigns:



EN Egorova (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
GF Fedorov (Central Committee) (Assassinated 1937)
AF Ilin-Zhenevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
LB Kamenev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)
MS Kedrov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1941)
FP Khaustov (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
NV Krylenko (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
M Latis (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
KA Mekhonoshin (Military Organisation) (Executed)
VP Miliutin (Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
VI Nevsky (Military Organisation) (Executed 1938)
SK Ordzhonikidze (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1937)
MA Saveliev (Petersburg Committee) (Executed 1938)
AG Shliapnikov (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
IT Smilga (Central Committee) (Executed 1938)
IN Stukov (Petersburg Committee) (Executed)
MP Tomsky (Petersburg Committee) (Suicide 1936)
PA Zalutsky (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) (Executed 1937)
GE Zinoviev (Central Committee) (Executed 1936)

Recognise a few names on this list? I'm sure you do. This is a very small sample of prominent Petrograd Bolsheviks who were active in the capital during 1917. Like I said, a tiny sample of Stalin's total victims. But I want to focus on these for a minute because I doubt you give a damn about the countless victims who have not had their names recorded. Each of the above furthered the revolutionary cause in 1917 (a few also were good Stalinists afterwards) and served with distinction on the various Bolshevik organisations and committees. The names above vary from party leaders* to those who worked tirelessly at grassroots level. Revolutionary heroes, one and all

Certainly they were responsible for a state that provided "free education, medicine, and housing". Their revolutionary credentials are impeccable yet they ended up murdered by a despot who cared for nothing but his own personal power. There is no excuse for these deaths and they, and the countless others of Stalin's personal political opponents, did not deserve the fate they ultimately received

Now you can talk all you want about 'crypto-Trots' or whatever you like. That's bullshit and if you can't see that then its solely because of your own narrow-mindedness. But I'm not going to let you pretend that these names tried to 'step outside the Party' or tried to destroy the USSR. They were the heroes without whom the latter would not have existed. To dismiss them as somehow 'legitimate targets' is a thundering disgrace and a damning indictment of your own ideology

*Interesting enough, of the nine-man Central Committee elected in April 1917 only one reached the 1940s. Three (Sverdlov, Lenin and Nogin) died of natural causes but the remaining five were executed on Stalin's orders



Ok, first of, i dont celebrate the purges. Many innocent people were killed.
However, so too did Stalin admit this:
"It cannot be said the the purgues were not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunatly more mistakes than might have been expected." - Stalin - Report to the 18th Congress

The purges started with Yezhovs cleansing of the party. However, thiss was centred on idlers, "scoundrals" and careerists - 77% of those kicked out the party initially were in this catagory.
A passage in the minutes concerning the purge however says, in bold "In all organisations where the purge was carried out, the check of party documents additionally uncovered many deeply evil enemies of the party"
43072 were found in the catagories of White Guards, Kulaks, Trotskyites (When Trotsky was clearly trying to gain power). Imagine that, 43000 people in the Communist party found (rightly or wrongly - blame Yezhov) to be enemies of the USSR and its leadership. Imagine the outcry and fear if thousands of "Jihadists" were (even if false) found to be working for the CIA or MI5?
(All info i posted comes from Robert Thurston's "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia")

[Kayser_Soso]

Yes, all governments commmit atrocities, thats why we reject bourgeoisie governments, including those of Stalin and Mao.

Hey don't worry, anarchists like Makhno and those in Catalonia proved that you can STILL commit atrocities, such as arbitrary executions, without a government!

[Lyev]

Hey don't worry, anarchists like Makhno and those in Catalonia proved that you can STILL commit atrocities, such as arbitrary executions, without a government!

To hell with petty scapegoats, we need to stop inanely pointing fingers. I'm very sure that we can all dig up some dirt on any past regime, be it capitalist, 'socialist', fascist or otherwise. That isn't to say we should, at all, try to justify said atrocity.

[The Red Next Door]

Those are the type of people whom the right would like to use against us.

[Kayser_Soso]

The idea that denouncing Stalin or Mao will somehow hogtie the bourgeois propagandists is ludicrous. This does not mean of course, that we should not engage in legitimate criticism; but don't think the capitalists attack these people for "mass murder".

[h9socialist]

Does this thread belong under "Theory"? As I read the entries I'm a bit bewildered in trying to find what serious bit of theory we're supposed to be discussing here.

There's a lot of different points of view expressed on this website -- but while I may not agree with Stalinism or Maoism, they do represent legitimate points of view within the broader left, and Comrades have every right to choose avatars and/or usernames that embrace certain historical figures -- and to express points of view that derive support from those historical figures. If someone's offended by that, then maybe free expression doesn't really mean free to that person.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Thread moved to Learning. Other mods can merge it or whatever since there are already a bunch of these same sort of threads. I don't know why anyone bothers with them any more. I make it a rule to avoid them, I have better things to do with my time than argue for 5 pages with hardheaded and idiotic reactionaries who have way too much time on their hands.

EDIT: Of course, no offense to Ducky. These are fundamental questions to evaluate, however there are lots of (much better) threads out there on these topics already, and even then, revleft is not really the place that you will find a reasonable answer.

[AK]

Of course, no offense to Ducky. These are fundamental questions to evaluate, however there are lots of (much better) threads out there on these topics already, and even then, revleft is not really the place that you will find a reasonable answer.

None taken.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Hey don't worry, anarchists like Makhno and those in Catalonia proved that you can STILL commit atrocities, such as arbitrary executions, without a government!

Try to remember that there was a Civil War going on in Spain at the time. I don't know what so called atrocities you are referring to but if you are referring to executing members of the clergy and known fascist bourgeoisie then I really don't see what the problem is.

In the case of Makhno I am pretty sure you are referring to the Mennoites, wealthy gentry who had something of a monopoly over the land, they were Kulaks. Enemies to the working class.

[Pogue]

Most, yes.
Not specifically among *them* as I can only be sure of what some stood for but generally the purges targeted people who aimed at undermining socialism.

Edit: And to not be labeled a violence fetishist, I 'll say they were worthy of some form of punishment. I have not lived in times of such an "upheaval" as the late 30s were so I trust that this was the "less dangerous" choise.



Of course back then the bolshevik party tolerated freedom of opinion. As it always did until the revisionists got on top.

What was not tolerated back then or later was acting against the interests of the workers. As Kamenev and Zinoviev did when, after the comittee voted in favour of the uprising, they went out, broke party line and propagated their disagreement on it happening, endangering its very success. An action that had Lenin -who judged people on their behaviour and not "credentials"- wanting to expell them immediately. Unfortunately, this didn't happen at that time.
Their less-than-friendly stance towards workers got them expelled from the party early in the 30s after all. Their treason was the reason they were executed.



The overwhelming majority of those executed was at that time supporting reactionaries. Make the case why koulaks were nice lads and shouldn't have their land taken away from them if you can, but stop mentioning how great these revolutionaries were without ever going into their positions. Now, taking into account that the USSR was a workers' state, it makes perfect sense that people who didn't agree with its existence would try to overthrow the government. At least judging by their supporters today, who would be more than happy to have seen that happening. Judges went over each case and made their decision that, I believe, was in the benefit of the working class. Everything seems quite ok.

So Bolshevik revolutionaries, who played a more important role than Stalin, deserved to be killed by Stalin?

[Kayser_Soso]

Try to remember that there was a Civil War going on in Spain at the time. I don't know what so called atrocities you are referring to but if you are referring to executing members of the clergy and known fascist bourgeoisie then I really don't see what the problem is.

Did any of those "bourgeoisie" get a trial at all? Many of the shootings that went on were just individuals settling scores. And it's rather funny seeing an anarchist using the war as an excuse, since they were clearly more interested in social experiments than fighting the war.



In the case of Makhno I am pretty sure you are referring to the Mennoites, wealthy gentry who had something of a monopoly over the land, they were Kulaks. Enemies to the working class.

I see, so it's fine when anarchists do it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Did any of those "bourgeoisie" get a trial at all?

Why didn't they get a trial? It was a war.


And it's rather funny seeing an anarchist using the war as an excuse, since they were clearly more interested in social experiments than fighting the war.

And the Stalinists were much more interested in crushing said 'social experiments' than actually fighting with the working class to win the war.


I see, so it's fine when anarchists do it.

I think it's fine when Bolsheviks do it. I don't think it's fine for Stalin's regime to execute committed revolutionaries who spoke out against Stalin's state-capitalist dictatorship.

[Kayser_Soso]

Why didn't they get a trial? It was a war.

I am not talking about people killed on the front lines. I'm talking about random summary executions.




And the Stalinists were much more interested in crushing said 'social experiments' than actually fighting with the working class to win the war.

Uh right, that's why they sent so much military aid to Spain, organized the International Brigades, and focused on the front line while the anarchists were busy taking over government buildings in Barcelona, which was a quiet sector of the front since the Nationalists were focused on taking Madrid.




I think it's fine when Bolsheviks do it. I don't think it's fine for Stalin's regime to execute committed revolutionaries who spoke out against Stalin's state-capitalist dictatorship.

It wasn't "state capitalist".

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I am not talking about people killed on the front lines. I'm talking about random summary executions.

Yes, this does not mean they were any less part of the context of a civil war. What is your point? That the Anarchists should not have killed fascists and clergymen without trial in a Civil war?


Uh right, that's why they sent so much military aid to Spain, organized the International Brigades, and focused on the front line while the anarchists were busy taking over government buildings in Barcelona, which was a quiet sector of the front since the Nationalists were focused on taking Madrid.

Yes so why did the Stalinists feel the need to crush workers control of the building?



On May 3rd 1937, three lorry loads of police led by the Stalinist Salas, Commissar of Public Order, attempted to take over the telephone exchange in Barcelona which had been controlled by a joint CNT-UGT committee since the outbreak of the war.

The police captured the first floor because of the surprise nature of their attack but got no further. Firing started. Word spread and within hours the local defence committees of the CNT-FAI went into action arming themselves and building barricades. Soon the workers were in control of most of the city.

In other areas of Catalonia action was also taken. Civil Guards were disarmed and offices of the PSUC were seized as a "preventive measure". There was no firing on the first night and by the second day the workers were spreading the barricades further into the suburbs.

The negotiations which went on, led to nothing as regards control of the telephone phone exchange. The workers were ordered off the barricades and unfortunately they went. On Thursday (May 6th) the building was vacated and the PSUC took it over. On the same day the railway station was taken over by the PSUC. The CNT had also controlled that. This happened throughout Catalonia.

On Friday 5,000 Assault Guards arrived from Valencia. The repression that followed was severe. The May Days left 500 dead and 1,100 wounded. Hundreds more were killed during the "mopping up" of the next few weeks. The counter-revolution broke out in earnest after May with decree after decree undermining the revolutionary committees. This was now possible as the backbone of the revolution, the Catalan workers, had been crushed.

In the Spanish Civil War the Stalinist took a class collaborationist approach instead of siding with the working class. Tell me how it was progressive in any way to label committed revolutionary workers as fascist, to crush collectives and to fight with bourgeois forces as opposed to fighting with the working class? The workers were fighting to destroy fascism, the Stalinists wanted to restore bourgeois democracy.

[Pogue]

Did any of those "bourgeoisie" get a trial at all? Many of the shootings that went on were just individuals settling scores. And it's rather funny seeing an anarchist using the war as an excuse, since they were clearly more interested in social experiments than fighting the war.



I see, so it's fine when anarchists do it.

No one said we oppose fighting the enemies of the working class, but we're talking about Stalinists killing innocent people, communists, etc.

[Kayser_Soso]

Yes, this does not mean they were any less part of the context of a civil war. What is your point? That the Anarchists should not have killed fascists and clergymen without trial in a Civil war?

The anarchists killed people who were totally innocent in many cases, or at least not proven guilty. Funny how by your standards, only Communists kill innocent civilians, but anyone shot by an anarchist must have had it coming.




Yes so why did the Stalinists feel the need to crush workers control of the building?

Why were the anarchists more concerned about controling a building than winning the war? Priorities.




In the Spanish Civil War the Stalinist took a class collaborationist approach instead of siding with the working class.

Bullshit, the anarchists also sided with the state when it suited them.



Tell me how it was progressive in any way to label committed revolutionary workers as fascist, to crush collectives and to fight with bourgeois forces as opposed to fighting with the working class?

Maybe nobody told you, but "the working class" was not uniformly on the anarchist side. One reason why anarchists were labeled as helping the fascist was because they did so indirectly with their unreliability. Not to mention that virtually every time they were faced by the Army of Africa, they were easily defeated. That's why the whole "winning the war" thing was a bit more important than social experiments.



The workers were fighting to destroy fascism, the Stalinists wanted to restore bourgeois democracy.

Not quite, the anarchist workers in many cases were busy taking advantage of the Nationalists' focus on Madrid to put their social experiments into action. A lot of good that did- peasant collectives did nothing to stop the march of the Army of Africa through Andalucia, for example. The "Stalinists" correctly recognized that the priority was to win the war, and not create internal divisions in the face of an otherwise militarily-superior army.

Anarchists seem to think it was just a simple matter of "ARMS TO THE WORKERS!!" Perhaps if the government had followed that demand, the Civil War would have ended in Franco's victory before Soviet tanks and planes could even arrive.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The anarchists killed people who were totally innocent in many cases, or at least not proven guilty. Funny how by your standards, only Communists kill innocent civilians, but anyone shot by an anarchist must have had it coming.

Nope but as I already said, it was a civil war and such measures are understandable in that context.



Why were the anarchists more concerned about controling a building than winning the war? Priorities.

That is simply untrue. The Anarchists control of industry was inseparable to the war. In fact it was the Stalinists who pulled soldiers from the frontline in order to crush collectives.



Bullshit, the anarchists also sided with the state when it suited them.

Yes the CNT entered government.



Maybe nobody told you, but "the working class" was not uniformly on the anarchist side. One reason why anarchists were labeled as helping the fascist was because they did so indirectly with their unreliability. Not to mention that virtually every time they were faced by the Army of Africa, they were easily defeated. That's why the whole "winning the war" thing was a bit more important than social experiments.

What does unreliability actually mean? The Anarchists joined the popular front after the militias had been starved of arms. In fact from the start the Anarchists wanted a united front as long as the working class controlled the army. Seen as this was not the case from the Communist Party forces and the liberal republicans that they collaborated with they refused.


Not quite, the anarchist workers in many cases were busy taking advantage of the Nationalists' focus on Madrid to put their social experiments into action. A lot of good that did- peasant collectives did nothing to stop the march of the Army of Africa through Andalucia, for example. The "Stalinists" correctly recognized that the priority was to win the war, and not create internal divisions in the face of an otherwise militarily-superior army.

Anarchists seem to think it was just a simple matter of "ARMS TO THE WORKERS!!" Perhaps if the government had followed that demand, the Civil War would have ended in Franco's victory before Soviet tanks and planes could even arrive.

Your analysis does not recognise any of the crimes against the working class as counter-productive to the fight against fascism. Why did they starve militias who were fighting fascists of arms? Why did they kill workers on may day? Why did they put Anarchists and Trotskyists in prison who should have been fighting on the front?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think it's inexcusable to put Stalin and Mao in a 'mass murderers' category but not every other head of state of every other nation ever.
Well, I'm not sure that the last prime minister of Luxemburg committed that many mass murders, but I take your point. The only difference is, you don't get people on here defending capitalist mass murderers, unless they're state capitalist ones. If there were people on here supporting every other head of state of every nation ever, I'd oppose them just as much.

There's a lot of different points of view expressed on this website -- but while I may not agree with Stalinism or Maoism, they do represent legitimate points of view within the broader left, and Comrades have every right to choose avatars and/or usernames that embrace certain historical figures -- and to express points of view that derive support from those historical figures. If someone's offended by that, then maybe free expression doesn't really mean free to that person.
This reads like pure liberalism to me. Free expression as an abstract term is meaningless, under capitalism it only becomes possible when someone (e.g. Malte or the revleft admins) devotes their resources to creating a platform that people can use for expressing themselves. I don't think it's an infringement on anyone's freedom if the revleft admins decide they don't want to put their energies into maintaining a platform for, say, admirers of Thatcher or McCain to express themselves; and I wouldn't have a problem with them making the same decision about supporters of state-capitalist butchers like Stalin or Mao.

[Kayser_Soso]

Nope but as I already said, it was a civil war and such measures are understandable in that context.

Funny, anarchists rarely seem to give Stalin such leeway.




That is simply untrue. The Anarchists control of industry was inseparable to the war. In fact it was the Stalinists who pulled soldiers from the frontline in order to crush collectives.

First of all, I don't see what inherit value there was in anarchists controling industry. It certainly didn't save them in Andalucia. Second, I am referring to the anarchists seizure of the telephone exchange in Barcelona, an important communications hub.







What does unreliability actually mean? The Anarchists joined the popular front after the militias had been starved of arms.

Militias didn't do so well in the face of a highly disciplined, experienced army, particularly the Spanish Foreign Legion.




In fact from the start the Anarchists wanted a united front as long as the working class controlled the army. Seen as this was not the case from the Communist Party forces and the liberal republicans that they collaborated with they refused.

And their demands sabotaged the whole deal, indirectly aiding the nationalists.





Your analysis does not recognise any of the crimes against the working class as counter-productive to the fight against fascism. Why did they starve militias who were fighting fascists of arms? Why did they kill workers on may day? Why did they put Anarchists and Trotskyists in prison who should have been fighting on the front?

There is too much wrong historically with this claim I don't know where to begin. First, the government needed an army. Giving the workers arms doesn't automatically lead to victory, especially in the face of an enemy like the Spanish nationalists. Think about this- when the nationalists faced militias, they rolled over them like a steamroller. Where did they fail and flounder? When faced with Soviet armor(which totally outclassed their own) and air power(the I-16 dominated the skies until the BF-109 arrived).

Next, why did they kill "workers" on May day? Hang on a sec, not all the "workers" were anarchists, and it was the anarchists who decided to seize a crucial government building and set up a machine gun in the building? Then you speak about taking troops off the front but it was the anarchists in Catalonia who refused to send any help to Madrid after they defeated the internal nationalist threat.

[gorillafuck]

I think it's inexcusable to put Stalin and Mao in a 'mass murderers' category but not every other head of state of every other nation ever.
I don't mean to take away from the point being presented, but that's a stretch.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The krux of the argument is as follows:

Supporters of Stalin view all those who opposed his policies as 'traitors', 'class enemies' and the like and believe that Stalin's view of Socialism was the correct one, for the USSR, at that time.

Those Socialists (I don't think there is much point in entertaining non-socialist opinion here) who do not support Stalin have arrived at a multiplicity of conclusions, including the view that Trotsky should have been Socialism's enacter in the USSR as opposed to Stalin, and those who simply believe that Stalin was wrong to categorise his enemies as 'class enemies', 'fascists' etc.

