Marxism vs Stalinism [Archive]

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 06:31

On Stalin

By W.E.B. DuBois
From the National Guardian,
March 16, 1953

Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also - and this was the highest proof of his greatness - he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.

Stalin was not a man of conventional learning; he was much more than that: he was a man who thought deeply, read understandingly and listened to wisdom, no matter whence it came. He was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy and balance; nor did he let attack drive him from his convictions nor induce him to surrender positions which he knew were correct. As one of the despised minorities of man, he first set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality.

His judgment of men was profound. He early saw through the flamboyance and exhibitionism of Trotsky, who fooled the world, and especially America. The whole ill-bred and insulting attitude of Liberals in the U.S. today began with our naive acceptance of Trotsky's magnificent lying propaganda, which he carried around the world. Against it, Stalin stood like a rock and moved neither right nor left, as he continued to advance toward a real socialism instead of the sham Trotsky offered.

Three great decisions faced Stalin in power and he met them magnificently: first, the problem of the peasants, then the West European attack, and last the Second World War. The poor Russian peasant was the lowest victim of tsarism, capitalism and the Orthodox Church. He surrendered the Little White Father easily; he turned less readily but perceptibly from his ikons; but his kulaks clung tenaciously to capitalism and were near wrecking the revolution when Stalin risked a second revolution and drove out the rural bloodsuckers.

Then came intervention, the continuing threat of attack by all nations, halted by the Depression, only to be re-opened by Hitlerism. It was Stalin who steered the Soviet Union between Scylla and Charybdis: Western Europe and the U.S. were willing to betray her to fascism, and then had to beg her aid in the Second World War. A lesser man than Stalin would have demanded vengeance for Munich, but he had the wisdom to ask only justice for his fatherland. This Roosevelt granted but Churchill held back. The British Empire proposed first to save itself in Africa and southern Europe, while Hitler smashed the Soviets.

The Second Front dawdled, but Stalin pressed unfalteringly ahead. He risked the utter ruin of socialism in order to smash the dictatorship of Hitler and Mussolini. After Stalingrad the Western World did not know whether to weep or applaud. The cost of victory to the Soviet Union was frightful. To this day the outside world has no dream of the hurt, the loss and the sacrifices. For his calm, stern leadership here, if nowhere else, arises the deep worship of Stalin by the people of all the Russias.

Then came the problem of Peace. Hard as this was to Europe and America, it was far harder to Stalin and the Soviets. The conventional rulers of the world hated and feared them and would have been only too willing to see the utter failure of this attempt at socialism. At the same time the fear of Japan and Asia was also real. Diplomacy therefore took hold and Stalin was picked as the victim. He was called in conference with British imperialism represented by its trained and well-fed aristocracy; and with the vast wealth and potential power of America represented by its most liberal leader in half a century.

Here Stalin showed his real greatness. He neither cringed nor strutted. He never presumed, he never surrendered. He gained the friendship of Roosevelt and the respect of Churchill. He asked neither adulation nor vengeance. He was reasonable and conciliatory. But on what he deemed essential, he was inflexible. He was willing to resurrect the League of Nations, which had insulted the Soviets. He was willing to fight Japan, even though Japan was then no menace to the Soviet Union, and might be death to the British Empire and to American trade. But on two points Stalin was adamant: Clemenceau's "Cordon Sanitaire" must be returned to the Soviets, whence it had been stolen as a threat. The Balkans were not to be left helpless before Western exploitation for the benefit of land monopoly. The workers and peasants there must have their say.

Such was the man who lies dead, still the butt of noisy jackals and of the ill-bred men of some parts of the distempered West. In life he suffered under continuous and studied insult; he was forced to make bitter decisions on his own lone responsibility. His reward comes as the common man stands in solemn acclaim.

DaringMehring

11th May 2010, 06:34

I'd love for you to show any hard evidence that ever proved of such.

I see. So the Moscow trials were legit?

sanpal

11th May 2010, 06:37

Hey everyone..

I am very new to the theories or Marx, Engels, Lenin etc.. I am a high school student and I am in the process of studying the Russian Revolution/ Cold War. We are taught by everyone, the media, the government our schools and so on, that communism is evil. But come on, that is just horse shit right wing propaganda right? I mean the idea of Communism is completely genius. But how come majority of the time communism falls into the hands off a wrong dictator? How was it that Stalin was in charge for 30 years I think and killed millions of people? Is their no elections in a communist society? Or does it have to be run by a dictator - who is trusted by the people benefit everyone? I mean from what I know Stalin did not follow Marx's ideas of communism, but what were Marx's ideals?

