Questions For Stalinists

[Stavrogin]

From what I have gathered from my reading here it seems that there are some members on this forum who regard themselves as Stalinists - it is to them that I would like to ask some questions which have long puzzled me.


While I can understand that there may have been political considerations in keeping Trotsky from succeeding Lenin - I seriously do not understand most of theoretical criticisms of Trotsky. I have heard it argued that Trotsky might not have succeeded in industrializing the Soviet Union in time for the War, but the evidence for this does not seem strong - counter-factual arguments are rarely convincing. With the important exception of the 'Socialism in One Country' theory, many of the important economic changes which Stalin initiated had been previously suggested by Trotsky - from the winding down of the N.E.P. to the Collectivization of Agriculture (though the suggested methods for undertaking these reforms might have differed). Unless some form of National Socialism is perceived to be desirable, I do not understand how 'Socialism in One Country' is attractive for Stalinists (or justified under Marxism-Leninism). What is the Stalinist basis for the criticism of ideas put forward by Trotsky which were later adopted anyhow?
Do Stalinists deny the large number of deaths which are claimed to have occurred during the Collectivization of Agriculture, or do they suggest that this was entirely justified?
Do Stalinists deny the death's usually ascribed to the Purges or do they suggest that all these party member's were spies and wreckers?
Do Stalinists dispute the usually accepted interpretation of the early years of the war - where the Soviet Union was completely surprised and a large portion of the western areas of the state where overrun by the Wehrmacht?. Responsibility for this is almost always laid on Stalin personally due to his insistence that Germany would not attack at that stage. Is Stalin's responsibility for this disaster a matter of dispute, or is the whole success of the early stages of the German campaign a matter of dispute? It would be hard to imagine that a Stalinist could argue that the early stages of the war went well for the Soviet Union.
How do Stalinsts respond to accusations made in Khruschev's secret speech (as well as numerous other places)?

There are many more questions of a similar nature which occur to me, but that is probably plenty for the moment. If these are stupid questions, I apologize in advance, but I have never been to able to reconcile these ideas with my understanding of Marxism-Leninism (not that I am claiming any expertise in this subject).
I would be most grateful to any Stalinists who could clear up these confusions for me.

[Action Johnny]

I don't think we have any Stalinists on RevLeft. None that I've come across of at least. Stalinism seems more of a fringe cult-ish anomaly on the communist spectrum.

[red cat]

I don't think we have any Stalinists on RevLeft. None that I've come across of at least. Stalinism seems more of a fringe cult-ish anomaly on the communist spectrum.

Actually there are quite a few of us here who uphold Stalin. In fact there is a Stalinist group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=296) here. The Maoist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=10), Hoxhaist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=7) and Marxist-Leninist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=46) tendencies also uphold Stalin.

[Action Johnny]

I respectfully retract that then. :lol:

[red cat]

From what I have gathered from my reading here it seems that there are some members on this forum who regard themselves as Stalinists - it is to them that I would like to ask some questions which have long puzzled me.


While I can understand that there may have been political considerations in keeping Trotsky from succeeding Lenin - I seriously do not understand most of theoretical criticisms of Trotsky. I have heard it argued that Trotsky might not have succeeded in industrializing the Soviet Union in time for the War, but the evidence for this does not seem strong - counter-factual arguments are rarely convincing. With the important exception of the 'Socialism in One Country' theory, many of the important economic changes which Stalin initiated had been previously suggested by Trotsky - from the winding down of the N.E.P. to the Collectivization of Agriculture (though the suggested methods for undertaking these reforms might have differed). Unless some form of National Socialism is perceived to be desirable, I do not understand how 'Socialism in One Country' is attractive for Stalinists (or justified under Marxism-Leninism). What is the Stalinist basis for the criticism of ideas put forward by Trotsky which were later adopted anyhow?

I will answer a part your first question only, from the Maoist point of view. I hope that other Stalinists will answer the rest.

When the world revolution fails to happen, a socialist country has no other option other than continuing on its own and aiding in rebuilding the revolutionary movements in other countries. The USSR under Stalin did just this. Moreover, since all countries never undergo the same stages of development under capitalism, socialism in one country is probably inevitable.

Depending on the Trotskyite line of urban insurrections determining the major power seizure by the proletariat, and their theory of socilism in one stage, all Trotskyite organizations today denounce the ongoing Maoist revolutions. We view this as a plain betrayal of the cause of the proletariat. How do you justify this line of your tendency when your organizations have failed to achieve anything significant in the countries where the Maoist revolutions are progressing ?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't think we have any Stalinists on RevLeft. None that I've come across of at least. Stalinism seems more of a fringe cult-ish anomaly on the communist spectrum.
Yes that is why almost every communist and socialist party in the world today which is enjoying large success upholds the banner of Stalin. "Stalinism" is anything but fringe, it is the flagship of the communist movement by default.


Do Stalinists deny the large number of deaths which are claimed to have occurred during the Collectivization of Agriculture, or do they suggest that this was entirely justified?
This can vary, some of us believe that the death tolls have been massively exaggerated and falsified, some of us believe that it the deaths simply could not have been predicted or prevented, certainly not by Stalin himself at least.

Do Stalinists deny the death's usually ascribed to the Purges or do they suggest that all these party member's were spies and wreckers?
Again, it varies, personally I believe that the purges were justified and that the execution of traitors would be best described as "due process", so I absolutely think that this was necessary to safeguard the gains that had been made. That said I'm quite confident that there have been many distortions and outright lies told about the purges that the numbers are bound to be far smaller than western estimates.