Personally, I am in the latter camp. I don't believe that there is an excuse for killing so many people, let alone such an inordinate amount of people whose previous actions have shown them to be good Communists. Someone in the thread has, rightly, pointed out that a person's motives can change over time; despite the accuracy of such a statement, it is virtually impossible to believe that the overwhelming majority of Communists who were in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik Party/CPSU were in fact 'traitors' or 'saboteurs'. Sorry, I believe that, even though the evidence is circumstantial, it is in fact as conclusive as we will get on this subject.

[Olerud]

Learn to search bar...

[Искра]

Militias didn't do so well in the face of a highly disciplined, experienced army, particularly the Spanish Foreign Legion.
Sources about "militias didn't do so well".
If you give me Pulkhov that's not good source.

When you are saying such nonsenses give us some sources.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I must also make the point regarding the defence of Stalin that 'all other heads of state are murderers too'.

Thing is, you expect those Bourgeois Presidents to defend Capitalism's interests. Seeing as certain levels of poverty, war and crime serve the Capitalist cause, it is par for the course for Presidents of Capitalist countries to have blood on their hands. We judge Stalin, and all Socialists really, by higher standards. Stalin may not, by Capitalist standards, have acted quite so terribly. However, his actions certainly did not meet the requirements of a leader of Socialism, in terms of the murder of his many enemies in the name of 'class warfare' and the like.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Kayser Soso, your analysis of history is sickening. You continue to side with bourgeois governments over workers controlling the means of production, I don't care if they were Anarchists or otherwise. I side with the workers. The Stalinists sided with the republican liberal's yet you seem to think there was nothing wrong with this. There was a war going on, it was a class war, and the stalinists stood firmly and brutally against revolution in favour of bourgeois democracy. How was this acceptable?

You seem to think that the Anarchists were not concerned about fighting fascism and more concerned with their "social experiment" as you call it, which in itself harks back to the Stalinists of 1936's position on the workers revolution, yet CNT's leadership ordered workers to stay at the Aragon front instead of defending the collectives. If the Stalinists had come out and supported the class they were supposedly representing then Fascism would have had every chance of being defeated.

You seem to think it is a case of Anarchists failing to collaborate with the Stalinists, but what merit did that have for the working class of Spain? Maybe you'll claim you don't care about the working class' interest but I certainly do. Revolution represented their interests, bourgeois democracy did not and Fascism did not. It was not a social experiment it was the fight against fascism.

[bailey_187]

The krux of the argument is as follows:

Supporters of Stalin view all those who opposed his policies as 'traitors', 'class enemies' and the like and believe that Stalin's view of Socialism was the correct one, for the USSR, at that time.

Those Socialists (I don't think there is much point in entertaining non-socialist opinion here) who do not support Stalin have arrived at a multiplicity of conclusions, including the view that Trotsky should have been Socialism's enacter in the USSR as opposed to Stalin, and those who simply believe that Stalin was wrong to categorise his enemies as 'class enemies', 'fascists' etc.

Personally, I am in the latter camp. I don't believe that there is an excuse for killing so many people, let alone such an inordinate amount of people whose previous actions have shown them to be good Communists. Someone in the thread has, rightly, pointed out that a person's motives can change over time; despite the accuracy of such a statement, it is virtually impossible to believe that the overwhelming majority of Communists who were in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik Party/CPSU were in fact 'traitors' or 'saboteurs'. Sorry, I believe that, even though the evidence is circumstantial, it is in fact as conclusive as we will get on this subject.

What was even the point in posting this rubbish? You havnet said anything, just made two stupid catagories and made false statements

" Trotsky should have been Socialism's enacter in the USSR"
Why? Because you said so? So you can uphold the October Revolution but can avoid having to defend the less pleasent aspects of it?
Lenin chose Stalin to be General Secretary, the Party voted in favour of it.

[Kayser_Soso]

Sources about "militias didn't do so well".
If you give me Pulkhov that's not good source.

When you are saying such nonsenses give us some sources.

Get any book that deals with the Spanish Civil War, and compare the performance of the International Brigades and Republican army to the anarchist militias in Andalucia and elsewhere.

[bailey_187]

We judge Stalin, and all Socialists really, by higher standards.

What do you mean by higher standards?

“Any historical figure must be evaluated from the interests of one class or another. Take J. Edgar Hoover, for example. Anti-communists may disagree about his performance, but they start from the assumption that the better he did his job of perserving ‘law and order’ as defined by our present rulers, the better he was. We Communists, on the other hand, certainly would not think Hoover ‘better’ if he had been more efficient in running the secret police and protecting capitalism. And so the opposite with Stalin, whose job was not to preserve capitalism but to destroy it, not to suppress communism but to advance it. The better he did his job, the worse he is likely to seem to all those who profit from this economic system and the more he will be appreciated by the victims of that system.” - Bruce Franklin



However, his actions certainly did not meet the requirements of a leader of Socialism, in terms of the murder of his many enemies in the name of 'class warfare' and the like.

What are the requirements of a leader of Socialism? To be really niiiice?

The requirements of a Socialist leader are to defend Socialism and the revolution.


No offense but you sound like a Bennite, not just in this post but others too

[Kayser_Soso]

Kayser Soso, your analysis of history is sickening.

It's also factual.



You continue to side with bourgeois governments over workers controlling the means of production, I don't care if they were Anarchists or otherwise.

Yeah hi there, did you hear about that military uprising and the non-intervention agreement? Don't you think their might have been some other priorities at the time.



I side with the workers. The Stalinists sided with the republican liberal's yet you seem to think there was nothing wrong with this. There was a war going on, it was a class war, and the stalinists stood firmly and brutally against revolution in favour of bourgeois democracy. How was this acceptable?

First of all plenty of anarchists at one time or another supported that bourgeoisie democracy. Since the time of the revolution, anti-Communists worldwide had charged the USSR with trying to foment world revolution. In fact today there are still those who insist that Spanish Communists simply got their orders direct from Moscow. The priority at the time was to win the war. It is pretty obvious who would have come out on top had the Republicans won thanks primarily to Soviet aid.



You seem to think that the Anarchists were not concerned about fighting fascism and more concerned with their "social experiment" as you call it, which in itself harks back to the Stalinists of 1936's position on the workers revolution, yet CNT's leadership ordered workers to stay at the Aragon front instead of defending the collectives.

And on the other hand after defeating the uprising in Catalonia, the anarchists refused to send anyone to help relieve Madrid, which was in far greater danger. Anarchists had the luxury of playing with social experiments because the Nationalists were focused on Madrid and other sectors of the front.



If the Stalinists had come out and supported the class they were supposedly representing then Fascism would have had every chance of being defeated.

Again, ridiculous assumption that workers are anarchists.



You seem to think it is a case of Anarchists failing to collaborate with the Stalinists, but what merit did that have for the working class of Spain?

What merit was there in seizing one's ally's telephone exchange for no reason?



Maybe you'll claim you don't care about the working class' interest but I certainly do. Revolution represented their interests, bourgeois democracy did not and Fascism did not. It was not a social experiment it was the fight against fascism.

Anarchism clearly did not because their dogmatic idealistic creed prevented them from raising the the army necessary to defeat the nationalists. By 1936, handing out Mausers to ordinary workers was not going to defeat a professional army like the one at the disposal of the nationalists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And on the other hand after defeating the uprising in Catalonia, the anarchists refused to send anyone to help relieve Madrid, which was in far greater danger. Anarchists had the luxury of playing with social experiments because the Nationalists were focused on Madrid and other sectors of the front.

The Anarchists did send men to Madrid though. 4000 from the Aragon Front. Durruti was killed fighting in Madrid. This claim is completely baseless.


Again, ridiculous assumption that workers are anarchists.

When did I assume that? I said workers in control of the means of production.


What merit was there in seizing one's ally's telephone exchange for no reason?

What ally?


Anarchism clearly did not because their dogmatic idealistic creed prevented them from raising the the army necessary to defeat the nationalists. By 1936, handing out Mausers to ordinary workers was not going to defeat a professional army like the one at the disposal of the nationalists.

No we were willing to sacrifice our 'dogmatic idealistic creed' to collaborate with other forces and militiarise the militias. We collaborated with other revolutionary forces such as the UGT.

[4 Leaf Clover]

This is not intended to flame anyone on RevLeft.
Why is it that so many of you Revlefters think of Communist leaders such as Stalin and Pol Pot your heroes and idloise them when they were such brutal killers? I understand they had their good points but why would you idolise them when they ordered massacres and purges against common people, who I thought we were supposed to be fighting for?
very expected question for someone who comes from Australia. Dont get me wrong , its what people ussualy think from "west". Those informations are placed from Western media and yellow pages , and are very unreliable , non-proved , dissinterptreted and similar... it is true that Stallin and similar leaders executed people , but calling some of them innocent is arguable... They might have been innocent but they are political enemies , and their innocence is not relevant then... i often find on web propaganda which states 3 leaders that killed most people , stalin mao and last one hitler... It has only one goal , to present nazism as lesser evil , and stalin as a bigger criminal then hitler... You should approach Stallin's purges issue from a more scientifical point , and find other sources then New York times and wikipedia... Many people also died because of Stallin's failed economical plans too... think about those things , and not "omfg baby-eating stallin killed [insert desired number] million people

[bcbm]

What merit was there in seizing one's ally's telephone exchange for no reason?

the telephone exchange had been under worker's control since the beginning of the war. the only ones who attempted to "seize" anything were the police.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What do you mean by higher standards?

“Any historical figure must be evaluated from the interests of one class or another. Take J. Edgar Hoover, for example. Anti-communists may disagree about his performance, but they start from the assumption that the better he did his job of perserving ‘law and order’ as defined by our present rulers, the better he was. We Communists, on the other hand, certainly would not think Hoover ‘better’ if he had been more efficient in running the secret police and protecting capitalism. And so the opposite with Stalin, whose job was not to preserve capitalism but to destroy it, not to suppress communism but to advance it. The better he did his job, the worse he is likely to seem to all those who profit from this economic system and the more he will be appreciated by the victims of that system.” - Bruce Franklin



What are the requirements of a leader of Socialism? To be really niiiice?

The requirements of a Socialist leader are to defend Socialism and the revolution.


No offense but you sound like a Bennite, not just in this post but others too

The requirements of a leader of socialism are indeed to defend socialism and the revolution. Like I have said, we all have different views of socialism. This interaction shows this - you harangue me for supposedly being a 'bennite', whereas I attach no such label to myself, I am a socialist and that is all - we all disagree what defines an action as socialist, or a state of events as deserving to be called 'socialism'. Where Stalin went wrong, as I have said many times, is that he perceived all opposition to his policies to be against socialism as a whole. This is why such an overwhelming majority of Communists were executed, because they opposed Stalin, not because they were fascist spies or anything ludicrous like that.

Of course, I am sure that some, in their defiance of Stalin's methods, did involve themselves in some murky activities. However, this is not equivalent to being traitors or class enemies, and did not deserve the punishment of death.

[Kayser_Soso]

the telephone exchange had been under worker's control since the beginning of the war. the only ones who attempted to "seize" anything were the police.


That's funny because it didn't always have those machine guns in it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That's funny because it didn't always have those machine guns in it.

Tell us who controlled it previously. The CNT and UGT workers had controlled it from the start of the Civil War.

[bcbm]

That's funny because it didn't always have those machine guns in it.

basically every (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPmayriots.htm) source (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/spa2-j27.shtml) agrees (http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue21/pages21.htm) that (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/04/2701.html) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia#Chapter_nine) cnt (http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution) worker (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/spain/spain04.htm) committee (http://books.google.com/books?id=asA0ywTMoGwC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=civil+war+barcelona+telephone+exchange&source=bl&ots=BLnSUr5h9C&sig=EB9d9vzsjzIF4AfWl2y80n3_EjU&hl=en&ei=sscJS4y2KczSnAeZsrC7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=civil%20war%20barcelona%20telephone%20exchange&f=false) controlled (http://www.alba-valb.org/resources/lessons/introduction-to-the-spanish-civil-war/the-war-from-the-defense-of-madrid-to-march-1939) and (http://clogic.eserver.org/2003/furr.html) operated the barcelona telephone exchange from the beginning of the war.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think what Soso is trying to say is that the workers were illegitimately controlling the telephone exchange, hence the couple of references to a machine gun in it.

Soso would much prefer it in the hands of a bourgeois government as is the trend of theirs throughout all of this thread to side with them over workers in control of industry. Some kind of 'social experiment' to them.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Because they choose to ignore the murders and to not analyze the ideas of these fascists. These fake totalitarian leaders and their subsequent worshipers have been the main lynch pin preventing any type of revolution from happening. The people who worship these people forgot the ideas of communism and instead have opened their arms to totalitarian ideas and have believed empty cries about reactionaries and such.

[Kayser_Soso]

basically every (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPmayriots.htm) source (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/spa2-j27.shtml) agrees (http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue21/pages21.htm) that (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/04/2701.html) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia#Chapter_nine) cnt (http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution) worker (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/spain/spain04.htm) committee (http://books.google.com/books?id=asA0ywTMoGwC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=civil+war+barcelona+telephone+exchange&source=bl&ots=BLnSUr5h9C&sig=EB9d9vzsjzIF4AfWl2y80n3_EjU&hl=en&ei=sscJS4y2KczSnAeZsrC7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=civil%20war%20barcelona%20telephone%20exchange&f=false) controlled (http://www.alba-valb.org/resources/lessons/introduction-to-the-spanish-civil-war/the-war-from-the-defense-of-madrid-to-march-1939) and (http://clogic.eserver.org/2003/furr.html) operated the barcelona telephone exchange from the beginning of the war.


So then why was it necessary to fortify it with machine guns all the sudden?

[Kayser_Soso]

I think what Soso is trying to say is that the workers were illegitimately controlling the telephone exchange, hence the couple of references to a machine gun in it.

Soso would much prefer it in the hands of a bourgeois government as is the trend of theirs throughout all of this thread to side with them over workers in control of industry. Some kind of 'social experiment' to them.


I don't know if you heard, but there was this war going on. Winning the war was a little more important since worker control of industry was not what kept the Spanish Republic afloat. Tanks, volunteers, and airplanes were.

[Kayser_Soso]

Because they choose to ignore the murders and to not analyze the ideas of these fascists. These fake totalitarian leaders and their subsequent worshipers have been the main lynch pin preventing any type of revolution from happening. The people who worship these people forgot the ideas of communism and instead have opened their arms to totalitarian ideas and have believed empty cries about reactionaries and such.

Calm down, Mr. Conquest.

[ComradeMan]

What about the "Holodomor"- were they not ordinary working class people?

I agree with the point that all governments have their hands dirty, that is the problem with governments!

There is no justification for ideolizing Pol Pot whatsoever and very little for Stalin. Let's not forget that the Soviets were pumping oil and gas into Nazi Germany until Hitler suddenly changed his mind.

[Kayser_Soso]

What about the "Holodomor"- were they not ordinary working class people?[/QUTOE]

There was no "Holodomor". This is a term used by Ukrainian nationalists to denote a planned, engineered famine against Ukrainians. No evidence exists that the USSR was trying to wipe out Ukrainians, or anyone else for that matter- with hunger. In fact much evidence exists that the Soviet Union sent tons of aid to famine affected areas. Did they handle the situation in the best possible way? Probably not, as communications were terribly poor and thus the government reacted slowly and inefficiently to the crisis. The measures they did take however, saved tens of millions of lives according to Dr. Mark Tauger.

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;1605871]
I agree with the point that all governments have their hands dirty, that is the problem with governments!

It's really a question of whose blood is on one's hands.



There is no justification for ideolizing Pol Pot whatsoever

Who the hell here seriously idolizes Pol Pot? The Khmer Rouge abandoned Communism as an ideology by the time they took power. Ironically the Khmer Rouge flag is almost identical to the anarcho-syndicalist flag. I guess the only difference being that the Khmer Rouge were at least more "successful" in the sense that they managed to last longer.




and very little for Stalin. Let's not forget that the Soviets were pumping oil and gas into Nazi Germany until Hitler suddenly changed his mind.

Better idea- let's not forget who was appeasing Hitler and signing treaties with him LONG before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact ever came up. And let's also not forget WHY the USSR signed that pact, as a last resort in the face of Britain, France, Poland, and Romania's refusal to do anything about Hitler. Initially, since the British and French negotiators were in Moscow at the time, it was hoped that if the USSR let it be known that it was considering such a non-aggression pact, Britain and France would come to their senses. What basically happened is that since Hitler took power, the latter two were hoping that they could push him towards the USSR. Stalin merely reversed the tables on them.

[bailey_187]

Because they choose to ignore the murders and to not analyze the ideas of these fascists..

You clearly have not analyised the ideas of Stalin if you think they are fascist. On the contrary, i think its you who refuses to analyse Stalin's "ideas". How much Stalin have you read?
Considering the "Stalinists" seem to know more about the famines, purges etc than most(most not all) of you anarchists, the claim that "Stalinists" ignore the "murders" is false.


These fake totalitarian leaders and their subsequent worshipers have been the main lynch pin preventing any type of revolution from happening..

There's a revolution happening in Nepal. The revolutionary forces in India and the Philippines are gaining ground. What you meant to say is it has prevented any Revolutions following your ideology from happening. Is thar really the case though? Or are you just trying to blame someone else for the failing of your ideology.


The people who worship these people forgot the ideas of communism and instead have opened their arms to totalitarian ideas and have believed empty cries about reactionaries and such.

Try and find Totalitarian being used to describe anything prior to 1917. You wont. The word was invented to describe and demonise Communism.

[bcbm]

So then why was it necessary to fortify it with machine guns all the sudden?

do you have a source indicating when the machine gun was placed? most of the worker or organization controlled buildings in republican spain had, at the least, small arms for defense.

if i had to guess, maybe they expected there was going to be an attempt to end worker control of the building?

[cb9's_unity]

Interesting how going against the 'party line' equates to becoming an enemy of the working class. One can disagree with me, and if they still support working class control and obtaining socialism, then I can recognize them as still being allies of the working class.

Stalinist's should understand why we hate Stalin and Stalinist's. In Stalin's Russia I would have been killed for holding a more orthodox view of marxism. In Stalin's Russia Anarchists, Left Communists and Trotskyist's would not be allowed to live. I generally don't support governments that would kill me for my politics.

Nearly every other socialist group would tolerate, at the very least, socialist dissidence in a revolution. We would not kill Stalinist's, or Marxist-Leninist's or anyone else who supported the control of the working class.

Basically if Stalin wanted to be respected he should have never killed so many communists.

[bailey_187]

Basically if Stalin wanted to be respected he should have never killed so many communists.