Can someone please explain the difference between Marxism and Stalinism?

Like I said earlier I am learning, so I'm sorry if my questions are stupid. If there is any wrong information in my post please correct me

Thank you very much

Good and correct question.
The main ideology of Stalin's era was the building of communist society and of course Stalin considered himself as a marxist. Maybe he knew "Das Kapital" well enough. But there is the Engels' work "Anti-Duhring" where conception of construction of socialist/communist society was represented, economic part of "Anti-Duhring" was written by Marx completely, and emphasis was made on to prevent the theoretical mistakes which could be done by future revolutionaries in the question how to abolish monetary system. The critique of the classics was made on the example of the Duhring's Utopian socialism. They showed why and how this kind of society will abort inevitably. It seems Stalin didn't attached big importance to this work and as a result he made the same mistake in his practice as Duhring in his theory. If Stalin would let the USSR to be more democratic society then incorrect economic base (Duhring's base) would led to the collapse of the USSR earlier like it was after Gorbachov's "democratization". But Stalin has chosen alternative to democracy - hard repressive regime "for the welfare of the soviet people" what personify him as 'dictator'.

Hope it will help a bit.

ArrowLance

11th May 2010, 06:48

Communism values human life and happiness and its trademark is that people should be treated decently and empowered to live free from material compulsion. Stalin on the other hand murdered and terrorized the citizens of the USSR, directly killing over a million and letting more die of famine. In his words: “One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic.”

Communism does value human life and happiness and Stalin worked towards these goals. The 'murder and terror' was against those who threatened these things. Overall a great deal of terror and suffering was averted due to Stalin's policies.

Also your quote can not be attributed to Stalin and is commonly misattributed. If you dispute that please provide an original text by Stalin.

Communism is for workers' democracy. Stalin used tactics to subvert and deaden it, from only presenting workers with one candidate to falsifying results. He opined: “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Stalin could be seen easily as working for democracy not only on a global scale but also on his home front. Here is an article on this: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html . Also the quote needs more context and is very evident when we look at the democracy in western nations. As Lenin said it is important always to remember for which class the democracy is for: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm .

Communism is for peace. Stalin started the Winter War, a war of aggression against Finland. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.Communism is about destroying the class system and capitalism, violently. While the winter war is very arguably one of Stalin's worst actions it is still important to look at the aims of it. However I feel largely, from my understanding of it, that this action was poor in judgment.

Communism is for women's rights. Stalin tried and for a time succeeded in rescinding the rights to an easy divorce or abortion that the October revolution had granted. His conservative views on family life were similar to those of the right wingers of other countries.For a large part I agree. There can be some apologetics thrown in here but overall Stalin was not perfect in thought, neither were Marx or Lenin. So yes this is a viable criticism of Stalin.

Communism opposes nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, and racism. Stalin viewed minorities as untrustworthy and abused, humiliated, and purged them, from Chechens (deported to Kazakhstan in WWII, with high mortality) to Jews (targeted in the anti-Semitic doctors' plot purges) to the Crimean Tatars (“re-settled” to Uzbekistan and Siberia in WWII, with high mortality).What you say about the deportations and resettlement I am largely ignorant to but as to the doctors' plot it was a creation of the aging Stalin. Further Stalin never removed statues against anti-semitism during his earlier years to my knowledge. Not to discount it but to put it in perspective to the rest of Stalin's life works. An example would be Kautsky, discussed further in the earlier mentioned book The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

(http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm)

Perhaps the biggest sign that Stalin diverged from communism, is that he murdered all of the Old Bolsheviks who led the October revolution - Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin, Radek, etc. All of Lenin's CC colleagues - killed.
The purges were largely popular and did much to bring together the Soviet Union. Many of these elements were justifiably feared to be counter-revolutionary and reactionary. Again it is important to look at the context and aims of these actions.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 06:49

I see. So the Moscow trials were legit?

Well the crap that Trotsky spewed was definitely b.s. So I would say, for the most part, yeah!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1725895&postcount=1

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-article-shows-t132429/index.html?t=132429

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 06:50

Wrong. It was Trotsky who was a Menshevik and anti-Leninist for all of his life, except for a few years. Secondly, the Menshevik stagist theory called for capitalism to run its course under the bourgeoisie before the workers can take over for socialism, while the Marxist-Leninist theory of a stagist revolution towards establishing socialism calls for a proletarian-led state in all its stages. Only utopians, and perhaps anarchists, can dream of jumping straight to communism in under-developed and agricultural economies.