[scarletghoul]

I don't like the term 'stalinist' and am quite critical of Stalin on many points, however as one who generally upholds him I'll try and address some of what you say (though this isnt a historical matter I know too much about tbh)


While I can understand that there may have been political considerations in keeping Trotsky from succeeding Lenin
First I dont agree with the idea of 'succession', it is counter to and ignorant of proletarian democracy. Anyway

With the important exception of the 'Socialism in One Country' theory, many of the important economic changes which Stalin initiated had been previously suggested by Trotsky - from the winding down of the N.E.P. to the Collectivization of Agriculture (though the suggested methods for undertaking these reforms might have differed).
This thing you put in brackets at the end is actually the key point. With the wrong means nothing can succeed, and the the ends remain a useless ideal. I'd assume just about every Bolshevik advocated the (eventual) winding down of the NEP and collectivisation of agriculture, to use your examples, as well as the industrialisation of the USSR and spread of socialism worldwide etc. The question was how to do it, and it is Stalin who provided the correct answer.


Unless some form of National Socialism is perceived to be desirable, I do not understand how 'Socialism in One Country' is attractive for Stalinists (or justified under Marxism-Leninism).
You are disregarding all practicality and instead considering what you think is more 'desirable' or 'attractive', this is an idealist approach. Of course we would all prefer instant world revolution, but the fact is that did not work (european revolutions failed, soviets lost wars in europe). The only logical choice was to strengthen the USSR to create a power to defend socialism (this was proven successful by WW2).


What is the Stalinist basis for the criticism of ideas put forward by Trotsky which were later adopted anyhow?[/quote
Like what ? Sorry I havn't read a lot of Trotsky so I wouldn't know.

[quote]Do Stalinists deny the large number of deaths which are claimed to have occurred during the Collectivization of Agriculture, or do they suggest that this was entirely justified?
Well there are disputes about the numbers and whether the 'Holodomor' happened, because most evidence seems to be of Nazi sources, but tbh I do not know much about all that. But still, you are again approaching this from the angle of idealist, considering only what is 'desirable'. Of course we would all love to have communism happen overnight with no one suffering, but that won't happen. I will however say that from my limited knowledge the Chinese revolution seems to have collectivised quicker and with less violence than Russia.


Do Stalinists deny the death's usually ascribed to the Purges or do they suggest that all these party member's were spies and wreckers?
This question is silly in a few ways. These were not just a thing done by Stalin for his own selfish/evil motives; there was in fact large public support for the purging of the party. The people valued their revolutionary homeland deeply and wanted it protected. I'm sure many of those killed were guilty; of course many innocents also unfortately perished, but the situation was one of all-Union paranoia with the revolution under severe threat. Perhaps as a tactic it could have been more refined, but faced with the urgency and severity of the problem certainly something severe had to be done.

I don't know a lot about the strategy of the War so can't answer about that.


How do Stalinsts respond to accusations made in Khruschev's secret speech (as well as numerous other places)?
Its important to understand what Khruschev's motivations were in making this speech. Was he just a man who cared about the truth and wanted people to know the dark history of Stalinism ? No. Was he a politician consolidating his own power ? Yes. In reality Khruschev was a leading figure of the Stalin regime and participated fully in the purges and other unattractive government actions. He was also one of the architechts of the Stalin cult (which Stalin seemed to dislike himself..)

[Chambered Word]

I'd also like to know how a few supermen managed to lead a proletarian revolution while the rest of the party were corrupt or fascist spies (including Lenin's right hand man).

[Muzk]

I'd also like to know how a few supermen managed to lead a proletarian revolution while the rest of the party were corrupt or fascist spies (including Lenin's right hand man).

We shouldn't troll their threads in the same way they do ours :)

Let them have their fun. The real struggle takes place in reality.

[Chambered Word]

We shouldn't troll their threads in the same way they do ours :)

Let them have their fun. The real struggle takes place in reality.

I wasn't 'trolling' mate, it was a serious question that I'd like them to answer.

[Muzk]

You talk like red cat...:rolleyes:

[Spawn of Stalin]

We shouldn't troll their threads in the same way they do ours :)

Let them have their fun. The real struggle takes place in reality.

Where is this"struggle" you refer to? I can think of a few but unfortunately they are mostly Stalinist:(

[Spawn of Stalin]

Its important to understand what Khruschev's motivations were in making this speech. Was he just a man who cared about the truth and wanted people to know the dark history of Stalinism ? No. Was he a politician consolidating his own power ? Yes. In reality Khruschev was a leading figure of the Stalin regime and participated fully in the purges and other unattractive government actions. He was also one of the architechts of the Stalin cult (which Stalin seemed to dislike himself..)

Nobody hated the Stalin cult more than Stalin himself.

With regards to some other points made by scarletghoul, I too dislike the idea that Lenin had a true "successor", one of the main reasons for the revolution was to overthrow the tsarist autocracy, and to do away with the idea that in the event of the head of state's (Lenin) death, the torch would be passed down to a pre-determined successor (Trotsky). I don't see Trotsky as someone who could possibly have succeeded Lenin, given his history of anti-Leninist activities, let's not forget that before 1917 Trotsky was one of the leading figures in the anti-party movement...now this guy wants to come along and take the top job within the party? Yeah no that doesn't really work for me. Trotsky and his clique were the only Trotskyists in history, Trotskyism is separate from Leninism, they are incompatible, Trotskyism predates Leninism, how can it be a continuation? At a time where both the theoretical and practice aspects of Trotskyism were being developed, Trotsky was actively working AGAINST Lenin's group! Trotskyism being the continuity of Leninism makes about as much sense as anarchism being the continuity of left communism. People who refer to themselves as Trotskyists, or Bolshevik-Leninists, upholding both Bolshevism and Trotsky the man, are not Trotskyists, they are Trotskyites, to be a Trotskyist you must oppose Bolshevism, Trotskyism died with Trotsky. Indeed, Trotsky did join the Bolsheviks, albeit when it became apparent that they would emerge victorious, he was an opportunist and a man of no principle, so we must forgive him for this break with the principles of Trotskyism. But I think it's pretty clear that of all the people who could have succeeded Lenin, the last person you would want is someone who attempted to destroy the party.