Many of these "Communists" should not have tried to or advocated overthrowing Soviet Power

Now, as i have already said, not all those killed were guilty. But there were many who were guilty and who did advocate overthrowing the Soviet system or carry out deeds to damage the Party. For example the "Communist" who killed Kirov (yes, Kirov was murdered by anti-Soviet forces, not Stalin)

[Kayser_Soso]

Stalinist's should understand why we hate Stalin and Stalinist's. In Stalin's Russia I would have been killed for holding a more orthodox view of marxism. In Stalin's Russia Anarchists, Left Communists and Trotskyist's would not be allowed to live. I generally don't support governments that would kill me for my politics.

First of all let's face it, the real reason why leftists such as yourself hate Stalin is because the bourgeoisie beats you over the head any time you bring up socialism, and rather than fight the propaganda and try to put it in context, you think that by joining the enemy in trying to beat Stalin's corpse, they will somehow ease up on you. Take it from me, you can shout to the heavens how much you hate Stalin, but the capitalist apologist will always insist that socialism will lead to "Stalinism". In fact they can quote Trotsky or Lenin to "prove" the brutality and "totalitarianism" of socialism, and they can now even show that much of what is seen as "Stalinism" does in fact have roots in German Marxism(which is confirmed by objective sources).

Also, you must face the fact that there MANY people, if not millions, who "didn't agree with the party line", and were in fact not only spared, but even promoted, and eventually they took over the entire government and country.



Basically if Stalin wanted to be respected he should have never killed so many communists.

Stalin wasn't really concerned with respect.

[ComradeMan]

Whether the Holodomor was deliberate or due to ineptness it doesn't change the fact that between 2.6 and perhaps 10 million people starved to death because of Stalin's Soviet policies, I repeat deliberate or not, doesn't make any kind of justification. That's like saying a drink driver who knocked you over and killed you by accident is somehow justified in that he or she did not do it on purpose- little consolation for you lying by the side of the road. Any kind of mitigation is de facto an admonition of some level of guilt for which responsibility has to be taken. I have heard similar apologetics when it comes to the Irish potato famine.

The Pol Pot reference was to an earlier comment on another issue. I am glad we agree that idealising Pol Pot is a no no.

You are right that Britain and France were also irresponsibile, or perhaps they were conscious of their incapacity in their appeasement of Hiter- but let's not forget a generation of young men wiped out at the Somme, Verdun etc. The fact that the USSR was pumping oil into Nazi Germany and that the Soviets sat back and effectively let Germany carve up Poland is not in the least a little troubling? Two wrongs don't make a right and pointing the finger at what others do is no excuse. What the hell was Poland going to do in the face of Germany anyway?

I'm sorry, but even El Che, the hardened Marxist eventually saw the light and at least privately distanced himself from Stalinism.

Joe Steel doesn't get many votes here I am afraid. As another has pointed out, when you start having people shot for the political beliefs or sent to gulags then you may have problems.

[bailey_187]

I'm sorry, but even El Che, the hardened Marxist eventually saw the light and at least privately distanced himself from Stalinism. .

Correct me if I am wrong, but Che denouiced the Anti-Stalin USSR and praised Mao and Kim Il Sung who still upheld Stalin?


Your points about Holodomor have been addressed many times in the History sub-forum

[Kayser_Soso]

Whether the Holodomor was deliberate or due to ineptness it doesn't change the fact that between 2.6 and perhaps 10 million people starved to death because of Stalin's Soviet policies, I repeat deliberate or not, doesn't make any kind of justification.

Actually the records show 2.2 million excess deaths in the entire USSR during that period; note "excess deaths" meaning that they were not necessarily due to famine. To say that they were due to Stalin's policies is equally retarded because the Ukraine and the Russian Empire both had a history of famines, sometimes consecutive famines. Like those, that in the USSR of 31-32 was also due to a poor harvest. The Bolsheviks were making serious attempts to solve this problem, and to some degree after that they did indeed solve it until Cue-ball decided to start selling of the machine tractor stations to the collectives, and dividing the party down industrial/agricultural lines.



That's like saying a drink driver who knocked you over and killed you by accident is somehow justified in that he or she did not do it on purpose- little consolation for you lying by the side of the road.

A drink driver isn't driving drunk in the attempt to solve some historical problem you might have.



Any kind of mitigation is de facto an admonition of some level of guilt for which responsibility has to be taken. I have heard similar apologetics when it comes to the Irish potato famine.

Well it's funny you mention that because it seems in mainstream historical circles, there is still debate when it comes to whether or not the Irish potato famine constituted genocide. But of course the world ruling class immediately accepts the "Holodomor" as genocide when asked to do so by their puppet Yuschenko, who seems more conerned about that than the 500,000+ women and girls who have been trafficked into sex slavery from his country.

That's interesting how readily you accept radical anti-Communist and nationalist claims when they serve your bizarre, irrational hatred toward Stalin.



The Pol Pot reference was to an earlier comment on another issue. I am glad we agree that idealising Pol Pot is a no no.

Who the hell would support Pol Pot anyway? Actually the USA did after Vietnam invaded. Sorry.



You are right that Britain and France were also irresponsibile, or perhaps they were conscious of their incapacity in their appeasement of Hiter- but let's not forget a generation of young men wiped out at the Somme, Verdun etc.

I see, excuses for Britain and France, but condemnation for the Soviet Union, a nation at a huge disadvantage and backed against the wall with no choice(at least without our benefit of hindsight). Let's not forget that the same ruling class who were hoping to turn Hitler loose against the USSR were those who sent those men to die in the Somme, Suvla, and Verdun. Let us also not forget that these people had no problem with war; since they were considering sending an expeditionary force to attack the Red Army in Finland at the same time they were dropping leaflets on the Germans asking them to kindly cease their military activities.




The fact that the USSR was pumping oil into Nazi Germany and that the Soviets sat back and effectively let Germany carve up Poland is not in the least a little troubling? Two wrongs don't make a right and pointing the finger at what others do is no excuse. What the hell was Poland going to do in the face of Germany anyway?

The Soviet Union agreed to those terms in order to get concessions that, from their view, would improve their position in a future war. You can say what you want about their annexations, but take a look at the pre-1939 borders of the Soviet Union, note where the major cities are, and you can see the problem they were facing. Poland was far from innocent as well.

Poland had non-aggression pacts with Germany and the USSR. It is never called an "ally" of either, despite the fact that it traded with the former. Poland participated in the carving up of Czechoslovakia in 1938, seizing part of Slovakia. Nazi Germany's real first ally, Slovakia, promptly retook the land after 1 September. Poland was a dictatorship which operated concentration camps for dissidents, and was behind a rather racist propaganda campaign known as the "Promethean program", aimed at creating unrest in Soviet Ukraine and Belarus. Speaking of which, the Soviet Union did not cross the Polish borders, which were established after the end of Poland's aggressive invasion in 1919, until September 16-17, at least a day after the Germans declared the state of Poland "non-existent" and the government had fled. Recently Grover Furr has suggested that the Germans did this in hopes of getting out of their agreements on Poland, so they could then take Western Belarus and Galicia, the non-Polish colonial possessions of Poland. Now there is some evidence to back this up as there are accounts of firefights between Red Army and German recon units, and a particularly telling story(IIRC from Guderian) about how some German troops attempted to utilize a railway to transport troops deeper into Galician or Belorussian territory, but the Red Army had parked tanks on the tracks. When asked to move the tanks the Red soldiers claimed they were "out of fuel". Indeed.

The myth of poor victim Poland was very useful to the British, as they still like to claim that they entered the war for selfless reasons; the defense of Poland. Indeed, on 3 September they mustered their courage and...kindly asked the Germans to stop.





I'm sorry, but even El Che, the hardened Marxist eventually saw the light and at least privately distanced himself from Stalinism.

As far as I know Che never regretted his belief in Stalin, and either way who cares. The man contributed to one successful revolution, creating a society that anarchists would ***** about anyway, and then he took a huge risk and paid for it with his life.

You complain about people allegedly glorifying Stalin and then think that you can turn us by invoking the man on the T-shirts?



Joe Steel doesn't get many votes here I am afraid. As another has pointed out, when you start having people shot for the political beliefs or sent to gulags then you may have problems.

If Stalin isn't getting many votes in your area, it's probably because he is dead and for this and a number of other reasons, is most likely ineligible to hold public office in your locality. Not to mention the fact that socialism cannot be achieved via the ballot box and to be honest I'm surprised an anarchist would take such a liberal position as this. Then again, no I'm not, because I forgot that anarchists are supposed to be immune from all criticism.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was the presence of "problems" which made GULags and executions necessary, and not the other way around? They were certainly necessary to punish those traitors who used their positions in the police apparatus to frame innocent people. Let me tell you as someone who lives in Putin's Russia, you would need to send a LOT of people to the GULag, if not the wall, to fix the problems here.

[cb9's_unity]

First of all let's face it, the real reason why leftists such as yourself hate Stalin is because the bourgeoisie beats you over the head any time you bring up socialism, and rather than fight the propaganda and try to put it in context, you think that by joining the enemy in trying to beat Stalin's corpse, they will somehow ease up on you. Take it from me, you can shout to the heavens how much you hate Stalin, but the capitalist apologist will always insist that socialism will lead to "Stalinism". In fact they can quote Trotsky or Lenin to "prove" the brutality and "totalitarianism" of socialism, and they can now even show that much of what is seen as "Stalinism" does in fact have roots in German Marxism(which is confirmed by objective sources).

No I hate Stalin because of the admissions that Stalinist's make. When 'stepping out of the party line' is justification for execution (as it has been on this thread) I no longer need to listen to what the bourgeoisie says about Stalin, your testament is disgusting enough.

And while I think Marx and Lenin would have had their fair share of disagreements, Marx would have been horrified at Stalin's bloodthirsty murder of communists and abuse of power. Stalin used Marx's terms, but that's about it.


Also, you must face the fact that there MANY people, if not millions, who "didn't agree with the party line", and were in fact not only spared, but even promoted, and eventually they took over the entire government and country.

Can I get some proof, some examples of people openly denying the party line?

We all know that eventually the "revisionists" came to power, but a lot of them spent a lifetime kissing Stalin's ass (so much so that many Stalinist's partly blame Khrushchev for creating Stalin's cult of personality) they disagreed with him all they wanted after he was dead. Those who openly spoke against Stalin, such as Trotsky, were at best expelled from the country.

Put as simply as possible: I'm not a Leninist, not being a Leninist and openly admitting so would probably get me labeled as a traitor under Stalin, accused traitor's often ended up dead, why would I ever support someone who would have killed me?

[Kayser_Soso]

No I hate Stalin because of the admissions that Stalinist's make. When 'stepping out of the party line' is justification for execution (as it has been on this thread) I no longer need to listen to what the bourgeoisie says about Stalin, your testament is disgusting enough.

"Stepping out of the party line" was not justification for execution. Being willing to betray the country was. Like I said, MANY people, from Central Committee on down to everyday people, "stepped out of the party line" openly, and consistently, and nothing happened to them, and later on such people of a certain group managed to take over the country and later run it into the ground. So clearly these people weren't being shot.

As usual, you simply regurgitate the nonsense anti-Communists have been claiming about Stalin, only from a phony left perspective, thus giving onlookers the impression that there might be some truth to such ridiculous characterizations.



And while I think Marx and Lenin would have had their fair share of disagreements, Marx would have been horrified at Stalin's bloodthirsty murder of communists and abuse of power. Stalin used Marx's terms, but that's about it.

Way to show the forum you know dick about Stalin.




Can I get some proof, some examples of people openly denying the party line?

There are too many to count. Like I said it was from the top all the way down to the average person.



We all know that eventually the "revisionists" came to power, but a lot of them spent a lifetime kissing Stalin's ass (so much so that many Stalinist's partly blame Khrushchev for creating Stalin's cult of personality) they disagreed with him all they wanted after he was dead. Those who openly spoke against Stalin, such as Trotsky, were at best expelled from the country.

In case you hadn't noticed, Stalin did nothing for something like 16 years as people like Zinovev and Kamenev railed against him constantly, no action was taken against these people until the murder of Kirov, when it became clear that these defeated factions were willing to turn to violence.



Put as simply as possible: I'm not a Leninist, not being a Leninist and openly admitting so would probably get me labeled as a traitor under Stalin, accused traitor's often ended up dead, why would I ever support someone who would have killed me?

You do realize the difference between the historical conditions of Revolutionary Russia and today right? In case you didn't know, conditions were a little harder back then. I think aside from your uncritical acceptance of every capitalist myth about Stalin, coupled with your lack of knowledge on the subject, you are making the common mistake of comparing the USSR of that era to your life now, rather than looking at the era in the context of what was happening, and what had happened during that time. You must remember that the enemies of the Bolsheviks, from 1917 onward, were often uncompromising, and incredibly brutal beyond imagination. It was in this soil that the USSR grew up.

[cb9's_unity]

"Stepping out of the party line" was not justification for execution. Being willing to betray the country was. Like I said, MANY people, from Central Committee on down to everyday people, "stepped out of the party line" openly, and consistently, and nothing happened to them, and later on such people of a certain group managed to take over the country and later run it into the ground. So clearly these people weren't being shot.

As usual, you simply regurgitate the nonsense anti-Communists have been claiming about Stalin, only from a phony left perspective, thus giving onlookers the impression that there might be some truth to such ridiculous characterizations.



What was not tolerated back then or later was acting against the interests of the workers. As Kamenev and Zinoviev did when, after the comittee voted in favour of the uprising, they went out, broke party line and propagated their disagreement on it happening, endangering its very success. An action that had Lenin -who judged people on their behaviour and not "credentials"- wanting to expell them immediately. Unfortunately, this didn't happen at that time.
(bold my own)

This is not "bourgeois propaganda". I'm complaining about stuff I'm seeing being said on this board. If you like freedom of speech after revolution then I have no problem if you think Stalin was peaches and cream. However if you think for a second that I have to dogmatically follow some "party line" after revolution then I have a problem.



Way to show the forum you know dick about Stalin.

Way to show the forum you know dick about Marx. (I can do it too!)


There are too many to count. Like I said it was from the top all the way down to the average person.

So I'll take that as a no.


You do realize the difference between the historical conditions of Revolutionary Russia and today right? In case you didn't know, conditions were a little harder back then. I think aside from your uncritical acceptance of every capitalist myth about Stalin, coupled with your lack of knowledge on the subject, you are making the common mistake of comparing the USSR of that era to your life now, rather than looking at the era in the context of what was happening, and what had happened during that time. You must remember that the enemies of the Bolsheviks, from 1917 onward, were often uncompromising, and incredibly brutal beyond imagination. It was in this soil that the USSR grew up.

Your making the assumption that revolution in the future is going to be nice and easy. And while I'll agree that revolution in a place where it actually has a decent chance of working (like an industrialized country) should be easier, I don't agree that a situation being difficult is justification for 'making mistakes'. I'll pass on mass execution no matter how difficult the situation is. 'Mistakenly' killing good communists and giving massive ammunition to capitalist propagandists just isn't worth it.

But what you and me are arguing about seems for the most part useless. Again if you think Stalin was a saint who defended freedom of speech and didn't kill his political opponents just for breaking party line then I can work with you. Disagreement over the past means little if we can find common ground going forward. However I won't stand for those who accept some of Stalin's more blatant brutalities and then defend them.

[Kayser_Soso]

(bold my own)

This is not "bourgeois propaganda". I'm complaining about stuff I'm seeing being said on this board. If you like freedom of speech after revolution then I have no problem if you think Stalin was peaches and cream. However if you think for a second that I have to dogmatically follow some "party line" after revolution then I have a problem.

Do you know the difference between "expel from the party" and execute for treason? It would seem not. Also, I think it is reasonable for a political party to have expectations of how its senior members should act. After all, nobody is forced to join the party. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democratic party in the US would expel Joe Lieberman from their party after years of treachery and sabotage? (Expel still means expel, not shoot).





Way to show the forum you know dick about Marx. (I can do it too!)

You see, you are going to have to qualify that explanation. I was not making an arbitrary statement here. You clearly know little about Stalin or Soviet history, and it shows.




So I'll take that as a no.

And you would be taking it wrong then. Like I said, you don't know about Soviet history. As Grover Furr, J. Arch Getty, and others have shown, there were times when Stalin or his proposals were actually voted down in the Central Committee, or ignored entirely.



Your making the assumption that revolution in the future is going to be nice and easy. And while I'll agree that revolution in a place where it actually has a decent chance of working (like an industrialized country) should be easier, I don't agree that a situation being difficult is justification for 'making mistakes'.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say NO U here because if anything I am saying that revolution in the future, anywhere is going to be hard. And weak-willed liberals such as yourself will be incapable of handling the reactionaries as is evident by....



I'll pass on mass execution no matter how difficult the situation is. 'Mistakenly' killing good communists and giving massive ammunition to capitalist propagandists just isn't worth it.

...this. Please explain how they killed "good Communists"? What makes a "good Communist"? Someone who toes the party line? Is it someone who was involved in the revolution, and then beyond reproach thereafter, like some kind of aristocrat?



But what you and me are arguing about seems for the most part useless. Again if you think Stalin was a saint who defended freedom of speech and didn't kill his political opponents just for breaking party line then I can work with you.

I don't think he was a saint and no he didn't kill political opponents for disagreeing with him. Had that been the case he would have executed Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Kaganovich, Molotov, Malenkov, and many others who disagreed with him. People were executed for crimes such as treason, terrorism, etc.



Disagreement over the past means little if we can find common ground going forward. However I won't stand for those who accept some of Stalin's more blatant brutalities and then defend them.

Why should these brutalities be attributed to Stalin? Enemies like Yezhov and Yagoda were behind many of them, as well local leaders and plain petty people denoucing others to get their jobs.

Like it or not, you're just an unwitting bourgeois propagandist.

[FSL]

(bold my own)

This is not "bourgeois propaganda". I'm complaining about stuff I'm seeing being said on this board. If you like freedom of speech after revolution then I have no problem if you think Stalin was peaches and cream. However if you think for a second that I have to dogmatically follow some "party line" after revolution then I have a problem.




Hi there. You seem to have problems in reading comprehension so I'm here to help.

This wasn't about following some party line after the revolution. This was a vote on the revolution itself. And the people that voted against, went out and worked against party line when the party line was workers taking power.
They spoke to workers, to non-party press, to everyone saying that they shouldn't agree to the party 's latest policy when the party had not oficially adopted any new policy risking (probably aiming but let's give them the benefit of the doubt) the crushing of the revolution by a well-prepared czar. Expelling someone for doing something like this should of course be a given. I don't care how free you want to be but if people -everyone but you- decide to proceed with a revolution and you need to go on papers and speak of your disagreement, they 'd be justified to consider you less than a comrade.