You would think people would've learned something from Pol Pot, ya know. :rolleyes:

DaringMehring

11th May 2010, 06:54

Well the crap that Trotsky spewed was definitely b.s. So I would say, for the most part, yeah!

Ok, well, if you want to stand or fall with the legitimacy of the Moscow trials, go ahead. People can review the evidence for them being true or a frame-up and make their own decisions.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 07:01

Ok, well, if you want to stand or fall with the legitimacy of the Moscow trials, go ahead. People can review the evidence for them being true or a frame-up and make their own decisions.

I can agree with this. Which I'm sure this is a message to the OP from all of us. What you believe is determined based on who you hear it from.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 07:03

1941 Speech by Comrade Stalin

Comrades, Red Army and Navy men, commanders and political instructors, men and women workers, men and women collective farmers, intellectuals, brothers and sisters in the enemy rear who have temporarily fallen under the yoke of the German brigands, our glorious men and women guerrillas who are disrupting the rear of the German invaders!

On behalf of the Soviet Government and our Bolshevik Party I greet you and congratulate you on the 24th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

Comrades, today we must celebrate the 24th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in difficult conditions. The German brigands’ treacherous attack and the war that they forced upon us have created a threat to our country. We have temporarily lost a number of regions, and the enemy is before the gates of Leningrad and Moscow.

The enemy calculated that our army would be dispersed at the very first blow and our country forced to its knees. But, the enemy wholly miscalculated. Despite the temporary reverses, our army and our navy are bravely beating off enemy attacks along the whole front, inflicting heavy losses, while our country – our whole country – has organized itself into a single fighting camp in order, jointly with our army and navy, to rout the German invaders.

There was a time when our country was in a still more difficult position. Recall the year 1918, when we celebrated the First Anniversary of the October Revolution. At that time three-quarters of our country was in the hands of foreign interventionists. We had temporarily lost the Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Urals, Siberia and the Far East. We had no allies, we had no Red Army – we had just began to create it - and we experienced a shortage of bread, a shortage of arms, a shortage of equipment.

At that time 14 States were arrayed against our country (including US, Britain, France–Editor)

But we did not become despondent or downhearted. In the midst of the conflagration of war, we organized the Red Army and converted our country into a military camp. The spirit of the great Lenin inspired us at that time, for the war against the foreign interventionists.

And what happened? We defeated the interventionists, regained all of our lost territories and achieved victory.

Today our country is in a far better position then it was 23 years ago. Today it is many times richer in industry, food and raw materials. Today we have allies who jointly with us form a united front against the German invaders. Today we enjoy the sympathy and support of all peoples of Europe, who have fallen under the yoke of Fascist tyranny. Today we have a splendid army and navy, defending the freedom and independence of our country with their lives. We experience no serious shortage either of food or of arms or equipment.

Our whole country, all the peoples of our country, are backing our army and navy, helping them smash the Nazi hordes. Our reserves in manpower are inexhaustible. The spirit of the Great Lenin inspires us for our Patriotic War today as it did 23 years ago.

Is it possible, then, to doubt that we can and must gain victory over the German invaders? The enemy is not as strong as some terror-stricken pseudo-intellectuals picture him. The devil is not as terrible as he is painted. Who can deny that our Red Army has more than once put the much-vaunted German troops to panicky flight?

If one judges by Germany’s real position and not by the boastful assertions of the German propagandists, it will not be difficult to see that the Nazi German invaders are facing disaster.

Hunger and poverty reign in Germany. In four and a half months of war Germany has already lost four and a half million soldiers. Germany is bleeding white; her manpower is giving out. A spirit of revolt is gaining possession, not only of the nations of Europe under the German invaders’ yoke, but even of the Germans themselves, who see no end to the war.

The German invaders are straining their last resources. There is no doubt that Germany cannot keep up such an effort for any long time.

Comrades, Red Army and Red Navy men, commanders and political instructors, men and women guerrillas!

The whole world is looking to you as a force capable of destroying the brigand forces of German invaders. The enslaved peoples of Europe under the yoke of the German invaders are looking to you as their liberators. A great mission of liberation has fallen to your lot.

Be worthy of this mission! The war that you are waging is a war of liberation, a just war. Let the heroic images of our great ancestors – Alexander Nevsky, Mikhail Kutuzov – inspire you in this war!