There's my rant, cue neg rep

[Stavrogin]

Thank you for the responses to the questions. There are some further issues that I would like to ask about, but for some of them I want to dig through some of my books to find the relevant passages and check certain details.
Meanwhile, I'm not completely oblivious to the political context of Khruschev's secret speech - he was involved as deeply as any of the ruling elite in what went on during Stalin's reign and was endeavouring to secure his power base by distancing himself from Stalin and the less 'popular' actions of the state during that period. The reason I mentioned his speech was because it is probably the best known political statement of criticism of the Stalin period - almost all of what it contained was material which would have been familiar to its audience and was in content not dissimilar to material which was appearing in various places outside the Soviet Union.
On the subject of source material I would be interested to know what the people of RevLeft consider to be credible historical material when it comes to the history of the Soviet Union. While I would certainly agree that anything based on Nazi documentation would be highly dubious, I am unclear on how one is regard other sources of information. If it is recognized that individuals within the C.P.S.U. could distort and misrepresent historical facts (Khruschev is the obvious example in view of the doubts which have been expressed about his speech) then there is plenty of scope for misrepresentations and even absolute falsehoods to appear within the works originating from Communist sources. Both Western and Communist historical works can be challenged on these sorts of grounds. Is there any satisfactory solution to this problem? I would be interested to hear suggestions on this issue.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Comrade, the History of the C.P.S.U.(B) is THE definitive source for Marxist activities from 1880 to around 1940. It was written by Stalin himself with a little help from the CC so I'm prepared to admit that there may be some distortions in there, that being said I have yet to find anything that is completely false and I ALWAYS cross-check with other sources, even some bourgeois imperialist sources back up the official state history of the Bolsheviks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would also, like the rest, first point out that we are all pretty critical on Stalin & the mistakes that he had made. This is an importance before you put yourself within a stance that'll try & help refute many lies made against Stalin. The only thing I really can add, as it seems you've gotten enough info by scarlet, redcat, & motionless, is for you to start looking up the connection between the Hearst Corporation & the beginning of lies made against both Stalin & the CCCP. Later down the road, the Hearst's were refuted from their lies, but it seems, as history goes on, people learn nothing about this known fact & continue to use the lies made against Stalin as their defense weapon against Communist history. You can get enough info on the lies made by the Hearst Corporation here (http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm). Good luck, Comrade.

[Palingenisis]

I wasn't 'trolling' mate, it was a serious question that I'd like them to answer.

Do you have any understanding of Kautsky's greatness before his fall?

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's a question for another thread. :p

[Soviet]

Stavrogin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=28666),I think you'll find some answers in my blog:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=813

[Chambered Word]

Do you have any understanding of Kautsky's greatness before his fall?

Would you like to actually answer the question?

[punisa]

Unfortunately I don't trust myself as completely competent to answer all of your questions, but I'll use this opportunity to talk a little bit about Stalinism and the existence of "Stalin fans".

Stalin is always a tricky subject. Leftists tend to view themselves as progressive and usually distance themselves from Stalin whenever possible, but I'll take a wild guess and say that there are probably many more Stalin fans (not Stalinists) out there then it seems.

Stalinist is someone who *thinks* like Stalin and approves his actions.
A "Stalin fan" (word I made up) is usually someone who has lesser knowledge on Stalinism as a subject, but sees Stalin as a leader figure.
This will occur usually when one becomes disillusioned with the "power" of the working class.
In the absence of class conscience - some folks will develop a powerful (and sometimes ruthless) "class conscience enforcer" fetish.

I hold the view that monstrous numbers about atrocities juggled nowadays are perverse exaggeration committed by nazi and (later) imperialist propaganda.
Nevertheless, Stalin was certainly behind many purges and/or did little to prevent it.

Stalinism as a subject should be debated and discussed, locking it in the radicalism or extremism compartment is infantile.
(majority of something starting with a letter "A" is much more extremist IMHO)

Although my personal views on Stalin are not very high, I admit that he held a power that could've had been used to shook the world away from capitalism.
Unfortunately, he didn't make it.
For the most part of the 20th century, capitalism and socialism played a global chess game - which ended in a complete defeat of socialism.
Mind you, rematch is on the way and we demand it.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Stalinist is someone who *thinks* like Stalin and approves his actions.
A "Stalin fan" (word I made up) is usually someone who has lesser knowledge on Stalinism as a subject, but sees Stalin as a leader figure.
This will occur usually when one becomes disillusioned with the "power" of the working class.
In the absence of class conscience - some folks will develop a powerful (and sometimes ruthless) "class conscience enforcer" fetish.


Stalinist like the way Stalin ran things and in fact have more knowledge on Stalinism then on Stalin himself. There are many ideals on how to run things, you can see them all by just looking at the all the post on this fourm. So would like this and that, while other what it this way or that way. All different answers to the same question. We just like he answerd most of them.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Hey! I'm a Connollyist so I got no horse in this race!



Do Stalinists deny the large number of deaths which are claimed to have occurred during the Collectivization of Agriculture, or do they suggest that this was entirely justified?