You also seem to not know what democratic centralism is and how it works. Since it's the basis of a communist party people joining it are expected to uphold it. In a democratic centralist party you 're free to debate issues while decisions are being taken (as it happened in this case), but after the decision is reached you need to support whatever that is. Not doing that isn't a cause of execution but it ofcourse is a good reason for expulsion.
Communists actually agree on this "inhuman" terms because we recognise that we can't always be right and because having a unified stance on matters tends to serve better than each man supporting himself. I guess egoism can stop you from agreeing to that but as you 're not forced to join a party and as the people that do join agree with the terms, I can't see how it is any of your business

[bailey_187]

Can I get some proof, some examples of people openly denying the party line?


How about Stalin's view differeing from the party line? And the party line staying that way (untill the chaos of the late 30s)

After Riutin's arrest after calling for the overthrow of the Soviet govt. in 1932, "Stalin demanded that Riutin be executed. The motion failed in the politburo, however." So instead Riutin was sent to a GULAG until 1938.



But yes, article 58-10 (the article people were arrested under when speaking out against Soviet power/advocating counter-revolution) was used too widely. As Andery Vyshinkii pointed out in in his letter to Stalin in 1936, the NVKD were using artilce 58-10 too widely, and people were simply being arrested for "everyday babbling, grumbly, dissasitifaction....and also for singing popular songs with anti-soviet contents". Vyshinkii requested the CC to order the NKVD to change their behaviour. As Thurston says "we do not know if the CC acted on Vyshinkiis recommendation. But he remained outspoken and powerful"

So either, the CC on hearing the problems with their line changed it with Vyshinkiis recommendations, or Vyshinkiis openely opposed the party line - take your pick (Vyshinkii died after Stalin btw)

all infor taken from Robert Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia (chapters 2 and 1)

[Kayser_Soso]

You could also take the example of Bukharin. Stalin believed he should simply be expelled from the party. Behind his back, Bukharin was sentenced to death.

It went even further than this- even during the dire period of the war, commanders such as Rokossovsky defied Stalin to his face. In one such incident, the onlookers were sure that Stalin was about to rip the shoulder-boards off of Rokossovsky, who insisted on attacking with one column(IIRC this was the offensive against Oboyan during the Kursk counter-offensive). Instead, Stalin calmed down, placed his hand on his shoulder, and said that Rokossovsky's confidence suggested he was right.

This anecdote is found in Another View of Stalin, but seems to be misplaced as having happened during the Moscow counter-offensive. It also appears in Absolute War by Chris Bellamy(where it takes place in 1943 as above), and I'm inclined to believe the latter.

[ComradeMan]

Kayser Soo...

I think you are on a hiding to nothing with these apologetics for Stalin. I have not presented anything here that was not historical fact. I have not defended anyone, Britain, France, Poland but tried to present things in context. You know perfectly well that there were voices in Britain warning of Nazi Germany throughout the 1930's but they were not listened to due to an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm for another World War after the experience of the First.

As regards the Irish potato famine, there is debate about whether it was genocide because genocide is in itself a legally debatable term and the semantics of genocide have political and legal implications. Whether or not something were deliberate or accidentally on purpose or down to sheer ineptness does not change the results- miliions of people starving to death! Debating about numbers is downright crass and nothing else, even 1 should be too many.

Pointing out that the current Ukrainian powers that be are less than desirable is no excuse for what happened in the past. Point the finger at others and saying "What about him or her?" is no excuse for one's self. It wouldn't carry in a court of law.

As for the drink driver analogy, the drink driver may be drunk because he or she is drowning his or her sorrows due to any number of social and psychological factors- in his or her own way he or she is trying to change a personal history- again it doesn't change the fact that someone ends up dead or maimed. Your argument seems to be flawed from a moral point of view here. So, it's all right that millions of people die as long as someone is trying to write history? Well I suppose every mass-murderer, dictator and crackpot there has ever been would then be justified would they?

As for El Che, after visiting the Soviet Union, he privately expressed his lack of enthusiasm for what he saw so to speak.

As for Putin's Russia, again- you go off using present situations or unrelated events to justify what happened in the past.

I detect a lot of anger and perhaps nostalgia in your tone for what may seem a glorious soviet past, and yes, the USSR did have her achievements- but I would say in spite of Stalin rather than due to him

Why don't we have a look at the Great Purge then, seeing as the Holodomar is "fiction" according to you... Interestingly you present the same arguments for Stalin that the British have traditionally presented when dealing with the matter of the Potato famine. Anyway, on to the purge...

"According to Soviet archives 1937-1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - amounting to an average of 1,000 a day. Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet Repression during these two years is the range 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. He also states that this is the estimate which should be used by historians and teachers of Russian history."

Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) Richard Pipes p. 67
Soviet Repression Statistics Michael Ellman, 2002 (This historian actually takes more of a point of view that the Holodomar was not a deliberate act of genocide yet maintains his facts when dealing with the Great Purge).

As for the comments about the wording I used, perhaps it is because I am not so blinded by dogma that I can actually think for myself and see things in perspective other than blindly and stubbornly hanging on to the dogma's of a long dead Georgian tyrant.

Why is it that Stalinists are always so radical man....? :cool:

PS As for voting, what's wrong with consensus democracy/decision making? I suppose you will be denouncing me as "bourgeois" next.

[Pogue]

*cough* *cough* Neo-con.

And here we see it. Any evidence condemning Stalin of course could *never* be considered genuine!

[Das war einmal]

And Bolsheviks send them to Den Hague? :lol:
btw. sources please


Like you can get a fair trail at The Hague, I think you missed the point

[ComradeMan]

*cough* *cough* Neo-con.


I am aware of that, but it doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. Hell, even Chomsky was accused of being a hypocrite after he was accused of using trust funds to dodge taxes...

The jury is out on Pipes I know, and he has been accused of being to polemic and selective. On the other hand, he was an ex-CIA man, so may well know his sources....

[Kayser_Soso]

Kayser Soo...

I think you are on a hiding to nothing with these apologetics for Stalin. I have not presented anything here that was not historical fact.

Actually you have, because you made a blanket statement that people were executed for not toeing the party line, while others provided evidence that even Stalin himself went against the party line from time to time, and you clearly don't know the difference between expelled and executed.



I have not defended anyone, Britain, France, Poland but tried to present things in context.

You made excuses for them, but for some reason you don't think the USSR deserves the same historical context.



You know perfectly well that there were voices in Britain warning of Nazi Germany throughout the 1930's but they were not listened to due to an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm for another World War after the experience of the First.

That does not excuse signing treaties with Germany to help them rearm(Britain was actually the first country to sign an agreement with Hitler), or letting them reoccupy the Rhineland, nor does it excuse Munich. The USSR was clearly willing to take the brunt of the burden of stopping Hitler in Czechoslovakia, offering over 1 million men for the purpose.



As regards the Irish potato famine, there is debate about whether it was genocide because genocide is in itself a legally debatable term and the semantics of genocide have political and legal implications. Whether or not something were deliberate or accidentally on purpose or down to sheer ineptness does not change the results- miliions of people starving to death! Debating about numbers is downright crass and nothing else, even 1 should be too many.

Well that's funny because when famine happens in capitalist countries it's called "unfortunate" whereas it is commonly called genocide when it occurs under socialist regimes.



Pointing out that the current Ukrainian powers that be are less than desirable is no excuse for what happened in the past. Point the finger at others and saying "What about him or her?" is no excuse for one's self. It wouldn't carry in a court of law.

Who is in a court of law? The government ultimately failed in fully alleviating the effects of the famine, but the measures it did take saved millions of lives. This famine didn't occur, as others during that same era in colonies did, for the sake of capital. The USSR was faced with the task of feeding a growing urban population. Eventually it managed to do that. I cannot see any possible benefit of viewing the famine in the way you do. For that matter one could take the famine of 1921-22, which was largely due to the Civil War, and blame that on the Bolsheviks as well. While it was mainly due to the intervention which helped prolong the Whites' collapsing war effort, one could argue that if the workers hadn't overthrown the government, and had known their place, the famine might not have happened.



As for the drink driver analogy, the drink driver may be drunk because he or she is drowning his or her sorrows due to any number of social and psychological factors- in his or her own way he or she is trying to change a personal history- again it doesn't change the fact that someone ends up dead or maimed.

The drink driver is not engaged in an effort to improve your overall living situation. Moreover, the drink driver is engaged in what is known to be a dangerous, irresponsible activity, which is in fact voluntary. The famine in Ukraine was due primarily to natural causes and not simply to government policy.



Your argument seems to be flawed from a moral point of view here. So, it's all right that millions of people die as long as someone is trying to write history?

WTF are you talking about here?



As for El Che, after visiting the Soviet Union, he privately expressed his lack of enthusiasm for what he saw so to speak.

Not to worry, we Marxist-Leninists PUBLICLY express our lack of enthusiasm for the USSR, in fact our downright opposition to many of its policies, including ones under Stalin.



As for Putin's Russia, again- you go off using present situations or unrelated events to justify what happened in the past.

It's called a comparison.



I detect a lot of anger and perhaps nostalgia in your tone for what may seem a glorious soviet past, and yes, the USSR did have her achievements- but I would say in spite of Stalin rather than due to him

I detect an inability to read and comprehend simple concepts, such as that mentioned before on the issue of expulsion and execution. Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists, that is us who you call Stalinists, have no nostalgia for the Soviet Union, whether under Stalin or after Stalin. The USSR grew out of historical conditions of its time, therefore any pining for the restoration of the Soviet Union is basically a regressive idea. As for your opinion on how the USSR succeeded in spite of Stalin, aside from the fact that he was only one man and thus cannot be held responsible for everything that happened, your characterization here is simply wrong.

It seems to me that you like to blame everything negative on Stalin while severing him from anything positive that happened. Funny since non-leftists authors such as David M. Glantz, Chris Bellamy, and Geoffery Roberts are now looking at the sum total of Stalin's leadership and often attributing credit to him which he never claimed.



Why don't we have a look at the Great Purge then, seeing as the Holodomar is "fiction" according to you... Interestingly you present the same arguments for Stalin that the British have traditionally presented when dealing with the matter of the Potato famine. Anyway, on to the purge...


Yes, the Holodomor was "fiction", because the Holodomor is the claim that the Soviet government deliberately starved people.




"According to Soviet archives 1937-1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - amounting to an average of 1,000 a day. Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet Repression during these two years is the range 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. He also states that this is the estimate which should be used by historians and teachers of Russian history."

At this time the NKVD was full of traitors who implicated, arrested, and tortured a number of innocent people. It was for this reason that after the arrest of Yezhov a number of people who had been arrested got mandatory appeals.



Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) Richard Pipes p. 67
Soviet Repression Statistics Michael Ellman, 2002 (This historian actually takes more of a point of view that the Holodomar was not a deliberate act of genocide yet maintains his facts when dealing with the Great Purge).

Richard Pipes, yeah he's reliable.



As for the comments about the wording I used, perhaps it is because I am not so blinded by dogma that I can actually think for myself and see things in perspective other than blindly and stubbornly hanging on to the dogma's of a long dead Georgian tyrant.

Yeah you can think for yourself, which is why you join the chorus of capitalist-apologists. Didn't you ever consider that when workers overthrow the system, just one death would be considered to many by the enemy? Killing is only justified in the name of profit.



PS As for voting, what's wrong with consensus democracy/decision making? I suppose you will be denouncing me as "bourgeois" next.

Nothing. Who suggested otherwise?

[cb9's_unity]

Hi there. You seem to have problems in reading comprehension so I'm here to help.

This wasn't about following some party line after the revolution. This was a vote on the revolution itself. And the people that voted against, went out and worked against party line when the party line was workers taking power.

I'm no expert on the Russian revolution, and I don't claim to be. However I must ask the question. Were they opposing workers power or 'taking power' immediately? If they opposed the former then I really have no clue about why they weren't joining the whites.


They spoke to workers, to non-party press, to everyone saying that they shouldn't agree to the party 's latest policy when the party had not oficially adopted any new policy risking (probably aiming but let's give them the benefit of the doubt) the crushing of the revolution by a well-prepared czar. Expelling someone for doing something like this should of course be a given. I don't care how free you want to be but if people -everyone but you- decide to proceed with a revolution and you need to go on papers and speak of your disagreement, they 'd be justified to consider you less than a comrade.

"They spoke to workers". First off, what in the fucking world is wrong with talking to workers? If they disagreed with the policies of the party would they be better off not talking to the workers? Debate should be as vibrant outside the party as it is inside it. Bringing your message to the workers is never a bad thing.


You also seem to not know what democratic centralism is and how it works. Since it's the basis of a communist party people joining it are expected to uphold it. In a democratic centralist party you 're free to debate issues while decisions are being taken (as it happened in this case), but after the decision is reached you need to support whatever that is. Not doing that isn't a cause of execution but it ofcourse is a good reason for expulsion.
Communists actually agree on this "inhuman" terms because we recognise that we can't always be right and because having a unified stance on matters tends to serve better than each man supporting himself. I guess egoism can stop you from agreeing to that but as you 're not forced to join a party and as the people that do join agree with the terms, I can't see how it is any of your business

Don't make assumptions. I understand what democratic centralism is, and I understand that it has failed in sustaining or creating socialism in the places where a communist party has taken power, and that it's part of the reason why we have so many competing socialist party's today. Don't assume I give a shit about any party line or owe my loyalty to any group that pretends to represent the working class in whole.

[bailey_187]

Double post

[bailey_187]

And here we see it. Any evidence condemning Stalin of course could *never* be considered genuine!

No Richard Pipes is a real hack.

"The writings of Richard Pipes have provoked controversy in the scholarly community.
Ronald Grigor Suny believes that Pipes’s book on the Russian Revolution disregards major arguments of those who had written on the revolution for the previous twenty-five years and that Pipes places himself above the professional discourse. Pipes’s book lacks analysis, for the text is a detailed narrative of selective episodes, Suny writes.
Diane Koenker writes that Pipes's work is compromised by numerous errors and methodological flaws. She observes that Pipes uses sources extremely selectively. She concludes that the debate on Russian history is not well served by Pipes’s methodologically flawed polemic masquerading as historical scholarship." - Taken from Wikipedia but the sources are:

^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-12) Walter C. Clemens, Jr, Slavic Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 117-118 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779(198321)42%3A1%3C117%3AURITEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-13) Raymond L. Garthoff, Foreign Affairs, May 1995, pg. 197
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-14) Rabinowitch, A. 'Richard Pipes's Lenin', Russian Review Vol. 57 (1998), No. 1, pp. 110-113 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-0341(199801)57%3A1%3C110%3ARPL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-15) Peter Kenez, The Prosecution of Soviet History, Volume 2, Russian Review, vol. 54, APril 1995 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-0341(199504)54%3A2%3C265%3ATPOSHV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-16) The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution The Russian Review, vol. 50, 1991, pp. 345-51 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-0341(199107)50%3A3%3C345%3ATPOSHA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4)
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-17) [1] (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801(199306)65%3A2%3C432%3ATRR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U)

Have you ever read Pipes?

[ComradeMan]

Kayser Soo,

You keep basing things on straw-man arguments, I don't recall saying that Stalin had people shot for not sticking to the party line- you keep putting words into my mouth and going on the attack. Your obsessive dismissal of anyone and anything that does not support Stalin is, well, very typical of Stalinism. Life doesn't work that way compagnero!

Concept- I like Cuban cigars, Fidel likes Cuban cigars but that doesn't mean we agree on anything else, necessarily, than cigars. At the same time it doesn't affect the cigars per se.

As for being a capitalist apologist, that makes me laugh:D. Again, the only way you defend Stalin is by attacking and pointing the finger at others, you don't actually defend Stalin's positions or deny the allegations outright. If trying to explain things in their context is being an apologist, well then, I suppose we are all apologists in one way or another.

Getting back to Stalin.

How about this:-
Hello Papa I forgot how to write soon in School I will go through the first winter come quickly because it's bad we have no Papa. Mama says you are away on work or sick and what are you waiting for run away from that hospital here Olyeshenka ran away from hospital just in his shirt mama will sew you new pants and I will give you my belt all the same the boys are all afraid of me, and Olyeshenka is the only one I never beat up he also tells the truth he is also poor and I once lay in fever and wanted to die along with mother and she did not want to and I did not want to, oh, my hand is numb from write thats enough I kiss you lots of times ...
Igoryok Six and a half years
(From a letter to an imprisoned victim of Stalin's Purges, cited by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 654-55)

Other sources:-
The Great Terror: A Reassessment, pp. 235; 264; 315;
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As is always the case with mass atrocities, the Purge provided an opportunity for many career-minded individuals, overwhelmingly men, to move up the ladder and experience a taste of absolute power. "To know what it meant to be a bluecap [interrogator] one had to experience it!" writes Alexander Solzhenitsyn. "Anything you saw was yours! Any apartment you looked at was yours! Any woman was yours! Any enemy was struck from your path! The earth beneath your feet was yours! The heaven above you was yours -- it was, after all, like your cap, sky blue!" (The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 1 [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], pp. 151-52.) Solzhenitsyn likens the commanders of the death camps, meanwhile, to feudal lords: "Like the estate owner, the chief of the camp could take any slave to be his lackey, cook, barber, or jester (and he could also assemble a serf theater if he wished); he could take any slave woman as a housekeeper, a concubine, or a servant." (The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 2, p. 150.)
http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

Of course, Solzhenitsyn criticised just about everyone equally, East West, Marxist, Capitalist and so on. So he is either not to be believed as anti-Stalinist or perhaps listened to as a victim of Stalin.

Another lesser known source from the former Yugoslavia would be...
Conversations with Stalin
Milovan Djilas. 1963
ISBN-13: 978-0156225915

Does it not make you stop and think that if people as politically and diametrically opposed as Pipes, Djilas. Solzhenitsyn, El Che and Nikita Kruschev all saw and said the same thing in the end that there might be something in it? Even Kruschev who was very much part and parcel of Stalinism eventually led the USSR to destalinisation!

In an aside, here is the reference of El Che's soured relationship with the USSR
The missile crisis further convinced Guevara that the two World's superpowers (U.S. & U.S.S.R.) used Cuba as a pawn in their own global strategies, afterward he denounced the Soviets almost as frequently as he denounced the Americans.
Kellner, Douglas (1989). Ernesto “Che” Guevara (World Leaders Past & Present). Chelsea House Publishers (Library Binding edition). pp. 112. ISBN 1555468357


Right, so there are some sources about the man who fundamentally only ever had one ally, i.e. Hitler- to put it simplistically- that is until they fell out.