Let the victorious banner of the great Lenin fly over your heads!
Utter destruction to the German invaders!
Death to the German armies of occupation!
Long live our glorious Motherland, her freedom and independence!
Under the banner of Lenin – onward to victory!

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

11th May 2010, 07:05

the totalitarian features of the Soviet Union.

Totalitarian has a specific meaning (the total state), using it as some sort of obscure slander is foolish. There's no such thing as "totalitarian features", it's either totalitarian, or it is not. Totalitarian was of course first used by Italian fascists to describe their vision of the total state, but was later also used (unsurprisingly of course, what with the common exchanges between anti-communist fascists and Nazis and general anti-communists) by Western anti-communists as a way of arbitrarily writing off the SSSR as the great daemonic evil and equating it to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 07:11

It's best to know that Stalin, to this day, is a well respected figure, even in modern day Russia, by the Russian people who still miss the Soviet Union:

I would point out that Vlad the Impaler is a national hero in Romania. Popular appeal doesn't really mean much, and I don't think there's much point in using the "30,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong" principle to history.

Die Rote Fahne

11th May 2010, 07:13

Well first off, I didn't say good leader, I said respected figure. Secondly, I would've loved to have seen any of the Russian rulers fight against Germany & keep the proletarian struggle intact like Stalin did.

To the OP, here's a small article made by Prof. Vladimir Herasymchuk about anti-stalinism:

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9811/antistal.htm

You never know how Lenin or Trotsky would have handled WW2.

Maybe the nazi-soviet non aggression pact would never have been signed in Lenin or Trotsky's USSR. Maybe they would have acted to take out Hitler and the fascists before things got out of hand in Germany, Spain and Italy.

Who knows.

What we do know is, regardless of "Stalin's" victories in the wars, he was a paranoid tyrant who murdered millions and sullied the name of socialism.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 07:18

Stalin’s Secret Pogrom?

By ERIC WALLBERG

If you are in a mood for some gregarious propaganda of the Cold War variety, read the 530-page book entitled "Stalin’s Secret Pogrom" (The Postwar Inquisition of the Jewish Ant-Fascist Committees) edited by Rubenstein and Naumov (2001) – this could pique your interest. After reading the entire work, its easy to conclude that the book is little more than an anti-Soviet, anti-Stalin hatchet job, masquerading as objective scholarship in which omissions are of far greater import than the inclusions. Even the title of the book is a blatant lie, since one needs only read the contents, put out by the bourgeois propagandists themselves no less, to see that the defendants were put on trial for, among other things, slanderously accusing the Soviet Government of practicing anti-Semitism. It was not a trial or pogrom against Jews for being Jews, it was a trial of Zionist Jews who accused the Soviet Government, among other things of being Anti-Semitic. The Soviet Government always punished any anti-Semitism and unfounded accusations of the same, not promoting it.

(By the latest information from comrades in the leading Communist Parties of Russia – it has been exposed now that although Trotsky had written this accusation, it was not made known until now. Trotsky and his followers accused the Soviet Government and Stalin in particular of talking an active part and condoning the Holocaust against the Jews, together with Hitler!!! History proved otherwise – but now that there is no longer the Soviet Union and the present leadership of Putin of course shall keep mum on this accusation – it is in the interest of US Imperialism and Israeli Imperialism to renew these lies! Editor of NSC)

The deceptive aspects of the title is also evident the fact that Stalin is barely mentioned throughout the whole book and the entire text. There is an implicit, but unproven assumption, that Stalin is behind the curtains, somewhere pulling strings, when there is no evidence of any and he never even makes an appearance in this drama.

The facts with respect to the book’s contents are relatively straightforward.

During World War II Stalin and the CC CPSU approved of a Committee of Jews to aid in the anti-fascist cause by enlisting support, primarily financial, from Jews throughout the world. Two of the leading members of this committee, Mikhoels and Fefer actually made a trip to the United States during 1943 and met with influential American Jews and other potential financial backers. Despite the committee’s justifiable creation, evidence came to light after World War II ended that these men and 13 others members of the committee conveyed classified information regarding the Soviet Union’s economy, industry, and culture to foreign agents, engaged in espionage, and that these members offered the US Jewish leaders to create a Jewish Republic in Crimea, so that Zionists and American imperialists could use this as a "beachhead" to dismember the Soviet Union, spread nationalistic propaganda, accuse the Soviet Union and the CC CPSU of being anti-Semitic, thus transforming the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee into a center of nationalistic activity in which Zionist propaganda sought to shift the allegiances of Soviet Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel etc.