This is a weird criticism for Trots to make since Trotsky and the Left Opposition were even more gung-ho about collectivization and quick industrialization than Stalin was. Best a Trot can argue is the implementation was fucked up, not that the policy was wrong.

Look, any land reform causes a short to medium term drop in yields. You need to import grain to make up the difference. But quick industrialization was premised on net exporting grain. So basically, someone was bound to go hungry. On the other hand, they could have not done it and lost to the Nazis. I'm glad I wasn't in the position to make a decision.



Do Stalinists deny the death's usually ascribed to the Purges or do they suggest that all these party member's were spies and wreckers?


'Great Purge' is a loaded term. A more neutral way to describe it would be "second Russian civil war." And in any case the death toll is in the hundreds of thousands, which is a tiny fraction of the total ZOMGZZ 11ty BILLION figures cited by Nazi apologists like Applebaum and Conquest.



Do Stalinists dispute the usually accepted interpretation of the early years of the war - where the Soviet Union was completely surprised and a large portion of the western areas of the state where overrun by the Wehrmacht?. Responsibility for this is almost always laid on Stalin personally due to his insistence that Germany would not attack at that stage. Is Stalin's responsibility for this disaster a matter of dispute, or is the whole success of the early stages of the German campaign a matter of dispute? It would be hard to imagine that a Stalinist could argue that the early stages of the war went well for the Soviet Union.


I have no idea. But I think even the most enthusiastic upholders of Stalin's legacy have to come to terms with the fact that he was, on subjects other than bureaucratic infighting and state terror, a bit of a thickie.

[Barry Lyndon]

It's certainly true that capitalist and fascist propaganda exaggerate many of Stalin's crimes or flat out fabricate them, and continue to do so to this day in order to discredit socialism. I remember watching a History Channel program on Stalin, and out of the blue it was claimed that Stalin 'killed more Jews then Hitler'. As anti-Stalin as I am, I was like 'wait a minute....'. Of course, there was no evidence at all for this, we were just supposed to accept that assertion as fact.

Having said that, I have read enough scholarship on the topic and know enough Russians and Ukrainians to get a sense that it is simply not possible that Stalin is just some misunderstood benevolent leader.

The 1932-33 famine in the Ukraine may not have been originally started by Stalin, but it was definitely exploited and used by him to beat recalcitrant peasants into submission. Like Trotsky, I do not think collectivization itself was wrong, but I oppose the brutal and idiotic way that Stalin and his henchmen went about it. Lenin, as his 'hanging order' demonstrates, was also ruthless with his dealings with peasants at times, but he specifically targeted the kulaks who were collaborating with the White Army and terrorizing the landless peasants. Stalin, by contrast, imposed collective punishment on every man, woman and child that refused to go along with his "mad, gambling"(to quote Trotsky) collectivization plans. Journalists like Gareth Jones risked their lives to travel to the Ukraine and exposed that at the height of the famine the NKVD were being employed to block off train stations so that peasants could not escape the famine-stricken areas. As a result, millions died. Even Stalinists don't deny this, but they try to claim that 'only' 3.5 million died as opposed to the claims of 5 or 7 or even 10 million. If only Western Stalinists valued Ukranian or Russian lives as much as they valued American ones. Although, I must add, I also fault many Trotskyists for focusing almost exclusively on the Moscow Trials as Exhibit A of Stalin's monstrosity, and the fact that they are able to cite all the high-ranking Bolsheviks that Stalin purged by name. It seems to me more then a tad bit elitist that they seem to think that ranks higher in the catalogue of Stalin's crimes then the mass murder of millions of powerless, nameless peasants.

[Red North]

I believe Stalin did do a damn good job of industrializing the Soviet Union and turning it into a global superpower. But the treatment of his political adversaries and anyone who opposed him in general, isn't that contradictory to what we hope for in creating a society in which everyone is equal and free?

[Comrade_Stalin]

Lets face facts here Stalin was only human, and much like all us other humans will make mistacks. Also how would you treat your political adversaries Red North? What about those that opposed you.

[Red North]

Lets face facts here Stalin was only human, and much like all us other humans will make mistacks. Also how would you treat your political adversaries Red North? What about those that opposed you.

Mistakes like how you spelled it mistacks?

As for what i would do with my political adversaries? well I certainly wouldn't have them imprisoned or executed. Stalin did great things for the economy, but he certainly didn't do much in the way of personal freedoms for the people.

[Chimurenga.]

Mistakes like how you spelled it mistacks?

As for what i would do with my political adversaries? well I certainly wouldn't have them imprisoned or executed. Stalin did great things for the economy, but he certainly didn't do much in the way of personal freedoms for the people.

Please elaborate on personal freedoms.

[Red North]

Please elaborate on personal freedoms.

There was media censorship, people were too scared to voice their opinions or protest anything for fear that they would be sent to a prison camp in Siberia, freedom of speech was restricted. That's what I mean by lack of personal freedoms.

[Chambered Word]

Hey! I'm a Connollyist so I got no horse in this race!

I am not familiar with your tendency. :confused:


This is a weird criticism for Trots to make since Trotsky and the Left Opposition were even more gung-ho about collectivization and quick industrialization than Stalin was. Best a Trot can argue is the implementation was fucked up, not that the policy was wrong.

True, but keep in mind that Trotskyists do not necessarily defend everything Trotsky said or did.



'Great Purge' is a loaded term. A more neutral way to describe it would be "second Russian civil war." And in any case the death toll is in the hundreds of thousands, which is a tiny fraction of the total ZOMGZZ 11ty BILLION figures cited by Nazi apologists like Applebaum and Conquest.