As for quoting sources, we don't just quote the people we like. Is it not important to read and listen to everyone? If we only read and quote the people we like to the exclusion of all else we cannot trully evaluate our own methods and sources. It's like wine, you can only appreciate good wine if you have tasted bad!!! :D

[Kayser_Soso]

Kayser Soo,

You keep basing things on straw-man arguments, I don't recall saying that Stalin had people shot for not sticking to the party line- you keep putting words into my mouth and going on the attack.

It seems you may be right, I must have confused your post with that of another self-righteous anarchist.



Your obsessive dismissal of anyone and anything that does not support Stalin is, well, very typical of Stalinism. Life doesn't work that way compagnero!

Where did you get this bizarre idea?




As for being a capitalist apologist, that makes me laugh:D. Again, the only way you defend Stalin is by attacking and pointing the finger at others, you don't actually defend Stalin's positions or deny the allegations outright.

Actually I do defend many of his positions but you haven't really brought any up. You just continue using typical capitalist arguments against socialism. Did you have the crazy idea that you can have a successful revolution against capitalism without bloodshed? If so, congratulations, you are basically a liberal.




If trying to explain things in their context is being an apologist, well then, I suppose we are all apologists in one way or another.

Well that's funny because you seem to think that such explanations are wrong when applied to the USSR.



How about this:-
Hello Papa I forgot how to write soon in School I will go through the first winter come quickly because it's bad we have no Papa. Mama says you are away on work or sick and what are you waiting for run away from that hospital here Olyeshenka ran away from hospital just in his shirt mama will sew you new pants and I will give you my belt all the same the boys are all afraid of me, and Olyeshenka is the only one I never beat up he also tells the truth he is also poor and I once lay in fever and wanted to die along with mother and she did not want to and I did not want to, oh, my hand is numb from write thats enough I kiss you lots of times ...
Igoryok Six and a half years
(From a letter to an imprisoned victim of Stalin's Purges, cited by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 654-55)

Oh good, now were supporting the hack Solzehnitsyn, someone who your beloved Richard Pipes despised! I wonder what fanatical right winger you won't quote and take at face value!

Incidentally, assuming this letter is true, this kid is describing the same poor conditions that many people lived in throughout the USSR during that era. What about all the children left without fathers from the war? I guess that's Stalin's fault as well.

Typical liberal appeal to emotion, none of the "context" you seem so fit to grant England and France, capitalist imperialist nations.



Other sources:-
The Great Terror: A Reassessment, pp. 235; 264; 315;
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As is always the case with mass atrocities, the Purge provided an opportunity for many career-minded individuals, overwhelmingly men, to move up the ladder and experience a taste of absolute power. "To know what it meant to be a bluecap [interrogator] one had to experience it!" writes Alexander Solzhenitsyn. "Anything you saw was yours! Any apartment you looked at was yours! Any woman was yours! Any enemy was struck from your path! The earth beneath your feet was yours! The heaven above you was yours -- it was, after all, like your cap, sky blue!" (The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 1 [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], pp. 151-52.) Solzhenitsyn likens the commanders of the death camps, meanwhile, to feudal lords: "Like the estate owner, the chief of the camp could take any slave to be his lackey, cook, barber, or jester (and he could also assemble a serf theater if he wished); he could take any slave woman as a housekeeper, a concubine, or a servant." (The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 2, p. 150.)
http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

Of course, Solzhenitsyn criticised just about everyone equally, East West, Marxist, Capitalist and so on. So he is either not to be believed as anti-Stalinist or perhaps listened to as a victim of Stalin.

Aleksander Solzehnitsyn, in case you never heard, made numerous wild claims(such as that the Bolsheviks killed 60 million Russians), was an anti-Semite and a hardcore nationalist. To his dying day he advanced the view that the Tsars of Russia were benevolent and fair, that they did not practice censorship or unreasonable repression.



Another lesser known source from the former Yugoslavia would be...
Conversations with Stalin
Milovan Djilas. 1963
ISBN-13: 978-0156225915

Traitor of a Traitor, again, real trustworthy.



Does it not make you stop and think that if people as politically and diametrically opposed as Pipes, Djilas. Solzhenitsyn, El Che and Nikita Kruschev all saw and said the same thing in the end that there might be something in it? Even Kruschev who was very much part and parcel of Stalinism eventually led the USSR to destalinisation!

The claims made in Khruschev's famous secret speech have been debunked thanks to the opening of the Soviet archives. A number of others were debunked even during the Soviet period by the memoirs of Zhukov. Khruschev was also being a hypocrite, as he was one of the creators of that "cult of personality" and was extremely zealous in rounding up "enemies" and asking for permission to purge people.

Next, your comment about "El Che" is retarded because the best you could come up with was that Che "wasn't enthusiastic" about what he saw in the Soviet Union. Remember when Che went to the Soviet Union?

By this same logic I can point to the riots and strikes that broke out in response to De-Stalinization as evidence that he must have been right. Not to mention the people who are still alive today who have a positive view of Stalin.



In an aside, here is the reference of El Che's soured relationship with the USSR
The missile crisis further convinced Guevara that the two World's superpowers (U.S. & U.S.S.R.) used Cuba as a pawn in their own global strategies, afterward he denounced the Soviets almost as frequently as he denounced the Americans.
Kellner, Douglas (1989). Ernesto “Che” Guevara (World Leaders Past & Present). Chelsea House Publishers (Library Binding edition). pp. 112. ISBN 1555468357

Wait a minute, was Stalin in charge of the Soviet Union in 1962? In case you hadn't heard, he died in 1953 and De-Stalinization started to take place after 1956. Enver Hoxha made the same kinds of criticisms, even stronger in fact, and he is considered a "Stalinist."




Right, so there are some sources about the man who fundamentally only ever had one ally, i.e. Hitler- to put it simplistically- that is until they fell out.

Hitler was never an ally of Stalin. If you actually credit that idiotic statement, it shows how much of a liberal you really are.



As for quoting sources, we don't just quote the people we like. Is it not important to read and listen to everyone? If we only read and quote the people we like to the exclusion of all else we cannot trully evaluate our own methods and sources. It's like wine, you can only appreciate good wine if you have tasted bad!!! :D


You seem to cherry pick sources in an attempt to prove what the capitalists are always trying to prove- that socialism leads to "Stalinism". That you claim to be some kind of socialist is irrelevant. In a practical sense you are aiding their narrative. You make excuses for imperialist states, but don't want the same standards applied to the USSR.

I would say you have chosen your camp.

[Comrade Anarchist]

You clearly have not analyised the ideas of Stalin if you think they are fascist. On the contrary, i think its you who refuses to analyse Stalin's "ideas". How much Stalin have you read?
Considering the "Stalinists" seem to know more about the famines, purges etc than most(most not all) of you anarchists, the claim that "Stalinists" ignore the "murders" is false.

He killed millions to build up Russia into a modern country. He collectivized everything sacrificing the individual and instead turning them into a tool to strengthen the USSR and his own power. He was paranoid as hell and decided that his paranoia wasn't himself but that everyone around him wanted to destroy the revolution. His oligarchy used the enamored blind masses to build up the country which built up the government, which built up his power on the world stage.

This is what i find funny though, you tell me that stalinists know more about the famines, purges, senseless deaths of millions, yet you defend his ideas saying they can work, even after you acknowledged that they didn't work when they were implemented under his reign.



There's a revolution happening in Nepal. The revolutionary forces in India and the Philippines are gaining ground. What you meant to say is it has prevented any Revolutions following your ideology from happening. Is thar really the case though? Or are you just trying to blame someone else for the failing of your ideology.

These revolutions are palace house revolutions where people will be free from evil leader just so another can claim his place in the name of some other ideology. The failing of my ideology is that we are the main course of revolutionary thought in the most influential countries. Anarchism scares governments in the west. No government official is going to lock up a stalinist b/c there is no point to fear them. Leninism and stalinism are debunked hackneyed ideas that modern thought sees as fascism.



Try and find Totalitarian being used to describe anything prior to 1917. You wont. The word was invented to describe and demonise Communism.

The term was first used in 1923 to describe Italian Fascism.



You tell me you know his plans failed and yet why do you defend and believe them? The fact you believe in controlling the proletariat through coercion and force for some imaginary "goal", makes you no different then the modern day capitalists, religious leaders, and political leaders.

[ComradeMan]

It seems you may be right, I must have confused your post with that of another self-righteous anarchist.

You're letting your prejudices get the better of you, you basically think anarchists are self-righteous so you won't listen to anything they have to say. Doesn't that strike you as a little bigotted? Re Bloodshed--- well Ghandi managed fairly well to convince the British to leave India without committing himself or his movement to violence. Those who live by the sword die by the sword... I am not saying Ghandi was a communist before you start, but there's one example...

If so, congratulations, you are basically a liberal.

You seem to be good at telling other people what you think they are! :D

Well that's funny because you seem to think that such explanations are wrong when applied to the USSR.

You are the one who is trying to defend the undefendable.

Oh good, now were supporting the hack Solzehnitsyn, someone who your beloved Richard Pipes despised! I wonder what fanatical right winger you won't quote and take at face value!

I see you use the word supporting, that shows how blatantly subjective you are. Scientific approach looks at all the facts and uses them to build a theory, it does not pick the facts it wants and likes in order to support a theory. I think you missed the point where I acknowledged how diametrically opposed several of these sources are and yet they all point to the same thing. By the way, if an ex-CIA man says that the sky is blue, is it not valid because he is an ex-CIA man? Again, you are being a bit gonzoid about all of this as you won't accept anyone or anything that doesn't praise Joe Steel.

Incidentally, assuming this letter is true, this kid is describing the same poor conditions that many people lived in throughout the USSR during that era. What about all the children left without fathers from the war? I guess that's Stalin's fault as well.

Never did say it was. There you go again, straw-man arguments. The Axis turned on the USSR and invaded and left them no choice but to fight- as sad and tragic as war is one cannot blame Stalin for the deaths of soldiers who died defending their country- the blame for that must be given more to the aggressor. In the case of the Holodomar and the Great Purge etc, then we can begin to look at Stalin and his government as being responsible in some way. Especially in the case of the Great Purge, who the hell else was behind it? The Capitalists, the Anarchists?

Typical liberal appeal to emotion, none of the "context" you seem so fit to grant England and France, capitalist imperialist nations.

I understand the circumstances perfectly well, and am not appealing to any emotion. Let's not forget that this debate is on Stalin and not on England and France- should we have a debate specifically on England and France then I assure there would be plenty to say....


Aleksander Solzehnitsyn, in case you never heard, made numerous wild claims(such as that the Bolsheviks killed 60 million Russians), was an anti-Semite and a hardcore nationalist. To his dying day he advanced the view that the Tsars of Russia were benevolent and fair, that they did not practice censorship or unreasonable repression.

Aleksander Solzehenitsyn was probably a complete pain the ass in many respects but that does not invalidate everything he said and did.

The claims made in Khruschev's famous secret speech have been debunked thanks to the opening of the Soviet archives. A number of others were debunked even during the Soviet period by the memoirs of Zhukov. Khruschev was also being a hypocrite, as he was one of the creators of that "cult of personality" and was extremely zealous in rounding up "enemies" and asking for permission to purge people.

I have no doubt, but I am not so much interested in Kruschev's speech more in his policy of destalinisation, as they say in Italian- "sono i fatti che parlano, non le parole", "Facts speak, not words".


Next, your comment about "El Che" is retarded because the best you could come up with was that Che "wasn't enthusiastic" about what he saw in the Soviet Union. Remember when Che went to the Soviet Union?

Saying things are "retarded" is more worthy of Southpark than a serious debate, but I have provided you with evidence that you initially denied, it's funny how El Che's enthusiasm for the Soviet Union waned after he visited... I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. You also fail to notice that this comment was inserted as an aside, or "by the way", in reference to earlier comments made.

In case you hadn't heard, he died in 1953 and De-Stalinization started to take place after 1956. Enver Hoxha made the same kinds of criticisms, even stronger in fact, and he is considered a "Stalinist."

Well, hello, it's hardly likely that destalinisation was going to take place under Stalin... wouldn't that be like the easiest way to get a free one-way ticket to Siberia?

Hitler was never an ally of Stalin. If you actually credit that idiotic statement, it shows how much of a liberal you really are.

Let's have a look at this a bit more-

Following completion of the Soviet-German trade and credit agreement, there has arisen the question of improving political links between Germany and the USSR- in “On Soviet-German Relations” Izvestia (soviet newspaper): August 21, 1939

In the prelude to the German invasion of 1941 Stalin had neglected to equip the Red Army and the result of the Molotov-Ribbentropf Pact, amongst other things, was to wipe out the communist party in Eastern Europe effectively until 1945. The invasion of Finland also alienated the Soviet Union from the Allies and strengthened, albeit indirectly, the Axis powers. Nice work Uncle Joe. Seems like you managed to help Hiter wipe out the people he seemed to hate the most.


You seem to cherry pick sources in an attempt to prove what the capitalists are always trying to prove- that socialism leads to "Stalinism". That you claim to be some kind of socialist is irrelevant. In a practical sense you are aiding their narrative. You make excuses for imperialist states, but don't want the same standards applied to the USSR.

Well, if you call using a number of different sources form many varied backgrounds cherrypicking as opposed to your absolute lack of sources other than yourself biased I really have no answer. You go off again with straw-man arguments. I never said anywhere that socialism leads to Stalinism. Where did I say that? Show me? I do not make excuses for imperialist states at all, you are the one who seems to feel he can justify anything and everything done under Stalin because of what other states did. Don't you think that is a bit infantile? A bit like the kid who's been naughty pointing the finger at someone else and saying "Well, what about him?".

I am afraid you are losing the argument here.

On poking around I found this hilariously bigotted article at:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node8.html

...The revolutionary practice of the world Communist movement under Stalin shook the whole world and gave a new direction to the history of humanity. During the years 1985--1990, in particular, we have been able to see that all the so-called `Left critics' of Stalin have jumped onto the anti-Communist bandwagon, just countless cheerleaders. Social-democrats, Trotskyists, anarchists, Bukharinists, Titoists, ecologists, all found themselves in the movement for `liberty, democracy and human rights', which liquidated what remained of socialism in Eastern Europe and in the USSR....."

So the only communism/socialism that is valid is that of Stalinist Russia and everyone else is someway involved in a bourgeois plot. We seem to have a hell of a lot of the "left" here. Let's also not forget China's criticism of Stalin too.


But let us not forget Lenin himself, let's have a look at what Lenin had to say...

The Testament of December 29 indicates it clear that Lenin wanted to avoid an irreversible split in the Party and provides a balanced assessment of all prospective candidates. With regard to Trotsky, Lenin notes that

"[as] his struggle against the CC [Central Committee] on the question of the People's Commissariat has already proved, [he] is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present CC, but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work."

Concerning Stalin, by contrast, Lenin points out that he "is too rude, and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealings among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a general secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing (sic) another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, less capricious, and so forth."

In a postscript dated March 5, 1923, Lenin criticizes Stalin for insulting Lenin's wife and adds that unless they receive a retraction and apology then "relations between us should be broken off." In relation to other members of the CC, Lenin points to the October episode in which Zinoviev and Kamenev objected to the idea of an immediate armed insurrection against the Provisional Government and also to Trotsky's Menshevik past, but he adds that neither should suffer any blame or personal consequence.

Lenin was therefore extremely worried about the degree of power Stalin had attained and thought this was dangerous for the future of the Party and Russia insofar as he was capable of abusing this power. He advocated that Stalin be removed from the post of general secretary. It is generally agreed by historians that Trotsky's failure to use the Testament was a major political mistake and an error that allowed Stalin to rise to power. But it is also conceded that Trotsky, in agreeing not to use it in this manner, was abiding by Lenin's wishes to avoid a split. Trotsky therefore put Party unity before his own ambitions.
Sources:-


Buranov, Yuri. (1994). Lenin's Will: Falsified and Forbidden. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. (1994). Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press.
Wolfe, Bertram D. (1984). Three Who Made a Revolution: A Biographical History. New York: Stein and Day.
I include for your reference Article II of the Molotov-Ribbentropf Pact which was not published at the time:


Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments. In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

____________

I look forward to your response, hopeful that you will provide sources.:cool:

[bailey_187]

You're letting your prejudices get the better of you, you basically think anarchists are self-righteous so you won't listen to anything they have to say. Doesn't that strike you as a little bigotted? Re Bloodshed--- well Ghandi managed fairly well to convince the British to leave India without committing himself or his movement to violence. Those who live by the sword die by the sword... I am not saying Ghandi was a communist before you start, but there's one example...

Look at what the violent Communists acheived in China compared to peaceful Ghandi.




I see you use the word supporting, that shows how blatantly subjective you are. Scientific approach looks at all the facts and uses them to build a theory, it does not pick the facts it wants and likes in order to support a theory. I think you missed the point where I acknowledged how diametrically opposed several of these sources are and yet they all point to the same thing. By the way, if an ex-CIA man says that the sky is blue, is it not valid because he is an ex-CIA man? Again, you are being a bit gonzoid about all of this as you won't accept anyone or anything that doesn't praise Joe Steel.

STFU about Scientific aproach when you quote Solzhenitsyn as your source. His claims of 60 million in the GULAG are 1)illogical even with evidence disproving it and 2) Modern Historians have disproved his claims. Read the works by modern Soviet historians such as John Arch Getty, Robert Thurston etc - if you were to use the Gulah Archipeligo as a source for an essay you would be laughed at.
Bourgeois historians say Solzhenitsyn was wrong so its not about ignoring anticommunists.



The Axis turned on the USSR and invaded and left them no choice but to fight
What do you mean by "no choice"? The Soviets did not want or expect a fight? Geoffery Roberts book Stalin's Wars shows how the Soviets had their own plan to attack the Nazis.



In the case of the Holodomar and the Great Purge etc, then we can begin to look at Stalin and his government as being responsible in some way. Especially in the case of the Great Purge, who the hell else was behind it? The Capitalists, the Anarchists?
Well to some extent the Capitalists (i.e. Nazis) by pretending to leak false info on Soviet officials claiming they were working for them.
Yezhov can also be blamed. The great purge was not planned by Stalin though, it was born out of genuine fear of a fifth collum and traitors (Some shot Kirov ffs!). I have already dealth with the purges in another thread.
When you have finished reading your Pipes etc you may want to try some modern history of the purges such as Getty - The Road to Terror and Robert Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia. Both of which are non-communist
Concerning the famine, we can blame some goverment officials, yes. fAlso the wheather. And lets not forget the damage done by Ukranian Kulaks and Nationalists.





Aleksander Solzehenitsyn was probably a complete pain the ass in many respects but that does not invalidate everything he said and did.

But the Soviet archives do!




Saying things are "retarded" is more worthy of Southpark than a serious debate, but I have provided you with evidence that you initially denied, it's funny how El Che's enthusiasm for the Soviet Union waned after he visited... I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. You also fail to notice that this comment was inserted as an aside, or "by the way", in reference to earlier comments made.