This book’s failings are particularly noteworthy.

FIRST, nearly the entire work focuses on one denial of guilt after another by the 15 defendants, despite the fact that they had already confessed to multiple crimes years earlier during the preliminary investigations, and also with foreign correspondents present. Readers are not allowed to read these confessions and would never ever know that they existed, were it not for the fact that the examining officers kept referring to them and the defendants giving lame excuses for having admitted to the confessions contained therein and their signatures to them.

SECOND, believe it or not the reader is not even given access to the indictment prior to reading the transcript. Did you ever try to read a trial transcript without even knowing what the trial was all about, or what the defendants were accused of having done? Talk about the mental strain. These editors try to mask their intentional duplicity by tossing in the following ridiculous footnote on page 75:

"The indictment was 45 pages long and recounted a full list of crimes ascribed to the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee as a whole and to individuals in particular. The text of the indictment, dated March 31, 1952, can be found in the archives of Genneral Volkogonov in the manuscript division of the US Library of Congress, Washington, DC."

Imagine! The reader is supposed to search out the indictment for himself, assuming it can even be found. These Editors could not have found space for a 45-page indictment, which goes to the heart of the trial, but they found space for hundreds of pages for the defendants denials, justifications and obfuscations? It is quite apparent that the Editors did not want the readers to know the full particulars regarding what the defendants were accused of having committed. They were too busy trying to make the Soviet government appear anti-Semitic and suppressive.

FINALLY, and particularly very egregious, is the fact that the 42 volumes of Soviet preliminary investigation materials that are available, but never revealed, in which the evidence against, and confessions of the defendants are clearly exposed. Almost none of this is presented to the reader of course for obvious reasons, even though, it is repeatedly referred to by the defendants and by the presiding Soviet trial judge and officers. These Editors had absolutely NO intention of presenting any or all of the data corroborating the defendant’s guilt! They were far more interested in making sure that the readers only read the repeated denials in the trial itself.

Interestingly enough, although the trial reeks with denials, there is very conclusive evidence that is not denied by the accused as they confess to particular acts and also, they did testify against each other. Much to the latter’s chagrin and dismay.

In light of all of this, and the fact that this book was well funded by a whole series of capitalist foundations, its central message is fully understandable. That this book will never ever win a prize for neutrality or objectivity is manifest.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 07:23

You never know how Lenin or Trotsky would have handled WW2.

Maybe the nazi-soviet non aggression pact would never have been signed in Lenin or Trotsky's USSR. Maybe they would have acted to take out Hitler and the fascists before things got out of hand in Germany, Spain and Italy.

Who knows.

What we do know is, regardless of "Stalin's" victories in the wars, he was a paranoid tyrant who murdered millions and sullied the name of socialism.

I personally believe that neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, would have enforced Stalin's social-imperialism.

That's just about as much of an opinion as it is against people like Fidel Castro by the Cali cuban exiles - pure assumption. Source please?

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 07:28

Zhukov Reminiscences of Stalin

Marshal Zhukov of the Soviet Union wrote an excellent book - outlining the events of the Second World War and the role that Stalin played as the Supreme Commander in its execution and ultimate victory.

We just quote excerpts from it, in order to try and squash the lies abuse and dirt that is heaped on Marshal Stalin, both by the right-wing enemies, but even more by some of the left-wing parties and their leaders, who, it must be admitted are even more prone to falsify history and try to besmirch one of the greatest leaders of the working class the world has ever seen. Some of these present left-wing leaders of parties and some countries, history will forget them soon enough, but, the legacy of Joseph Stalin will live on forever!

"Stalin was not a dictator as the Supreme Commander of the Red Army, fighting a life and death battle, not only for the Soviet people, but to save all of humanity from this scourge of fascism. Stalin had the greatest regards not only for the Marshals, but also for the Generals and Commanders, which he made certain to know personally, and, he knew the strong and weak points of all of them.

Many important issues were decided at dinners to which Stalin invited his associates of the Supreme Command. What I liked about Stalin was the complete absence of formalism. Once a decision was taken, Stalin made certain to follow through wit the Supreme Command until the decisions were carried out. This of course had everyone at his best and it of course was a very heavy responsibility, and it also was very heavy on Stalin as the Supreme Commander.

Yes there were mistakes made at the start of the war, since the timing of German Nazi attack was misjudged and this caused us not to be prepared as well as we had planned.