True. I mean, to argue that 'omg he killed so many ppl' would be a liberal analysis regardless. No one here actually takes those bullshit figures seriously.


There was media censorship, people were too scared to voice their opinions or protest anything for fear that they would be sent to a prison camp in Siberia, freedom of speech was restricted. That's what I mean by lack of personal freedoms.

If you're concerned about personal freedom and democratic rights I'm not sure why your tendency is set to Marxist-Leninist.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I am not familiar with your tendency. :confused:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/index.htm
I assume they were referring to JC.


True, but keep in mind that Trotskyists do not necessarily defend everything Trotsky said or did.
The same can be said for most Marxist-Leninists, there are some absolute nutters who will tell you that Stalin was 100% awesome and never did anything wrong, but these people are a small minority in a very large movement, and they give us (and Stalin) a really bad name.


True. I mean, to argue that 'omg he killed so many ppl' would be a liberal analysis regardless. No one here actually takes those bullshit figures seriously.
I don't know, I've met SWPers who uphold bourgeois theories about Stalin being worse than Hitler, amongst others. Good to know that some people don't buy ALL the propaganda though.


If you're concerned about personal freedom and democratic rights I'm not sure why your tendency is set to Marxist-Leninist.[/QUOTE]
I think all Marxist-Leninists are concerned with freedom and democracy, just that we have a different idea of what constitutes the two.

[Palingenisis]

Wasnt Connolly basically though a De Leonist of some description?

Outside of Ireland can we really talk of Connollyists?

[Palingenisis]

What really sickens about Trotskyites is that Trotsky represented the extreme authoritarian pole in the Bolsheviks and they paint him as representing the exact opposite...I have a lot of time for the Workers' Opposition and people like Karl Korsch but the sickening opportunist personality cult that is Trotskyism just gives me and actually a lot of none Marxist-Leninist radicals the serious creeps.

[Palingenisis]

I think all Marxist-Leninists are concerned with freedom and democracy, just that we have a different idea of what constitutes the two.

Maosim actually has a lot of even "libertarian" aspects.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

No communist should identify as a "Stalinist." Stalin made little contribution of new ideas to Marxist ideology; furthermore the ideas and strategies of Stalin were essentially concessions to the Right. It is debatable to what extent some of these concessions may have been strategically necessary, but there is no doubt that the USSR under Stalin had already begun to head down the path of corruption. "Socialism in one country" is only one step away from "peaceful coexistence" and it is no coincidence that with the deterioration and corruption of the revolution, they came up with more and more stupid ideas as the situation got worse. Would someone who believes in international proletarian revolution issue a decree of ethnic cleansing and abolish a socialist republic? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_German_Soviet)

Real communists uphold thoughts, not historical figureheads.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Wasnt Connolly basically though a De Leonist of some description?

Outside of Ireland can we really talk of Connollyists?

De Leonists were sectarian as shit unlike Connolly, but otherwise, yeah. And no, as an organized tendency we can't. It's my shorthand for "non-anti-Leninist Marxist revolutionary industrial unionist who maintains a personal interest in the struggle in Celtic nations". Although I was briefly active in the (Cliffite) ISO for a while, I'm not a member of any organized party. I run an independent Marxist study group and am active in a trade union.

[Kléber]

What really sickens about Trotskyites is that Trotsky represented the extreme authoritarian pole in the Bolsheviks and they paint him as representing the exact opposite...I have a lot of time for the Workers' Opposition and people like Karl Korsch but the sickening opportunist personality cult that is Trotskyism just gives me and actually a lot of none Marxist-Leninist radicals the serious creeps.
The contradiction is illusory. During the war, Trotsky knew what needed to be done to secure Soviet power. Once he saw the bureaucracy had taken over, he advocated a political revolution to restore Soviet democracy. That was a lot more principled than the zigs and zags of Stalin's "general line" over the years.

[Palingenisis]

The contradiction is illusory. During the war, Trotsky knew what needed to be done to secure Soviet power. Once he saw the bureaucracy had taken over, he advocated a political revolution to restore Soviet democracy. That was a lot more principled than the zigs and zags of Stalin's "general line" over the years.

Militarization of Labour and other stuff? No sorry comrade...The Shining Path in Peru and the Naxalites in India have shown that you can wage people's war with internal democracy....Trotsky's problemn was that Stalin and not Trotsky got control...And seriously it would have been much, much worse if he had. I have no problemn with geniune criticisms of both Lenin and Stalin.

Albania for instance was a lot more democratic than the USSR ever was and its "degenerated Workers state" was established by a revolutionary struggle within the country...How much support did it get from Trots?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Maosim actually has a lot of even "libertarian" aspects.

From the Cultural Revolution-era 1975 constitution of the PRC (http://www.e-chaupak.net/database/chicon/1975/1975e.htm):


Speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates and writing big-character posters are new forms of carrying on socialist revolution created by the masses of the people. The state shall ensure to the masses the right to use these forms to create a political situation in which there are both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind and liveliness, and so help consolidate the leadership of the Communist Party of China over the state and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.


This clause codified the experience and gains of the GPCR. The "4 Big Rights" enumerated here represent a hard-won, uniquely socialist conception of freedom. They stand in contrast to the empty, insincere echoes of liberal constitutionalism you find in Soviet, East Bloc and later Chinese Constitutions. (This clause was stripped out less than 3 years later.)

[Chimurenga.]

There was media censorship, people were too scared to voice their opinions or protest anything for fear that they would be sent to a prison camp in Siberia, freedom of speech was restricted. That's what I mean by lack of personal freedoms.

Ok, now, tell me when there was ever a time in Russia's entire history that no media censorship ever occurred.