Sure Che criticised the USSR. But who did he praise? Mao Tsetung and Kim Il Sung - two Socialist bloc leaders who did not denoice Stalin. Che "enthusiasm ...waned" for the post-Stalin USSR.



wouldn't that be like the easiest way to get a free one-way ticket to Siberia?

No it would most likley be return ticket - most of those sent to the GULAG were freed

Hitler was never an ally of Stalin. If you actually credit that idiotic statement, it shows how much of a liberal you really are.



Let's have a look at this a bit more-

Following completion of the Soviet-German trade and credit agreement, there has arisen the question of improving political links between Germany and the USSR- in “On Soviet-German Relations” Izvestia (soviet newspaper): August 21, 1939

In the prelude to the German invasion of 1941 Stalin had neglected to equip the Red Army and the result of the Molotov-Ribbentropf Pact, amongst other things, was to wipe out the communist party in Eastern Europe effectively until 1945. The invasion of Finland also alienated the Soviet Union from the Allies and strengthened, albeit indirectly, the Axis powers. Nice work Uncle Joe. Seems like you managed to help Hiter wipe out the people he seemed to hate the most.

First of, if you are allies with someone, you dont draw up plans to attack them do you?
Geoffery Robert's claims the Red Army had prepared for the attack.
As if the USSR could of been further alienated from the allies? The attack of Finland was try try to seize a port to get a defensive postion over a Nazi invasion (woops, i forgot, the Red Army had not prepared for war with the Nazis)

[ComradeMan]

First of, if you are allies with someone, you dont draw up plans to attack them do you?

That shows just how naive you are.... :D

Re STFU---- why don't you spell out the words instead of hiding behind inept abbreviations- please refrain from abusive language as it's unbecoming.

Re Solzhenitsyn- is he the only person I quote? It seems to be a bit hard to get this through to some... but my whole point is exactly that- that we have people from all walks of life, all political backgrounds and all allegiances criticising Joe Steel for more or less the same things. The scientific view is to look at all the facts and evaluate them. It seems that the Stalinist camp aren't very good at that- but then taking into account their miserable track record when it came to other endeavours it's not surprising.

On a more gonzoid note- For crying out loud!!!! Anyone who changes their name to "Man of Steel" is setting off alarm bells to start with.

Continuing on the sources, I see you don't have much to say about Lenin's comments... But then I suppose, as in the article I quote- anyone who doesn't take your view is automatically a capitalist or has been poisoned by the bourgeoisie?

The problem with Stalinists is that they never have got over the fact that he's been dead for over 50 years.

Work with your ideology!!! All other forms of the Revolution have made their mistakes, learned and moved on or fizzled away into oblivion but quite frankly this pseudo-religious attachment to a dubious statist autocrat from over half-a-century ago is rather embarrassing to say the least. Anyone would mistake you for North Korea.

[Drace]

Yezhov can also be blamed. The great purge was not planned by Stalin though, it was born out of genuine fear of a fifth collum and traitors (Some shot Kirov ffs!). I have already dealth with the purges in another thread.
When you have finished reading your Pipes etc you may want to try some modern history of the purges such as Getty - The Road to Terror and Robert Thurston - Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia. Both of which are non-communist
Concerning the famine, we can blame some goverment officials, yes. fAlso the wheather. And lets not forget the damage done by Ukranian Kulaks and Nationalists.

Im confused, are you defending Stalin? Because you suggested the reading of those 2 books, by which their title seem to be very anti communist.

A book titled "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia" refutes the claims of Stalin being a mass murderer?

[bailey_187]

He killed millions to build up Russia into a modern country .

Well i would dispute Stalin killed millions. Famine killed many yes, many were executed in the chaos of the late 30s yes.
Even so, what would be fascist about that?



He collectivized everything sacrificing the individual and instead turning them into a tool to strengthen the USSR and his own power. .

I am sorry Comrade Anarcho-Capitalist that Stalin collectivised stuff, you see, us Communists generally see this as a good thing.
How did Collectivisation strengthen Stalin's own power?
Great, it strengthened the Workers state - it allowed the mechanisation of argriculture and the creation of industry.
Again, WTF is fascist about any of this?




He was paranoid as hell and decided that his paranoia wasn't himself but that everyone around him wanted to destroy the revolution. .
Well when you look at the context, many would be paranoid.
There was the Riutin platform that advocated the killing of Stalin, Kirov had been killed, accidents in industry were extremely high and the USSR was surrounded by hostile powers. Also, Yezhov carried out a purge of the party in search of idlers, careerists etc but also found 43000(a small amount of the overall purged) suspected of being Kulaks, White Guards, Trotskyists etc.
Anyway, i dont know what Stalin's mental state was, but if he was a bit paranoid - who can blame him?



His oligarchy used the enamored blind masses to build up the country which built up the government, which built up his power on the world stage. .

huh?

oligarchy? :laugh:

blind masses?

"As regards the cultural development of the country, we have the following to record for the period under review:

a) The introduction of universal compulsory elementary education throughout the U.S.S.R., and an increase in literacy among the population from 67 per cent at the end of 1930 to 90 per cent at the end of 1933.

b) An increase in the number of pupils and students at schools of all grades from 14,358,000 in 1929 to 26,419,000 in 1933, including an increase from 11,697,000 to 19,163,000 in the number receiving elementary education, from 2,453,000 to 6,674,000 in the number receiving secondary education, and from 207,000 to 491,000 in the number receiving higher education.

c) An increase in the number of children receiving pre-school education from 838,000 in 1929 to 5,917,000 in 1933.

d) An increase in the number of higher educational institutions, general and special, from 91 in 1914 to 600 in 1933.

e) An increase in the number of scientific research institutes from 400 in 1929 to 840 in 1933.

f) An increase in the number of clubs and similar institutions from 32,000 in 1929 to 54,000 in 1933.

g) An increase in the number of cinemas, cinema installations in clubs, and mobile cinemas, from 9,800 in 1929 to 29,200 in 1933.

h) An increase in the circulation of newspapers from 12,500,000 in 1929 to 36,500,000 in 1933.

Perhaps it will not be amiss to point out that the proportion of workers among the students in our higher educational institutions is 51.4 per cent of the total, and that of labouring peasants 16.5 per cent; whereas in Germany, for instance, the proportion of workers among the students in higher educational institutions in 1932-33 was only 3.2 per cent of the total, and that of small peasants only 2.4 per cent." - Sidney and Beatrice Webb's study on the USSR
Very blind :rolleyes:



This is what i find funny though, you tell me that stalinists know more about the famines, purges, senseless deaths of millions, yet you defend his ideas saying they can work, even after you acknowledged that they didn't work when they were implemented under his reign. .

Industrialisation worked, central planning worked etc

[bailey_187]

Re Solzhenitsyn- is he the only person I quote? .

Ok, you quote the old hack Pipes - i dealth with him. Who else did u quote?



It seems to be a bit hard to get this through to some... but my whole point is exactly that- that we have people from all walks of life, all political backgrounds and all allegiances criticising Joe Steel for more or less the same things. .

You quote Pipes, Krushchev and Solzhenitsyn. WELL DONE!!! You got a capitalists, commie and facist -WELL DONE YOU ARE SO OBJECTIVE!!
SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?
SHIT POINT, MOVE ON.



The scientific view is to look at all the facts and evaluate them. It seems that the Stalinist camp aren't very good at that .

You keep saying this. YOU ARE NOT VERY GOOD AT IT.
JESUS CHRIST, you quote bloody Solzhenitsyn! If you looked at other facts you would realise the man is a notorious liar.



Continuing on the sources, I see you don't have much to say about Lenin's comments... But then I suppose, as in the article I quote- anyone who doesn't take your view is automatically a capitalist or has been poisoned by the bourgeoisie? .

What Lenin quote? Was it in the PLP article? I didnt bother to read it.

[bailey_187]

Im confused, are you defending Stalin? Because you suggested the reading of those 2 books, by which their title seem to be very anti communist.

A book titled "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia" refutes the claims of Stalin being a mass murderer?

Yes i am defending Stalin.

Those books are neither pro nor anti communist. They are attempts by serious scholars to understand what happened in the USSR. They show the purges were actually the result of a genuine fear and were supported by the Soviet citizens rather than resulting from Stalin being evil or what ever silly things that are sometimes said.

Here is a review of Thurston's book by Grover Furr if you are still unsure of the book:
http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/furr.html
In my opinion, although Ludo Martens is great, a lot of his work in AVS is outdated.

[ComradeMan]

Right, I can see that this debate is beginning to dry out. Perhaps the pro-Stalin faction would like to present their case for Stalin- as opposed to defending him from attacks.

[Invader Zim]

As I've said before, we certainly shouldn't tolerate supporters of Stalin on this board just as we shouldn't tolerate fascists or capitalists, unfortunately my view is a minority one.

Stalin's dictatorship was a violently imperialist, racist and homophobic affair and those who support it do so either in full recognition of these facts or, more commonly, despite the massive plethora of evidence levelled against the regime, in denial of them. As such it is a dogma, as opposed to a considered position, and there is no point trying to discuss the topic with Stalinists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Socialist:


No freedom of speech for enemies, eh?

Didn't you lot have enough of that in Stalin's USSR or in Mao's China?

Oh wait, you didn't...

[Bloody Kalashnikov]

Can there be revolution without firing squads, no there cannot.
-V Lenin

[Cowboy Killer]

Victims of anarchism are not something to be laughed at. You make me sick.:crying:
There are more victims of maoist and stalinist governments governments than there are of anything anarchaic in history.

Sure there were some people who called themselves anarchists and went out and killed people and tried to force anarchy onto people but that goes against everything anarchy stands for.

Valid ideas don't need to be forced.

[Invader Zim]

No freedom of speech for enemies, eh?

You are perfectly entitled to spew your nonsense, I would just prefer that you could only do so in OI where you belong. Though I admit there is slight inconsistancy in my thinking here: I believe in a no platform policy for fascists.


So much for hinting that all Marxist-Leninists are violent imperialist, racist, homophobic.

I never said any such thing, I stated that the regime held those characteristics and that the majority of those who support Stalin are in denial of these facts.


If you think so, why don't you make it clear, instead of dropping broad hints like the above?

I've made my actual views on Stalinists, as opposed to what you would prefer me to think, perfectly clear.



In the light of the fact that you supported imperialist British troops in Northern Ireland, it makes your statement even more ironic.

You are confused or lying. Come to think of it probably both.

[Bloody Kalashnikov]

What is wrong with killing enemies of the revolution, seriously, some people need to understand revolution is a bloody, ugly gruesome affair, and even after its over, the remaining dissidents must be purged to secure the rule of the proletariat.

[Invader Zim]

What is wrong with killing enemies of the revolution, seriously,

The issue isn't that Stalin simply killed enemies of the revolution, but that his list of victims far exceeded that category.

[Bloody Kalashnikov]

That is not so, it is wrong to say so, it stinks of bourgeois propoganda

[bailey_187]

Stalin's dictatorship was a violently imperialist, racist and homophobic affair and those who support it do so either in full recognition of these facts or, more commonly, despite the massive plethora of evidence levelled against the regime, in denial of them. As such it is a dogma, as opposed to a considered position, and there is no point trying to discuss the topic with Stalinists.

No one is denying the USSR was a violent place and there was considerble violence.
The USSR under Stalin was in some places chauvanistic and "imperialist" (not in the sense outlined by Lenin) but this was not a policy of the USSR (Ismail made a great post on this in the History section).
The homophobia was a bad thing, but hardly the defining feature of the USSR. Also, everyone i know who supports Stalin is for LGBT rights

[Stranger Than Paradise]

No one is denying the USSR was a violent place and there was considerble violence.
The USSR under Stalin was in some places chauvanistic and "imperialist" (not in the sense outlined by Lenin) but this was not a policy of the USSR (Ismail made a great post on this in the History section).
The homophobia was a bad thing, but hardly the defining feature of the USSR. Also, everyone i know who supports Stalin is for LGBT rights

But how can you defend any regime which was homophobic. There is no argument you can make to try and sheen over that fact.

[Kayser_Soso]

But how can you defend any regime which was homophobic. There is no argument you can make to try and sheen over that fact.

Classical Greece was not homophobic in the least, on the other hand women had few rights and people owned slaves. The USSR needs to be judged within the context of the time it existed, and with the knowledge which was available at the time on that issue.

We defend certain political and theoretical aspects of the regime, particularly in comparison to the revisionists, Titoites, etc. It doesn't mean we approve of everything that went on there or every policy or decision which was made.

[bailey_187]

But how can you defend any regime which was homophobic.

By not defending it's homophobic policies?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Classical Greece was not homophobic in the least, on the other hand women had few rights and people owned slaves. The USSR needs to be judged within the context of the time it existed, and with the knowledge which was available at the time on that issue.

Considering Stalin repealed laws that Lenin brought in to legalise homosexuality I don't know in what context/time we should be judging them by.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

By not defending it's homophobic policies?

But it's not a case of picking and choosing. How would you define the regime then considering this point? Is it revolutionary?

[Kayser_Soso]

Considering Stalin repealed laws that Lenin brought in to legalise homosexuality I don't know in what context/time we should be judging them by.

First of all, this has been dealt with by one of our comrades. Lenin's view of homosexuality was far from the progressive view we have today. He legalized it yes, but it was still believed to be a mental disorder to be treated. This view was common all over the world at the time.

To say that the USSR was not revolutionary just because of this is ridiculous, the mode of production determines the superstructure, not the other way around. At one time it was the bourgeoisie who were revolutionary, though they eventually became reactionary.

[bailey_187]

But it's not a case of picking and choosing. How would you define the regime then considering this point? Is it revolutionary?

Sexually: No, it was not.


Why can i not pick and choose? I uphold the great acheivements in the Soviet Economy, showing it superioty of Socialism. I uphold the power that the Workers of the USSR ahcieved. I uphold the acheivements in education, culture etc. I uphold the defeat of Nazism. I uphold the assitance given to Socialist and anti-colonial struggles. I do not uphold the banning of Abortion. I do not uphold the homophobia. I do not uphold some of the bad lines taken by Comintern. I do not uphold some of the excesses of the 1930s (although i explain why they happened)

[bailey_187]

To say that the USSR was not revolutionary just because of this is ridiculous, the mode of production determines the superstructure, not the other way around. At one time it was the bourgeoisie who were revolutionary, though they eventually became reactionary.

Exactly.

Although the superstructure has some autonomy.

[Kayser_Soso]

It may interest you to know that when not on forums like these, we "Stalinists" spend most of our time discussing what Stalin and his supporters did wrong. After all, what he got right is little use to us practically now.

[ls]

It may interest you to know that when not on forums like these, we "Stalinists" spend most of our time discussing what Stalin and his supporters did wrong. After all, what he got right is little use to us practically now.

If you want to discuss things with others, without "Stalinist" being thrown around, then maybe you could cut back on the random slandering of left-communists and anarchists to start with. Stuff like 'ultra-leftist' is only gonna get things thrown back at you and it is usually you who starts it when it happens after all.

[Kayser_Soso]

If you want to discuss things with others, without "Stalinist" being thrown around, then maybe you could cut back on the random slandering of left-communists and anarchists to start with. Stuff like 'ultra-leftist' is only gonna get things thrown back at you and it is usually you who starts it when it happens after all.

I don't care if people label me a "Stalinist". I don't believe in the validity of such a term, but it doesn't bother me in the least.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Socialist:


So, are you saying Revleft is the Trotskyist version of the USSR/PRC and you Trots are the ruling class here denying freedom to dissidents? Seems kind of ironic.

No, but it's odd that in one breath you MLM-ers moan about the alleged lack of free speech here, and in the next defend regimes where there was none.

[Kassad]

First of all, this has been dealt with by one of our comrades. Lenin's view of homosexuality was far from the progressive view we have today. He legalized it yes, but it was still believed to be a mental disorder to be treated. This view was common all over the world at the time.

News-fucking-flash. Just because the historical pretext of an idea or belief is acceptable at the time does not justify it. Stoning women who got raped and didn't scream loud enough was acceptable in the early developments of religious scripture and promotion. Slavery was accepted by the majority of people in the United States before the Civil War. As materialists, we realize that we must consistently observe material reality and build from it and that means acknowledging our mistakes and practicing self-criticism. Lenin, Stalin and all those who held this very misguided notion on homosexuality should be criticized for it, not defended.

[scarletghoul]

Socialist:



No, but it's odd that in one breath you MLM-ers moan about the alleged lack of free speech here, and in the next defend regimes where there was none.
Yeahh, no free speech in tha PRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-character_poster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Wall_Movement
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch15.htm

[Kayser_Soso]

News-fucking-flash. Just because the historical pretext of an idea or belief is acceptable at the time does not justify it.

Who's justifying it? Reading. Try it some time.



As materialists, we realize that we must consistently observe material reality and build from it and that means acknowledging our mistakes and practicing self-criticism. Lenin, Stalin and all those who held this very misguided notion on homosexuality should be criticized for it, not defended.

We do criticize them on those specific issues. Next please.

[Kassad]

We do criticize them on those specific issues. Next please.

All I see is rationalization, not self-criticism. The homophobia of earlier revolutionaries should be repudiated and you aren't even coming close to that. You're doing nothing but justify homophobia because it was "historically acceptable." Fucking disgusting is what that is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Yeahh, no free speech in tha PRC.

And, when these began to threaten the party line, they were shut down.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, the second of your two links tells us this:


The hundred flowers movement was the first of its kind in the history of the People's Republic of China in that the government opened up to ideological criticisms from the general public. Although its true nature has always been questioned by historians, it can be generally concluded that the events that took place alarmed the central communist leadership. The movement also represented a pattern that has emerged from Chinese history wherein free thought is promoted by the government, and then suppressed by it. A similar surge in ideological thought would not occur again until the late 1980s, leading up to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The latter surge, however, did not receive the same amount of government backing and encouragement.

The result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign was the persecution of intellectuals, officials, students, artists and dissidents labeled "rightists" during the Anti-Rightist Movement that followed. During this time, over 550,000 people identified as "rightists" were humiliated, imprisoned, demoted or fired from their positions, sent to labor and re-education camps, tortured, or killed.

The movement also made a lasting impact on Mao's ideological perception. Mao, who is known historically to be more ideological and theoretical, less pragmatic and practical, continued to attempt to solidify socialist ideals in future movements, and in the case of the Cultural Revolution, employed more violent means. Another result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign was that it discouraged dissent and made intellectuals reluctant to criticize Mao and his party in the future.