Stalin made a tremendous contribution to the defeat of Germany ands its allies. His prestige amongst all of us was extremely high and his appointment was celebrated and acclaimed by all the Soviet people

Usually Stalin worked in his Kremlin study. His study had a long table that was covered by a heavy green cloth. On the walls hung portraits of Marx, Engels and Lenin, as well as Kutuzov and Suvorov. The chairs were solid and hard, and no redundant objects were to be seen in the room. A huge globe was in the adjoining room, with a table besides it, while on the walls were various maps of the world. In his office he had a plain desk, piled high with maps and telephones, high frequency and internal Kremlin phones. Stalin usually made notes in blue pencil and he wrote very fast, in a bold hand, and legibly.

When the Marshals and Supreme Commanders came in, they unloaded their maps and made their reports, standing up. As Stalin listened, he usually paced up and down slowly, taking big strides. From time to time he would walk to the big table and bend over, scrutinizing the maps, take a pack of tobacco and slowly fill his pipe.

He was businesslike and calm and addressed each one of us in a formal voice and listened as we expressed our opinions. He had a knack of listening to people attentively, but only if they spoke to the point and not try to embellish facts. When some of us would go on rambling, he would say curtly "make it snappy" or "speak more clearly". Stalin formulated his thought very clearly.

I realized, as we all did, that Stalin was not the kind that objected to sharp questions or to anyone arguing with him. If someone says that was not the truth, they are liars!

Stalin, during the war wanted daily reports on the situation on all of the fronts. Each one of us had to have facts ready at one’s fingertips when reporting to the Supreme Commander. One could not go to him with maps that had white spots on them or reports that this or that was "approximate". He did not tolerate hit-or-miss replies.

The Supreme Commander had an uncanny knack of detecting in each one of us and in our reports from the fronts, weak points. He saw this instantly and reprimanded the commander. He had a tenacious and uncanny memory and everything that was said to him he remembered. That is why reports by the General Staff were very carefully prepared. All of us agreed that he had an extraordinary capacity to grasp the crux of any matter and arrive at a correct solution.

Stalin worked at nights and that meant that we had to do so also, since that’s the time when more work can be accomplished and more rational decisions could be made.

The following should show the great mind of Stalin and his dedication and belief in the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany.

While the German hordes were in the outskirts of Moscow, Stalin insisted that there should be held the traditional parade as usual on November 7th – the date of the Great October Socialist Revolution! This was 1941, with the Germans only miles from the capital. Soviet people naturally assumed that there shall not be a parade in Red Square. To expose Soviet Red Amy soldiers, tanks, guns and equipment in broad daylight seemed "mad", since on Soviet captured airfields, just outside Moscow, a few minutes flying time, sat hundreds of German bombers. And at the first inkling of this target, they would take off. Yet Stalin, in one of his most bold and noble acts, buoyed the spirits of the soldiers and civilians alike, by holding the parade as usual. The Germans were dumbfounded and did not act."

The above is just a glimpse into this book by Marshal Zhukov. We would suggest that some of these newly-baked Marxists or Leninists (but god forbid to mention Stalin to them) read this whole book, in order to get the whole truth about Stalin and thank their lucky stars that the USSR had Stalin as the leader – otherwise we would be under fascism. Obviously, some of these "born again Marxists" are doing what the British Empire did before and what the US New World Order wishes them to do, in order to help them, Divide and Rule!

Chimurenga.

11th May 2010, 08:40

You've a lot of articles against Stalin. Here are some that are more pro-Stalin.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/long-live-the-universal-contributions-of-comrade-joseph-stalin/

As for authors, I'd recommend: Ludo Martens (whose book Another View Of Stalin is available for download on the link above), J. Arch Getty, Anna Louise Strong (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/), and Grover Furr (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/). There is more, I'm just blanking.

Hope this helps.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 10:29

Sir Comradical

11th May 2010, 12:06

Chambered Word

11th May 2010, 13:00

Well the crap that Trotsky spewed was definitely b.s. So I would say, for the most part, yeah!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1725895&postcount=1

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-article-shows-t132429/index.html?t=132429

This is what I find so hard to believe when it comes to the Marxist-Leninist line. So Stalinists really believe that the Russian Revolution was carried out by a party of anti-communist conspirators, fascist spies and what have you along with a few supermen who somehow pulled it off with the workers to found the first socialist state?

Wrong. It was Trotsky who was a Menshevik and anti-Leninist for all of his life, except for a few years.