[Scary Monster]

Yes that is why almost every communist and socialist party in the world today which is enjoying large success upholds the banner of Stalin. "Stalinism" is anything but fringe, it is the flagship of the communist movement by default.

Lol no.


The 1932-33 famine in the Ukraine may not have been originally started by Stalin, but it was definitely exploited and used by him to beat recalcitrant peasants into submission. Like Trotsky himself, I do not think collectivization itself was wrong, I oppose the brutal and idiotic way that Stalin and his henchmen went about it. Lenin, as his 'hanging order' demonstrates, was also ruthless with his dealings with peasants at times, but he specifically targeted the kulaks who were collaborating with the White Army and terrorizing the landless peasants. Stalin, by contrast, imposed collective punishment on every man, woman and child that refused to go along with his "mad, gambling"(to quote Trotsky) collectivization plans. Journalists like Gareth Jones risked their lives to travel to the Ukraine and exposed that at the height of the famine the NKVD were being employed to block off train stations so that peasants could not escape the famine-stricken areas. As a result, millions died. Even Stalinists don't deny this, but they try to claim that 'only' 3.5 million died as opposed to the claims of 5 or 7 or even 10 million. If only Western Stalinists valued Ukranian or Russian lives as much as they valued American ones. Although, I must add, I also fault many Trotskyists for focusing almost exclusively on the Moscow Trials as Exhibit A of Stalin's monstrosity, and are able to cite all the high-ranking Bolsheviks that Stalin purged by name. It seems to me more then a tad bit elitist that they seem to think that ranks higher in the catalogue of Stalin's crimes then the mass murder of millions of powerless, nameless peasants.

This is what i tried communicating a couple times on this site. There arent many Stalinists, but almost everyone on this site is an apologist and sometimes blindly defends Stalin, saying shit like "Well he was only human" and resorting to downplaying whatever critiscisms someone makes of Stalin such as "And Stalin ate babies" in a mocking tone. Its incredibly annoying. He purposefully killed many innocent working people. On the other hand, the soviet union did prosper quite quickly under Stalin. But at the expense of millions of innocent peasants/working class folks and the mass deportations of minorities.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Originally Posted by motionless
Yes that is why almost every communist and socialist party in the world today which is enjoying large success upholds the banner of Stalin. "Stalinism" is anything but fringe, it is the flagship of the communist movement by default.

Lol no.

Meanwhile...


"The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth" -Chief Seattle


Lol liberal.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is what i tried communicating a couple times on this site. There arent many Stalinists, but almost everyone on this site is an apologist and sometimes blindly defends Stalin, saying shit like "Well he was only human" and resorting to downplaying whatever critiscisms someone makes of Stalin such as "And Stalin ate babies" in a mocking tone. Its incredibly annoying. He purposefully killed many innocent working people. On the other hand, the soviet union did prosper quite quickly under Stalin. But at the expense of millions of innocent peasants/working class folks and the mass deportations of minorities.

I really have no patience for Stalin apologists whatsoever. In my view, it is nothing more then a left-wing version of Holocaust denial. This aversion to admitting unpleasant facts goes back decades, one of the best examples being how the Marxist intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre said that even if the accounts of gulags in Russia were true, they should be repressed because the knowledge of them would demoralize the working class. Pointing out some positive gains in terms of infrastructure and such during Stalin's reign is evasive and intellectually dishonest- one might as well point out that Hitler ended unemployment and built the Autobahn. Even the success in building up the Soviet Union's industrial base was largely based on Leon Trotsky's plans, which Stalin took the credit for himself. Other things like the very successful literacy campaign were simply a continuation of Lenin's policies.
But for a certian breed of communist, all this can be excused because Stalin 'defeated the Nazis'. Never mind that Stalin paved the way for the Nazis rise to power by refusing to allow the German Communists to combine with the Social Democrats. Never mind his stunning betrayal of the Trotskyists and anarchists in Spain during the May Days massacres which opened the gates of Madrid to Franco. Never mind that the USSR almost lost the war because Stalin decapitated nearly the entire leadership of the Red Army in the 1930's(I knew a Russian graduate student at my college whose grandfather, a general, was saved from a purge because he was relocated to another post at the last minute). The glory for the Great Patriotic War victory over fascism belongs to the millions of Soviet workers, soldiers, and partisans who fought with incredible courage and heroism against the Nazi war machine and crushed it, at the cost of 26 million lives-an almost unbelievable sacrifice(In Leningrad alone, about a million people died in the Nazi siege of the city, half of its entire population-imagine half of Chicago or New York City dead). Any Marxist recognizes them as the true heroes and not the self-serving tyrant who coasted on their backs.

[Palingenisis]

Barry please read these articles by the "Stalinist" Kasama project about Stalin...They are not exactly glowing with praise....The fact remains though that "Stalinism" grew out of already existing distortions in the revolution and whatever about the Left-Coms and Anarchists the suppression of Trotsky and his followers was entirely justified. Trotsky if he had gotten power would have made Stalin look like a fluffy bunny...

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/13/on-socialist-methods-and-the-stalin-era-purges/

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/01/07/mike-ely-on-triumphs-sorrows-of-the-soviet-revolution/

[Scary Monster]

Meanwhile...



Lol liberal.

Perfect example of what i mean. Most here resort to insults when someone criticizes their beloved leader. At the risk of feeding a troll-- my sig is more of a statement against colonialism, dominance and for sustainability than anything else, douche.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Perfect example of what i mean. Most here resort to insults when someone criticizes their beloved leader.