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

Ooops!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Your third link tells us this:


These activists were initially encouraged to criticize the Gang of Four and previous failed government policies as part of Deng Xiaoping's struggle to gain power but the wall was closed in December 1979 when the leadership and the communist party system were being criticized along with acknowledged mistakes and previous leaders. The shutdown coincided with suppression of political dissent. The Democracy Wall was moved to Ritan Park prior to being closed down. As visitors to the wall then had to show identification to enter the park the open and free access to the wall was curtailed.

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

Ooops squared...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Your last two links are to the works of Mao, and you can hardly call these "independent testimony".

So, I re-assert:


No, but it's odd that in one breath you MLM-ers moan about the alleged lack of free speech here, and in the next defend regimes where there was none.

[FSL]

All I see is rationalization, not self-criticism. The homophobia of earlier revolutionaries should be repudiated and you aren't even coming close to that. You're doing nothing but justify homophobia because it was "historically acceptable." Fucking disgusting is what that is.



Repudiate the person on your avatar then. Because having a well known extremist homophobe like Guevara as an avatar seems to be an idolization and frankly it disgusts me!!!



Or maybe try to get a grip along with the rest of your colourful crowd.

[Kassad]

Repudiate the person on your avatar then. Because having a well known extremist homophobe like Guevara as an avatar seems to be an idolization and frankly it disgusts me!!!

Or maybe try to get a grip along with the rest of your colourful crowd.

Cry me a river. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, in case you didn't already know, but that doesn't mean I unconditionally uphold any of the people or socialist states I revere (Castro and Cuba, Mao and China, Lenin and Russia). Much of the communist movement before the 21st century had an incredibly skewed view on homosexuality that should be repudiated, but that doesn't mean you ignore the positive impact of some of these figures. That's basic Marxist materialism; analyzing positive and negative aspects along with opposing forces to continue revolutionary movements by moving forward from past mistakes. It's along the lines of what Mao called 'self-criticism.' I'm sorry, but this is basic Marxism and if people like you can't grasp that, I can't believe you even call yourselves Marxists.

[bailey_187]

Your last two links are to the works of Mao, and you can hardly call these "independent testimony".

So, I re-assert:

"Recently...(Chinese workers net 2007) published interviews with workers in Zhengzhou....workers also said that in the Mao era the Four Big Freedoms- speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding big debates and putting up big-character posters - were written into the constitution, but now dare not go out and demonstrate in the street"
- Mobo Gao - The Battle for China's Past (page 153)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


"Recently...(Chinese workers net 2007) published interviews with workers in Zhengzhou....workers also said that in the Mao era the Four Big Freedoms- speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding big debates and putting up big-character posters - were written into the constitution, but now dare not go out and demonstrate in the street"
- Mobo Gao - The Battle for China's Past (page 153)

Reads like the report of a government hack.

Scareletghoul's links paint a totally different picture.

[bailey_187]

Bailey:



Reads like the report of a government hack.

Scareletghoul's links paint a totally different picture.

What, the book or the Chinese Workers Net?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is what one China expert said about this book:


Mobo Gao's book is a bold attempt to reclaim the cultural revolution as a period of intellectual and political creativity rather than an unmitigated disaster, as China's political elite sees it. Gao says this is not the view of China's peasants - he comes from a rural background - and claims that "the overwhelming voice of the rural people is that they recall the Mao era with fondness." This may be true, but in noting that farmers are angry about the post-Mao reforms which have brought massive corruption and inequalities, Gao seems to imply that these problems vindicate the chaos of the cultural revolution. He is scathing about Mao: The Untold Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, saying that the adulatory reviews it received are an "intellectual scandal".

But Gao's attacks on Chang are sometimes uncomfortably personal, while his defence of the cultural revolution failed to convince me. He quotes a Red Guard document forbidding the victimisation of the children of senior officials, yet in practice they were appallingly persecuted, while the fact that 542 magazines were published in that period is hardly proof of intense political debate as they all toed the party line. But Gao is right to highlight the iniquities behind the glitter of present-day China, and his comments on Mao are thought-provoking...,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/apr/19/politics

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


What, the book or the Chinese Workers Net?

The book reads like it was written by a Maoist hack -- is that clear enough?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Another reviewer had this to say:


So far, so good. The book suffers however from significant flaws. The first is the excessive reliance on vague and altogether rather dubious sources: Gao seems particularly impressed by what he calls the "e-media", and half the book is taken up by discussing what people have been posting in favor of Mao on various internet fora. It is however not explained what the value of these statements are and why anyone should care about them, especially since anyone can post anything on the internet. It makes a silly impression for Gao to lambast others, sometimes remarkably pedantically, in their use of sources, and then to go on to demonstratively include large amounts of internet posts and emails. What is also annoying is the enormously large amount of obscure Chinese sources used, partially as a result of this approach, which makes it impossible for anyone to properly estimate the relative value of the claims made on his part. Indeed the level of detail in the book is often very high, with relatively little being explained, so that one wonders exactly what kind of public this book was written for. An index of Chinese names and terms at the back does help a little, but not enough by any stretch to alleviate this. The third problem is the lack of structure of the book - a part of it consists of articles Gao had already written on Chinese history-writing, a part of it of the "e-media" stuff mentioned above, and part of it on random observations about how authors get the Mao period wrong, often in useless detail.

The book is not bad as such, and Gao is clearly motivated to write it out of a very palpable sense of frustration and anger with anti-Mao ideology, but it still leaves much to be desired. Especially considering the import of the topic, it is too bad that the only really interesting considerations, namely why Maoist policy can be seen as having made a great improvement for most people despite the Great Leap Forward and so forth, are quoted only from Amartya Sen! Indeed Gao would probably have done his case a lot more good if he had arranged his criticisms of Chang & Halliday and Li around a more systematic discussion of that topic.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R7GRC4TUNCNH/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R7GRC4TUNCNH

[bailey_187]

The book reads like it was written by a Maoist hack -- is that clear enough?

Are you suggesting that Mobo Gao lied about what the Chinese Workers Net claimed in its article then?

I dont get what point you are trying to make? So an Amazon reviewer gave it a bad review and the Guardian thinks it has a wrong assesement of the GPCR and is a little bit mean to Chang?


I wonder how John Rees' "In Defense of October" would be reviewed by the Guardian? Maybe they would say something like "The book reads like it was written by a Trotskyits hack" and "Rees' defence of the October revolution failed to convince me"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


Are you suggesting that Mobo Gao lied about what the Chinese Workers Net claimed in its article then?

No, I am suggesting he is a Maoist hack -- read into that what you like.


I dont get what point you are trying to make? So an Amazon reviewer gave it a bad review and the Guardian thinks it has a wrong assesement of the GPCR and is a little bit mean to Chang?

They suggest that Gao relies on 1) Uncheckable sources and 2) Unreliable sources.


I wonder how John Rees' "In Defense of October" would be reviewed by the Guardian? Maybe they would say something like "The book reads like it was written by a Trotskyits hack" and "Rees' defence of the October revolution failed to convince me"

In view of the fact that neither Trotsky nor Rees are mass murderers, I'd be inclined to side with them, not the Guardian -- or you -- or Gao.

[bailey_187]

Right, ok, well i will leave you to air your distate for Mobo Gao on your own then because you dont seem to be making any points contributing to this disscussion. If i had said Mobo Gao's book is the definitive authority on Chinese history, then your response would be useful. However, i did not, i quoted him quoting an article for Chinese Workers Net.

[FSL]

Cry me a river. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, in case you didn't already know, but that doesn't mean I unconditionally uphold any of the people or socialist states I revere (Castro and Cuba, Mao and China, Lenin and Russia). Much of the communist movement before the 21st century had an incredibly skewed view on homosexuality that should be repudiated, but that doesn't mean you ignore the positive impact of some of these figures. That's basic Marxist materialism; analyzing positive and negative aspects along with opposing forces to continue revolutionary movements by moving forward from past mistakes. It's along the lines of what Mao called 'self-criticism.' I'm sorry, but this is basic Marxism and if people like you can't grasp that, I can't believe you even call yourselves Marxists.



Less not ignoring positive impact, more repudiating please.
Alternatively, you could stop holding double standards based on whose face gets printed on t-shirts but I doubt you're ready for that.

[Kassad]

Less not ignoring positive impact, more repudiating please.
Alternatively, you could stop holding double standards based on whose face gets printed on t-shirts but I doubt you're ready for that.

Note how:
1) You don't address any of the points I've made.
2) You use massive straw man arguments -- going way off topic and somehow bringing up Che Guevara and his status as a popular culture icon to some.
3) You tell me I'm using double standards, yet you don't point out even one example of any double standards I've made.

Try again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


Right, ok, well i will leave you to air your distate for Mobo Gao on your own then because you dont seem to be making any points contributing to this disscussion. If i had said Mobo Gao's book is the definitive authority on Chinese history, then your response would be useful. However, i did not, i quoted him quoting an article for Chinese Workers Net.

Fine, but you should have made that clear.

My original comments still stands, then.

[FSL]

Note how:
1) You don't address any of the points I've made.
2) You use massive straw man arguments -- going way off topic and somehow bringing up Che Guevara and his status as a popular culture icon to some.
3) You tell me I'm using double standards, yet you don't point out even one example of any double standards I've made.

Try again.


Ok, now with more words. You say it's right to denounce homophobia on the part of earlier revolutionaries. Correct. But people are denouncing the whole USSR on the grounds of homophobia demonstrated.


But how can you defend any regime which was homophobic. There is no argument you can make to try and sheen over that fact.

You don't even answer to these people, instead saying to those defending USSR how disgusting it is on their behalf to "defend" homophobia.
Then when Guevara is accused by me to have shown the same homophobia (I obviously wasn't offtopic as Guevara certainly was a homophobic communist who killed plenty people and even cheated on his wife I think, thus a sexist pig too) instead of immediately and without questions denouncing that, you go on about the need to weigh the positive and negative impact of someone. Something you didn't do just a while ago when you were referring to a less popular person. This is a double standard.


I noticed you characterise yourself as a marxist-leninist. Maybe demand more from yourself then?

[ls]

Ok, now with more words. You say it's right to denounce homophobia on the part of earlier revolutionaries. Correct. But people are denouncing the whole USSR on the grounds of homophobia demonstrated.

And you are denouncing them for denouncing homophobia of the USSR, whether people denounce the entire USSR or not, defending homophobia is idiotic.


You don't even answer to these people, instead saying to those defending USSR how disgusting it is on their behalf to "defend" homophobia.

Ah yes, because clearly it is way more important to attack people attacking the USSR (who probably won't change their minds anytime soon on it) than it is to denounce homophobia.


Then when Guevara is accused by me to have shown the same homophobia (I obviously wasn't offtopic as Guevara certainly was a homophobic communist who killed plenty people and even cheated on his wife I think, thus a sexist pig too)

Minor point, but sexual relationships with others does not automatically equal misogyny.

[FSL]

And you are denouncing them for denouncing homophobia of the USSR, whether people denounce the entire USSR or not, defending homophobia is idiotic.


Ah yes, because clearly it is way more important to attack people attacking the USSR (who probably won't change their minds anytime soon on it) than it is to denounce homophobia.


Minor point, but sexual relationships with others does not automatically equal misogyny.


No one was idiot enough to defend homophobia, people were idiot enough to denounce the entire USSR (not just an element in it) for being homophobic.

It is a million times more important to attack people attacking the USSR than it is to keep denouncing homophobia. Especially when the people that bring it up aren't really angered by USSR the homophobic state but by USSR the workers state.

Lying and cheating isn't misogyny but not liking gays in the 30s is homophobia? Besides I don't actually think Guevara was a murderous, homophobic, sexist pig. However, others should and evidently don't. Trying to understand why.

[ls]

No one was idiot enough to defend homophobia, people were idiot enough to denounce the entire USSR (not just an element in it) for being homophobic.

Which I don't agree with, but that is totally besides the point.


It is a million times more important to attack people attacking the USSR than it is to keep denouncing homophobia. Especially when the people that bring it up aren't really angered by USSR the homophobic state but by USSR the workers state.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about here.


Lying and cheating isn't misogyny

Well, you said "even cheated on his wife I think, thus a sexist pig too".


but not liking gays in the 30s is homophobia?

:confused: Err yes? Of course it's homophobia what the fuck?


Besides I don't actually think Guevara was a murderous, homophobic, sexist pig. However, others should and evidently don't. Trying to understand why.

Well I think he was homophobic and probably sexist (though I've never seen proof of that) and he sold out before he died too, but that doesn't necessarily detract from what he achieved in terms of the class-struggle.

[Kassad]

Ok, now with more words. You say it's right to denounce homophobia on the part of earlier revolutionaries. Correct. But people are denouncing the whole USSR on the grounds of homophobia demonstrated.

As much as I would disagree with someone who denounces the Soviet Union due to homophobia, I don't think anyone here is doing that. Take Rosa for example. If I remember correctly, she subscribes to the line promoted by the International Socialist Tendency which says that the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc and so on are/were 'state capitalist.' This means that there was still a capitalist class in all these countries and that the party bureaucracy ruled, not the proletariat etc. Nowhere in any writings by those upholding this idea have I seen the Soviet Union repudiated merely because it was governed by homophobes. I mean, hell, I uphold the Soviet Union as socialist until the counterrevolution in the 1990's, so the notion that people who criticize it as homophobic are attacking it just because of that is pretty faulty.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You don't even answer to these people, instead saying to those defending USSR how disgusting it is on their behalf to "defend" homophobia.
Then when Guevara is accused by me to have shown the same homophobia (I obviously wasn't offtopic as Guevara certainly was a homophobic communist who killed plenty people and even cheated on his wife I think, thus a sexist pig too) instead of immediately and without questions denouncing that, you go on about the need to weigh the positive and negative impact of someone. Something you didn't do just a while ago when you were referring to a less popular person. This is a double standard.


I noticed you characterise yourself as a marxist-leninist. Maybe demand more from yourself then?

I didn't even see anything on Che Guevara, and believe me if I had I would have denounced him aswell. I aint no Leninist either.

[bailey_187]

Bailey:



Fine, but you should have made that clear.

My original comments still stands, then.

No it doesnt. You havent attacked the quote i gave, just the book in general.

[FSL]

As much as I would disagree with someone who denounces the Soviet Union due to homophobia, I don't think anyone here is doing that.


I had a quote of someone doing so. You couldn't have missed it as it came exactly after the part of my post you did quote and answer on. If you intentionally left that out to give an "acceptable" answer, I'll assume you understood where you were wrong.



I didn't even see anything on Che Guevara, and believe me if I had I would have denounced him aswell. I aint no Leninist either.


It would be natural of you to do so, no one can expect better.

[ComradeMan]

Comparing the USSR with classical Greece is not really practical.

I must add though, in 1950 where wasn't homophobic? Most societies have been homophobic until extremely recently and the fact that homophobia is still an issue shows that the matter has not been resolved.

The Cuban Revolution persecuted gays it is true. The USSR had homophobic laws that flew against the ideas of Lenin. But at the same time black people couldn't vote in the US until the late 1960's and homosexuality was a criminal offence in the US and whole swathes of the rest of the world with varying degrees of severity.

I don't think that homophobia depends on a political ideology isasmuch as it depends more upon human attitudes. Let us also not forget that psychology and medicine had described homosexuality as a pathology of sorts and at best a mental disorder. In this environment it doesn't matter what your political persuasion is......

[LeninistKing]

Because most people who are into politics love to debate without being backed by credible, sound and rational sources of information. Most people in the right and in the left are like that. Look at the millions of people who supported Bush-II even in 2004, after he did 9-11 and all the things he did. And the same thing is happening with Obama. Obama is an imperialist, a warmonger, a black Bush, the same thing of Bush and yet many progressive-democrats still support him.

So the answer to why many leftists support killers and evil dictators like Stalin and Pol Pot is lack of knowledge.

Mao was a suis generis case, and not a dictator. I think Mao has been satanized by capitalist-media. just like Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro.

But it is very known that Stalin and Pol Pot were evil

And that's why in this world we have celebrity-worshippers, they would rather support an evil celebrity than an unknown moralist and good person




This is not intended to flame anyone on RevLeft.
Why is it that so many of you Revlefters think of Communist leaders such as Stalin and Pol Pot your heroes and idloise them when they were such brutal killers? I understand they had their good points but why would you idolise them when they ordered massacres and purges against common people, who I thought we were supposed to be fighting for?

[bailey_187]

So the answer to why many leftists support killers and evil dictators like Stalin and Pol Pot is lack of knowledge.

On the contrary, i think most of the left do not support Stalin is because THEY have a lack of knowledge on Stalin. This is demonstarted clearly by this thread, most (not all) anti-Stalin "Socialists" have a poor knowledge of Stalin and the Stalin years.



Mao was a suis generis case, and not a dictator. I think Mao has been satanized by capitalist-media. just like Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro.

But it is very known that Stalin and Pol Pot were evil .

I could just as easily say that "it is very known that Mao and Castro were evil" (not that i do). So you accept that the "Capitalist-media" can lie and put out disinformation about Mao, but not Stalin?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


No it doesnt. You havent attacked the quote i gave, just the book in general.

Anyone can come up with unsubstantiated quotes. Here's one


"In my factory, and in many others my friends told me about, no one was allowed to say anything critical of Mao and the CCP. Only mindless chanting of phrases from the Little Red book were permitted." Hsu Cheng.

[A.R.Amistad]

The fact is, all governments commit atrocities. During the pre-WWII period the Western Allies were responsible for plenty of unnecessary and unjust deaths (the Bengal famine comes to mind).
Trying to place Stalin and Mao into a separate category, of leaders who are somehow 'more bloodthirsty' than the leaders of the western capitalist states is nothing more than a tactic used by the bourgeois media to discredit socialism- to claim that their hands were clean in an era when, due to global economic meltdown, social upheaval, and the rise of fascism, everybody was forced to get their hands bloody to some extent.


O.K., I can agree with this to a point but then whats the whole point of our revolution? Aren't we trying to establish a society that is better and more advanced than the previous societies who committed atrocities? If not, then what the fuck is the point if we are just going to set up another oppressive regime?

[Kayser_Soso]

O.K., I can agree with this to a point but then whats the whole point of our revolution? Aren't we trying to establish a society that is better and more advanced than the previous societies who committed atrocities? If not, then what the fuck is the point if we are just going to set up another oppressive regime?


Nobody wants to set up another oppressive regime. But whether or not that happens depends on how well we respond to capitalism's counter-revolution. One could make the argument that the failure of 20th century socialism was a failure to counter capitalism's offensive after fascism failed to do so. Stalin was certainly naive in trusting his western allies. The idea of compromising to secure the USSR is somewhat justifiable, but there was a point where he really believed that he could get this security from the West. As a result they dicked him not only on issues like Greece, but even solid agreements the Western Allies had made were broken entirely, such as Soviet bases on the Bosphorus.