Lenin must have been a moron to have an anti-Leninist commanding the Red Army. :rolleyes:

FSL

11th May 2010, 13:42

This is what I find so hard to believe when it comes to the Marxist-Leninist line. So Stalinists really believe that the Russian Revolution was carried out by a party of anti-communist conspirators, fascist spies and what have you along with a few supermen who somehow pulled it off with the workers to found the first socialist state?

You see it that way because in your mind some evil superman figure built a totalitarian dictatorship and brutally exploited hundreds of millions.

"Stalinists", being the reasonable people they are, bother with checking what policies each side favoured, criticize them and reach a conclusion on which one would help advance socialism.

For example, re-privatizing nationalized land and part of the industry or slowing down the economy wouldn't. Never moving forward in doing the 1928 changes and waiting for a revolution elsewhere wouldn't as well.

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 14:22

Source?:)

Well it's pretty much common knowledge.

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

Romanian folklore and literature, on the other hand, paints Vlad Ţepeş as a hero. His reputation in his native country as a man who stood up to both foreign and domestic enemies gives him the virtual opposite symbolism of Stoker's vampire. In Romania he is considered one of the greatest leaders in the country's history, and was voted one of "100 Greatest Romanians" in the "Mari Români (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mari_Rom%C3%A2ni)" television series aired in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mari_RomaniOld Vlad comes in at 12. Interestingly, right underneath Ceauşescu, who it should be noted, used Vlad the Impaler's image as a national hero to promote himself as well.

danyboy27

11th May 2010, 14:36

damn, am i the only one that see a big increase in sectarian fighting on the forum?

must be summer or something.

Spawn of Stalin

11th May 2010, 14:49

Lenin must have been a moron to have an anti-Leninist commanding the Red Army. :rolleyes:

This I would have to agree with, to allow someone who was so openly anti-party for such a long time like Trotsky to take up a senior position was Lenin's gravest error.

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 15:01

It was not a trial or pogrom against Jews for being Jews, it was a trial of Zionist Jews who accused the Soviet Government, among other things of being Anti-Semitic. The Soviet Government always punished any anti-Semitism and unfounded accusations of the same, not promoting it.

I wanted to make particular note of this because this really sticks in my craw. The argument is that they were not on trial for being Jews, but for accusing the Soviet Union of being anti-Jewish. Fine. But how the hell is that any better?

Did the US, incredibly racist as it was (and still is in many ways), ever put the Black Panthers on trial for calling the United States racist?

You guys are grasping at straws in order to justify your admiration for a single man who has been built into a symbol of incredible strength and leadership, all the while overlooking the gallons of ink that has been spilled to document Stalin's crimes - not all of which are written by anti-Communists or detractors of the Soviet Union.

Stalin did a lot of great things for the Soviet Union, but that doesn't justify a lot of the negative things he did. You guys are letting your hero worship lead you down a road that ends up justifying things like mass killings, purges, and heavy handed autocratic rule. It's insane. You're better than that.

Spawn of Stalin

11th May 2010, 15:43

Did the US, incredibly racist as it was (and still is in many ways), ever put the Black Panthers on trial for calling the United States racist?

Hell no, they just had local PD assassinate them instead, putting the Panthers on trial would have been a PR disaster, so just kill them instead

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 15:48

Hell no, they just had local PD assassinate them instead, putting the Panthers on trial would have been a PR disaster, so just kill them instead

Those things did happen, it's true, but what about every other person and group who accuses the US government of bullshit, and yet goes on un-assassinated? And then of course I should point out that not every leader of the Black Panthers was assassinated, in fact most were not. Bobby Seale lives to this day. I e-mailed him once, actually.

Palingenisis

11th May 2010, 15:50

This I would have to agree with, to allow someone who was so openly anti-party for such a long time like Trotsky to take up a senior position was Lenin's gravest error.

As I have said before I take some criticisms of the workers' opposition and even the (original) Left-Communists seriously so given the fact that Trotsky was on the opposite extreme to the Workers' Opposition Im not overly keen on him even when he was a part of the revolution...Trotsky though was ruthless and vicious, Lenin and the Party felt they needed someone of his viciousness and ruthlessness to win the civil war. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong...But thats the persecptive to look at it from.

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 15:52

As I have said before I take some criticisms of the workers' opposition and even the (original) Left-Communists seriously

When you say the original Left-Communists, do you mean folks like Bukharin? I'm just asking because Bukharin intrigues me quite a bit.

Palingenisis

11th May 2010, 15:57

When you say the original Left-Communists, do you mean folks like Bukharin? I'm just asking because Bukharin intrigues me quite a bit.