If you noticed, I've thanked every one of Barry Lyndon's posts on this thread so clearly it isn't a perfect example of what you mean. I myself wrote a page back that Stalin was "a bit of a thickie" whose only real skills were "bureaucratic infighting and state terror." The reason I 7r011z0r3d you back there was the following:


Originally Posted by motionless
Yes that is why almost every communist and socialist party in the world today which is enjoying large success upholds the banner of Stalin. "Stalinism" is anything but fringe, it is the flagship of the communist movement by default.


To which you replied "Lol no."

But lol the fuck yes. "Stalinist" parties have been on the forefront of winning civil rights for blacks, the greatest victories of the American labor movement, national liberation struggles across Asia, Africa and Latin America. They continue to drive revolution in South Asia and they are a small but indispensible part of the revolutionary and left-populist coalitions across Latin American.

Simple, blanket anti-Stalinism is defeatist and morally irresponsible.

[Palingenisis]

If you noticed, I've thanked every one of Barry Lyndon's posts on this thread so clearly it isn't a perfect example of what you mean. I myself wrote a page back that Stalin was "a bit of a thickie" whose only real skills were "bureaucratic infighting and state terror." The reason I 7r011z0r3d you back there was the following:
.


Barry would be considered a "Stalinist" by most Trots....Most "Stalinists" are critical of Stalin from a variety of persecptives as we are of other communist and working leaders to different degrees which is the way it should be. I take the criticism of both Lenin and Stalin made by the the Workers Opposition and the KAPD before its decline very seriously but the so-called "Left Opposition" when looked at with a cold eye is historically laughable.

[Scary Monster]

But lol the fuck yes. "Stalinist" parties have been on the forefront of winning civil rights for blacks, the greatest victories of the American labor movement, national liberation struggles across Asia, Africa and Latin America. They continue to drive revolution in South Asia and they are a small but indispensible part of the revolutionary and left-populist coalitions across Latin American.

Simple, blanket anti-Stalinism is defeatist and morally irresponsible.

Wow, who in the heck are you to say what is morally irresponsible? And Stalinism influence in the black panther party has only lent to its downfall, taking its orientation away from the working class. The reasons blacks gained civil rights wasnt because of the efforts of stalinism, but because of collective effort and publicity that had nothing to do with stalinism, and also because the soviets started criticizing the US of its human rights abuses towards blacks. Stalinism was present, but it really did not "win" anything for blacks. Same for the rest of the world. You and motionless make it sound like stalinism is the most prevalent force behind most revolutionary struggle right now. Like i said, Stalinism exists among struggles today, but it most certainly is not the ideology that has made the most impact between the second half of the 20th century and the present. You have sources? Because im pretty sure it's maoism thats influenced most major armed struggles since mid-late 20th century.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Wow, who in the heck are you to say what is morally irresponsible?

I can see through time, Monster!


The reasons blacks gained civil rights wasnt because of the efforts of stalinism, but because of collective effort and publicity that had nothing to do with stalinism, and also because the soviets started criticizing the US of its human rights abuses towards blacks. Stalinism was present, but it really did not "win" anything for blacks.

That's a pretty roundabout non-denial. The civil rights movement was riddled with CPUSA members, especially in its earliest and most dangerous years. Many of those CPUSA members were black Stalinists!


Because im pretty sure it's maoism thats influenced most major armed struggles since mid-late 20th century.

Yeah. Quick: what do Maoists think of Stalin?

[Barry Lyndon]

Barry would be considered a "Stalinist" by most Trots....Most "Stalinists" are critical of Stalin from a variety of persecptives as we are of other communist and working leaders to different degrees which is the way it should be. I take the criticism of both Lenin and Stalin made by the the Workers Opposition and the KAPD before its decline very seriously but the so-called "Left Opposition" when looked at with a cold eye is historically laughable.

I was a Trotskyist for a long time, first as a state-capitalist Tony Cliff follower, then as a more orthodox believer in 'degenerated workers states'. The weak chink in my Trotskyist armor was that I always had a soft spot for Cuba, and not ready to write it off as 'state-capitalist'. It also annoyed me that Trotskyists didn't think there was anything worth learning from communist political theorists/leaders that they didn't agree with 100%, which rather limited their information diet.
This pulled me into being more understanding and sympathetic to the revolutions in China and Vietnam. I still am neo-Trotskyist in my virulent anti-Stalinism, which really hasn't been diluted one bit, and I still greatly admire Trotsky the revolutionary and the political theorist. Probably one of the things that changed my mind was befriending some Maoists via political organizing(who were with the Kasama project), who were very anti-Stalin and used 'Stalinist' as an epithet even. Before then I had always assumed that Maoism was just an outgrowth of Stalinism, but have since realized that Maoists themselves are of a range of opinions about him.
Mao himself was a complex figure and I am of the opinion that we can't even see him as one person, but a figure who went through a number of political phasses and indeed changed throughout his life, IMHO for the worse.
The fact that Maoists are an active revolutionary force in South Asia also increases my respect for them.
I guess I'm now a incoherent mix of Trotskyism, Maoism, Castroism, and Bolivarianism. Am I crazy? Perhaps.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I guess I'm now a incoherent mix of Trotskyism, Maoism, Castroism, and Bolivarianism. Am I crazy? Perhaps.

Isn't that the Marcyites?

[Barry Lyndon]

Isn't that the Marcyites?