[black magick hustla]

i generally avoid these threads like a plague because the dimwits of *hail soviet union tm* come barking and these threads are generally irrelevant and boring.

However, no state murdered more self avowed communists than the ussr. no "communists" encouraged more the marrying of the worker's movement to the bourgeois state (the popular front). no "communists" encouraged more the sacrifice the youth for the bourgeois state, in the name of democracy, antifascism, or any other sort of empty liberal concept than the stalinists. nothing signaled more the death of communism than the french "communist" party singing the marseillase. perhaps the stalinists were able to industralize the country and defeat a faction of the capitalists (the fascists), perhaps the stalinists were able to build a sort of welfare state from an economically backward country; however they were in the front of the counterrevolution, in the full sense ofthe word. they were responsable for the destruction of the communist movement as a whole -- by marrying it to the realpolitik of the stalinist capitalist state. there is absolutely nothing to scavenge from this sort of brutal liberalism. And yes, it is liberalism, in its most virulent form.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, I didn't know the Stalinists were responsible for the Muppets, too!

[Искра]

Hey, I didn't know the Stalinists were responsible for the Muppets, too!
They are not Stalinists... how can you be so "uneducated" (lol) - they are anti-revisionists.... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Niccolò Rossi]

NpYEJx7PkWE

“Where thoughts are absent, [Youtube videos] are brought in as convenient replacements"

[Kayser_Soso]

i generally avoid these threads like a plague because the dimwits of *hail soviet union tm* come barking and these threads are generally irrelevant and boring.

Hmmm...who in this thread is saying "hail the Soviet Union"? Either your reading abilities are poor or you are arguing against strawmen.



However, no state murdered more self avowed communists than the ussr.

Demonstrably false. See Nazi Germany.



no "communists" encouraged more the marrying of the worker's movement to the bourgeois state (the popular front). no "communists" encouraged more the sacrifice the youth for the bourgeois state, in the name of democracy, antifascism, or any other sort of empty liberal concept than the stalinists. nothing signaled more the death of communism than the french "communist" party singing the marseillase. perhaps the stalinists were able to industralize the country and defeat a faction of the capitalists (the fascists), perhaps the stalinists were able to build a sort of welfare state from an economically backward country; however they were in the front of the counterrevolution, in the full sense ofthe word. they were responsable for the destruction of the communist movement as a whole -- by marrying it to the realpolitik of the stalinist capitalist state. there is absolutely nothing to scavenge from this sort of brutal liberalism. And yes, it is liberalism, in its most virulent form.

You forgot one other thing. No other socialist theory, Trotskyism, Anarchism, etc., has managed to give us a workable alternative to capitalism, nor provide the world with anything of value whatsoever. People growing up in privileged countries scoff at the socialists' accomplishments, still infused with decades of liberal anti-Communist propaganda. The people of these countries however, who are now literate, educated, have their own alphabets, literature, their own nations, their own existence in the case of those whose homelands happened to lie within German "Lebensraum" are far more grateful. The Uzbek, Kazakh, Tajik, Caucasian, Turkmen, Tatar, and Buryat workers, and many more, look at 20th century socialism in a realistic way far removed from the idle theorizing and endless third conditional blabber put forth by student Trotskyites from imperialist countries.

And for this reason they are far smarter than you, who foolishly compare the USSR to capitalist societies which had 100 year head starts on them. You have to compare the USSR, and other socialist countries, to what they had BEFORE, or at least at the time they were founded.

[black magick hustla]

Demonstrably false. See Nazi Germany.

maybe you can make a case if every russian murdered by the nazis in the war counts as a communist. however, i doubt the nazis murdered as many communists as stalin in a systematic way for being "communists". tbh i am willing to give you the benefit of doubt because i don't find it particularly an important point-- it is rather evident that almost the whole bolshevik old guard was liquidated, whether hitlers dick was longer than stalins is not really an important point.

[black magick hustla]

As J Arch Getty points out, Old Bolsheviks were not more liable for purging than any other Soviet citizen during the purges. It was the corrupt party elite that were the biggest targets for the purges. Of course, not everyone who was purged deserved it. However if you think party elites were not people who deserved punishment for their crimes, its a different issue.

I don't think I ever said that.

[black magick hustla]

Haha, where facts and history are absent, idealist nonsense is brought in as convenient replacements.

the only thing you can really question from anything i said was that stalinist russia murdered the most communists, and tbh i dare to say if i am wrong i am probably not that wrong.

[LeninistKing]

haha, cool quote you have about the rich getting richer and the poorer poorer. Damn man, only a few live like kings in this capitalist hell, and the majority in pain. The world is in pain !!

LeninistKing


This is not intended to flame anyone on RevLeft.
Why is it that so many of you Revlefters think of Communist leaders such as Stalin and Pol Pot your heroes and idloise them when they were such brutal killers? I understand they had their good points but why would you idolise them when they ordered massacres and purges against common people, who I thought we were supposed to be fighting for?

[LeninistKing]

Hey my anarchist, communist, democrats, stalinists, anti-stalinists, trotskists, even right-wingers beating the bullets economically; What we need is to unite into a big United-Front for the 2012 or 2016 elections in USA. If that doesn't work, then we would need a social-revolution. if the USA left continues to be divided we will be doomed. In fact, if the US citizens angry at the Democrats and Republicans continue to be divided into lots of different small political parties and movements, democrats and republicans will continue to rule the USA. and Sarah Palin will win elections in 2012. Because that's the tactic that corporate rulers use in USA is to divide the opposition so that Democrats and Republicans can always rule this fascist hell.

.




Note how:
1) You don't address any of the points I've made.
2) You use massive straw man arguments -- going way off topic and somehow bringing up Che Guevara and his status as a popular culture icon to some.
3) You tell me I'm using double standards, yet you don't point out even one example of any double standards I've made.

Try again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dada:


maybe you can make a case if every russian murdered by the nazis in the war counts as a communist. however, i doubt the nazis murdered as many communists as stalin in a systematic way for being "communists". tbh i am willing to give you the benefit of doubt because i don't find it particularly an important point-- it is rather evident that almost the whole bolshevik old guard was liquidated, whether hitlers dick was longer than stalins is not really an important point.

While I agree with you here -- you might want to point out that even if these defenders of the mass murderers of our comrades in the former USSR (and elsewhere) are right, the Stalinist regime came a close second to the Nazis. I'm sure you agree that this nothing these 'useful fools' should feel proud of.

[Kayser_Soso]

maybe you can make a case if every russian murdered by the nazis in the war counts as a communist.

We can certainly say that every party member murdered was, plus there was the Commissar order which also included orders to kill members of the Communist party who held positions of authority of any kind, or those involved in propaganda.



however, i doubt the nazis murdered as many communists as stalin in a systematic way for being "communists".

Then you have a lot of reading to do. Obviously Stalin did not "kill" anyone for being Communists, and the Nazis certainly did so.



tbh i am willing to give you the benefit of doubt because i don't find it particularly an important point-- it is rather evident that almost the whole bolshevik old guard was liquidated, whether hitlers dick was longer than stalins is not really an important point.

The point is you made a stupid claim, and another one in this paragraph, and I have to call bullshit on it.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, recommends trying to repeat what occurred in the USSR. What happened there was a result of the historical conditions of that time and place. Much of what happened there occurred not because people like Stalin simply made decisions, but because the times suggested one path was better than another. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong, and many times neither choice was "good".

These moronic trots and anarchists always make it seem as though everything that happened in the Soviet Union was part of Stalin's own intentions, and assume that had their theory been followed on any given decision, it would have been successful. In reality, there is no reason to believe that alternative actions would have been better, they could have been worse. For example I believe that Stalin should not have allowed Britain to take out the Greek Communists in 1944. But then again I'm not in Stalin's shoes back in 1943-44, and I can only judge what actually happened, with the benefit of hindsight.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


Nobody, and I mean nobody, recommends trying to repeat what occurred in the USSR. What happened there was a result of the historical conditions of that time and place. Much of what happened there occurred not because people like Stalin simply made decisions, but because the times suggested one path was better than another. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong, and many times neither choice was "good"

Which is another way of saying "Socialism in one country is impossible."

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



Which is another way of saying "Socialism in one country is impossible."

For the hundredth time, your view of socialism in one country, and the extent to which it influenced Soviet policies, is oversimplified.

In your next reply, please provide a list of alternative solutions to the USSR's problems, with some explanation and evidence as to why they would work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


For the hundredth time, your view of socialism in one country, and the extent to which it influenced Soviet policies, is oversimplified.

This view of my view of SIOC is 'oversimplified', too.


In your next reply, please provide a list of alternative solutions to the USSR's problems, with some explanation and evidence as to why they would work

May I suggest you read Trotsky's solution to these very problems.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/

[Kayser_Soso]

May I suggest you read Trotsky's solution to these very problems.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/

Yes because obviously his ideas were perfectly feasible at the time, and it's not like Trotsky never ridiculously contradicted himself over and over on this point. For example, in the 20s he's claiming that it was impossible to build socialism in the USSR. During the mid to late 30s, from exile, he then went on to claim that socialism HAD been established in the USSR, and that it was so firmly entrenched that only a massive civil war, or possibly foreign intervention could dislodge it- thus there was no need to worry about internal enemies. Trotsky often wavered on the question of whether the USSR was socialist or not, or a degenerated worker's state or not, as is evident in some of the new correspondence of his discovered by scholar J. Arch Getty. Of course Trotskyites are never interested in new evidence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


Yes because obviously his ideas were perfectly feasible at the time, and it's not like Trotsky never ridiculously contradicted himself over and over on this point. For example, in the 20s he's claiming that it was impossible to build socialism in the USSR. During the mid to late 30s, from exile, he then went on to claim that socialism HAD been established in the USSR, and that it was so firmly entrenched that only a massive civil war, or possibly foreign intervention could dislodge it- thus there was no need to worry about internal enemies. Trotsky often wavered on the question of whether the USSR was socialist or not, or a degenerated worker's state or not, as is evident in some of the new correspondence of his discovered by scholar J. Arch Getty. Of course Trotskyites are never interested in new evidence.

So well argued and supported with detailed quotations...

What was that about "evidence"...?

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



So well argued and supported with detailed quotations...

What was that about "evidence"...?

Ask and ye shall receive:

"…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible". (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.26; p470)

"A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others." (Lenin, V.I. On the Slogan for a United States of Europe. Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 21, pages 339-343. Sotsial-Demokrat No. 44, August 23, 1915, 1974.)

"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"

“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of
capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several
or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat
of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its
own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world,
the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of
other countries ... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible
without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle by the socialist
republics against the backward states.”
(V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 21, p. 342)

‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time’. (V. I. Lenin: C. W. Russ. Ed. Vol. 19; p.325).

"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously." (Lenin, Political Report of the CC to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B), March 7 1918, Collected Works, Vol 27).

It was in response to Trotsky saying "we can only be saved, in the true meaning of the word, by a European Revolution." (Ibid.) Trotsky was talking about his actions concerning Brest-Litovsk.

"... a revolution cannot be 'made', that revolutions develop from objectively mature crises and turns in history" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol . 21, p. 240.)

Ok this next one is a bit off topic but it shows how delusional Trotsky was:

"Hitler's soldiers are German workers and peasants. . . . The armies of occupation must live side by side with the conquered peoples; they must observe the impoverishment and despair of the toiling masses; they must observe the latter's attempts at resistance and protest, at first muffled and then more and more open and bold. . . . The German soldiers, that is, the workers and peasants, will in the majority of cases have far more sympathy for the vanquished peoples than for their own ruling caste. The necessity to act at every step in the capacity of 'pacifiers' and oppressors will swiftly disintegrate the armies of occupation, infecting them with a revolutionary spirit." --1940
Leon Trotsky
"On the Future of Hitler's Armies"
Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-40)
(NY: Merit Publishers, 1969), p. 113.

Yup, over 8 million civilians slaughtered. Good call Trotsky!!!

1905:
“During the whole period of its activity, the Petersburg Soviet had at its head a very intelligent and clever Menshevik... The name of that Menshevik was Trotsky. He was a genuine, full-blown Menshevik who had no desire whatever for armed insurrection...” (M. N. Pokrovsky, Brief History of Russia, Vol. II, p. 320).

February 1917:
“In my opinion, our main task is to guard against getting entangled in foolish attempts at ‘unity’ with the social-patriots (or, what is still more dangerous, with the wavering ones, like . . . Trotsky and Co.) and to continue the work of our own party in a consistently internationalist spirit.” (V. I. Lenin, The Revolution of 1917, Vol. I, English edition, p. 21.)

May 1917:
“The vacillations of the petty-bourgeois: Trotsky . . .” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXX, Russian edition, p. 331.)

"socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of Das Kapital, but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earth's surface--not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity."(12) Trotsky in 1936

"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counter-revolutionary coup d’état which would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war."
(L. Trotsky, On the Kirov Assassination, December 1934)

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." (Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS, thanks for the above, but they contain nothing new, and certainly do not support the allegations you advanced earlier:


Yes because obviously his ideas were perfectly feasible at the time, and it's not like Trotsky never ridiculously contradicted himself over and over on this point. For example, in the 20s he's claiming that it was impossible to build socialism in the USSR. During the mid to late 30s, from exile, he then went on to claim that socialism HAD been established in the USSR, and that it was so firmly entrenched that only a massive civil war, or possibly foreign intervention could dislodge it- thus there was no need to worry about internal enemies. Trotsky often wavered on the question of whether the USSR was socialist or not, or a degenerated worker's state or not, as is evident in some of the new correspondence of his discovered by scholar J. Arch Getty. Of course Trotskyites are never interested in new evidence.

Once more:


So well argued and supported with detailed quotations...

What was that about "evidence"...?

[Kayser_Soso]

KS, thanks for the above, but they contain nothing new, and certainly do not support the allegations you advanced earlier:



Once more:

See the second to the last quote.

As for Trotsky's flip-flopping on how to characterize the USSR, see:

J. Arch Getty, "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International," Soviet Studies, 38 (Jan. 1986)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS -- here it is:


"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counter-revolutionary coup d’état which would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war."
(L. Trotsky, On the Kirov Assassination, December 1934)

Yes, so?

And it should hardly surprise you that a dialectician like Trotsky changed his mind -- Lenin certainly did, so did Mao, and so did Stalin. Stalin changed his mind, for example, from this Leninist position to one of national chauvinism (in a later edition of the same book):


The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism - the organisation of socialist production -- remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient -- the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution. [Problems of Leninism, First Edition. Bold emphasis alone added.]

To paraphrase a wise and knowledgeable RevLefter:


Of course Stalinites are never interested in new evidence.

[Kayser_Soso]

You apparently failed to understand what Stalin and Lenin are saying there. Yes, the final victory of socialism, and by extension Communism, can only be secured when socialism is the dominant force in the world and capitalism is on its last legs. However, when a revolutionary scenario occurs in one or a few countries, you fight that to its conclusion and then you go about constructing the best attainable socialist society you can with the resources you have. You don't sit around and wait for revolutions in more advanced countries to help you. I have yet to see a Trotskyite even attempt to explain just as to why socialism could better be constructed in England or Germany than in Russia. Yes these countries had a bigger proletariat; but why assume that they wouldn't have problems with bureaucracy, that they wouldn't, due to internal struggle, find themselves temporarily behind their surrounding nations economically and in terms of infrastructure?

When you speak of national chauvinism in the USSR, this has little to do with the idea of socialism in one country. After all, the one country was the USSR, with a myriad of nationalities. Plus, the extent of "Russian nationalism" during the war is often stated. Foreigners rarely get to see all the propaganda material made specially for non-Russians from both before and during the war. Also much is made of the loosening of restrictions on the Orthodox Church(which I am damned opposed to), but nothing in the west is said about the revival of Islam which also occurred.

Clearly Stalin did not believe in socialism strictly in one country since the USSR was instrumental in spreading socialism to several other countries, and making it possible for it to be spread further still. The failures you speak of are a matter of various individual policies, peoples' interpretation of events at the time, and sometimes simply naivety and dumb luck. Simply say: "THEY ALL FAILED BECAUSE OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY" is to try to reduce something incredibly complicated to what amounts to a slogan. I am sorry to inform you, but history does not provide easy answers like that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


I have yet to see a Trotskyite even attempt to explain just as to why socialism could better be constructed in England or Germany than in Russia.

May I suggst you either 1) Get new gasses, or 2) Take that bag off your head.


When you speak of national chauvinism in the USSR, this has little to do with the idea of socialism in one country. After all, the one country was the USSR, with a myriad of nationalities. Plus, the extent of "Russian nationalism" during the war is often stated. Foreigners rarely get to see all the propaganda material made specially for non-Russians from both before and during the war. Also much is made of the loosening of restrictions on the Orthodox Church(which I am damned opposed to), but nothing in the west is said about the revival of Islam which also occurred.

And we all know how nice Stalin was the the Chechens.


Clearly Stalin did not believe in socialism strictly in one country since the USSR was instrumental in spreading socialism to several other countries, and making it possible for it to be spread further still. The failures you speak of are a matter of various individual policies, peoples' interpretation of events at the time, and sometimes simply naivety and dumb luck. Simply say: "THEY ALL FAILED BECAUSE OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY" is to try to reduce something incredibly complicated to what amounts to a slogan. I am sorry to inform you, but history does not provide easy answers like that.

We've already been through this, where I was able to show that history and theory have refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country. Why are you raising this again?

[GatesofLenin]

Hi Ducky, it's pretty simple actually. Are you a Catholic by any chance? Answer truthfully please.

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



May I suggst you either 1) Get new gasses, or 2) Take that bag off your head.

May I suggest you provide an explanation?




And we all know how nice Stalin was the the Chechens.

Yes, the only Muslim group in the Soviet Union was the Chechens. Personally I view the deportations of 1944(including the other groups) as haphazard, unfair, and generally a really, really bad idea. That being said, remember what happened to Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians who betrayed their country? Their fate was far more severe.




We've already been through this, where I was able to show that history and theory have refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country. Why are you raising this again?

No you "showed" this via flawed logic and oversimplification of what happened in the past. This is no different from a capitalist claiming that ALL attempts at creating a modern alternative to capitalism have failed, ergo capitalism's supremacy has been proven by theory and history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


May I suggest you provide an explanation?

Sure: you need to obtain new glasses since you plainly have problems seeing things. Next, instructions on how to open and close doors...

The bag thing was a joke -- you can leave it on.


No you "showed" this via flawed logic and oversimplification of what happened in the past. This is no different from a capitalist claiming that ALL attempts at creating a modern alternative to capitalism have failed, ergo capitalism's supremacy has been proven by theory and history.

This is an 'oversimplification' of what I argued.