No, the Marcyites are more ex-Trotskyites then anything else, they come from that tradition but they don't even mention Trotsky in their publications, at least WWP. Trotsky is still a MAJOR part of my political thought.
I also find their support of North Korea and their upholding of present-day China as socialist to be frankly revolting, I'm with the Maoists in their assessment that capitalism has been completely restored to China. My view is that besides US imperialism, present-day Chinese 'market socialism' is the second greatest enemy of the global working class, and may one day become the primary one.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Barry please read these articles by the "Stalinist" Kasama project about Stalin...They are not exactly glowing with praise....The fact remains though that "Stalinism" grew out of already existing distortions in the revolution and whatever about the Left-Coms and Anarchists the suppression of Trotsky and his followers was entirely justified. Trotsky if he had gotten power would have made Stalin look like a fluffy bunny...

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/13/on-socialist-methods-and-the-stalin-era-purges/

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/01/07/mike-ely-on-triumphs-sorrows-of-the-soviet-revolution/

I appreciate you linking to Kasama and all, but Kasama is not "Stalinist" and in fact many of the more dedicated participants (including myself) would cringe at the thought of being called that. "Socialism" in any meaningful use of the word is not anything I see represented in the Stalin-era USSR. If we simply define socialism as a nationalized economy and centralized political system, then sure, the USSR was socialist from '24-'53. But if we define it as a new, emancipatory society where the masses of people rise up and assert their power in all spheres (economic, cultural, political, etc.), then the USSR wasn't even on the fucking map.

Overall I am quite hostile to Stalinism, though I can't speak for the rest of Kasama as there are quite diverse views among us on the subject. I do know, however, that Mike (the author of the pieces you cited) does not define himself as a "Stalinist" either, and as Barry mentioned (with a little poetic license on my part), we Maoists have a wide range of views. I lean heavily toward the 'libertarian' side of Maoism, i.e. I drop most of the Stalinist carryovers (early signs of social imperialism, acquiescence to Western capitalists, forced relocations, mechanical ideology, bad method for handling contradictions, depoliticization of the people, etc.) and embrace Mao's breaks with that established orthodoxy.

[Scary Monster]

I can see through time, Monster!



That's a pretty roundabout non-denial. The civil rights movement was riddled with CPUSA members, especially in its earliest and most dangerous years. Many of those CPUSA members were black Stalinists!



Yeah. Quick: what do Maoists think of Stalin?

Stalinism is not what gave blacks civil rights, as ive already stated. "Many" cpusa members were stalinists (can you specify how many?), but that was not the prevalent ideology and it was not the inspirational force behind the push for black civil rights. My point is that you and Motionless make it sound like stalinism was the leading ideology and that stalinists were the main driving force behind the entire movement and every other revolutionary struggle since the 20th century, with people waving banners with stalin's image and such, which is not true. I was not saying stalinism did not exist at all. And Maoists are greatly divided on Stalin, and i see this is also what Barry pointed out.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Stalinism is not what gave blacks civil rights, as ive already stated. "Many" cpusa members were stalinists (can you specify how many?), but that was not the prevalent ideology and it was not the inspirational force behind the push for black civil rights. My point is that you and Motionless make it sound like stalinism was the leading ideology and that stalinists were the main driving force behind the entire movement and every other revolutionary struggle since the 20th century, with people waving banners with stalin's image and such, which is not true. I was not saying stalinism did not exist at all. And Maoists are greatly divided on Stalin, and i see this is also what Barry pointed out.

The prevalent ideology of CPUSA during the civil rights era was Popular Front-ism at home and apologetics for the USSR abroad. In other words, the policies dictated by Stalin.

But of course not everyone carries around a big Uncle Joe banner every May Day like CPGB-ML does.
If we're going to restrict the definition of "Stalinist" that tightly, then I'll have to concede your point.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Mistakes like how you spelled it mistacks?

Everyone makes spelling mistakes once in while, I'm only human, unless you think I'm a bot program.





As for what i would do with my political adversaries? well I certainly wouldn't have them imprisoned or executed. Stalin did great things for the economy, but he certainly didn't do much in the way of personal freedoms for the people.

So what would you do with a group like the KKK, when you cannot imprison or execute them?

[Comrade_Stalin]

Lol no.
This is what i tried communicating a couple times on this site. There arent many Stalinists, but almost everyone on this site is an apologist and sometimes blindly defends Stalin, saying shit like "Well he was only human" and resorting to downplaying whatever critiscisms someone makes of Stalin such as "And Stalin ate babies" in a mocking tone. Its incredibly annoying. He purposefully killed many innocent working people. On the other hand, the soviet union did prosper quite quickly under Stalin. But at the expense of millions of innocent peasants/working class folks and the mass deportations of minorities.

First off, where not that small of a group, and second what is wonrg with us viewing Stalin as a person. What do you think we should view him as, a god? That he was not human and never made a mistake? People all ways make mistakes, there is no one that is perfect.

[Chambered Word]

I was a Trotskyist for a long time, first as a state-capitalist Tony Cliff follower, then as a more orthodox believer in 'degenerated workers states'. The weak chink in my Trotskyist armor was that I always had a soft spot for Cuba, and not ready to write it off as 'state-capitalist'.

Haha, same goes for me. I think the power structure makes it state capitalist but it's definately doing alot better than private capitalist countries in the area and I would always defend Cuba from US imperialism (like I would defend any country from US imperialism, capitalist or socialist).


It also annoyed me that Trotskyists didn't think there was anything worth learning from communist political theorists/leaders that they didn't agree with 100%, which rather limited their information diet.


Trots probably tend to be like this, but personally I'm interested in learning from left ideologies across the spectrum.

I really enjoyed reading your post about apologism for Stalin anyway.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Haha, same goes for me. I think the power structure makes it state capitalist but it's definately doing alot better than private capitalist countries in the area and I would always defend Cuba from US imperialism

I used to be anti-Fidel. But then I visited the Dominican Republic!!! Hey-o!