No Im thinking more of people like Gorter, Panneonok before he went basically syndicalist, The Communist Workers Party in Germany, etc. Bukharin was militantly against the Brest-Livtovsk treaty which I dont see how they could have avoided but he was also a bigger supporter of the NEP.

Chimurenga.

11th May 2010, 16:05

? Against Stalin? All my articles that I've brought forward are pro-Stalin.

Did I say that the articles you posted were against Stalin? As I'm reading this thread, I'm seeing that most are articles in favor of Stalin.

Also, check this out: The Stalin Era (http://leninist.biz/en/0000/ALS00000/index.html) by Anna Louise Strong.

KlÃ©ber

11th May 2010, 16:11

This I would have to agree with, to allow someone who was so openly anti-party for such a long time like Trotsky to take up a senior position was Lenin's gravest error.

Agreement [with Menshevism]? I cannot even speak seriously about that. Trotsky has long ago said that unity is impossible. Trotsky understood this and since then there has been no better Bolshevik.

When Comrade Trotsky recently informed me that in our military department the officers are numbered in tens of thousands, I gained a concrete conception of what constitutes the secret of making proper use of our enemy ... of how to build communism out of the bricks that the capitalists had gathered to use against us.

Show me another man who could have practically created a model army in a year and won respect of the military specialist as well.

Throwing Trotsky overboard - surely you are hinting at that, it is impossible to interpret it otherwise - is the height of stupidity. If you do not consider me already hopelessly foolish, how can you think of that????

All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military Revolutionary Committee was organized.

(these quotes were censored, erased out of official Soviet publications from the 1930's on)

Trotsky though was ruthless and vicious, Lenin and the Party felt they needed someone of his viciousness and ruthlessness to win the civil war.And did Trotsky stay "ruthless and vicious" after the war was over? No, he turned against bureaucracy and in favor of Soviet democracy once the wartime need for strict centralization was over, unlike the ultraleft opportunists. This argument is a straw man, trying to pin personal responsibility on Trotsky for every unattractive action of the entire Soviet power during the civil war.

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 16:12

No Im thinking more of people like Gorter, Panneonok before he went basically syndicalist, The Communist Workers Party in Germany, etc. Bukharin was militantly against the Brest-Livtovsk treaty which I dont see how they could have avoided but he was also a bigger supporter of the NEP.

Yeah, I never did get the opposition to Brest-Litovsk. I mean, a lot of the early support for the Bolsheviks existed because of their promises of ending WWI.

The Vegan Marxist

11th May 2010, 16:21

Stalin did a lot of great things for the Soviet Union, but that doesn't justify a lot of the negative things he did. You guys are letting your hero worship lead you down a road that ends up justifying things like mass killings, purges, and heavy handed autocratic rule. It's insane. You're better than that.

Well, just so we're clear on some things. I don't justify everything Stalin did. I am critical on him for a good number of things he did. The articles I posted are merely to give another side of the story a voice to be heard. I respect Stalin for being a great leader & protecting the proletarian struggle by turning it into a superpower. But there are some things that I feel Stalin really fucked up at. It just shows that no one's perfect.

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 16:24

Well, just so we're clear on some things. I don't justify everything Stalin did. I am critical on him for a good number of things he did. The articles I posted are merely to give another side of the story a voice to be heard. I respect Stalin for being a great leader & protecting the proletarian struggle by turning it into a superpower. But there are some things that I feel Stalin really fucked up at. It just shows that no one's perfect.

Okay, I can accept that at least.

11th May 2010, 18:14

Wrong. It was Trotsky who was a Menshevik and anti-Leninist for all of his life, except for a few years.

Trotsky was never a Menshevik. That is a ridiculously easily disproven lie made up by Stalin & Co.

"I was of that “minority” (menshinstvo) of the Second Congress (1903) from which Menshevism subsequently developed. I remained politically and organizationally associated with this minority only until the autumn of 1904 – approximately until the so-called “land campaign” of the New Iskra, when my irreconcilable conflict with Menshevism upon the questions of bourgeois liberalism and the perspectives of the revolution defined itself. In 1904, that is, twenty-three years ago, I broke politically and organizationally with Menshevism. I never called myself or considered myself a Menshevik."
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf06.htm

24. (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf05.htm#a24) In a polemic against Radek in 1929, Trotsky wrote concerning his pre-revolutionary conflict with Lenin: “... I never endeavored to create a grouping on the basis of the theory of the permanent revolution. My inner-party stand was a conciliatory one and when at certain moments I strove for groupings, then it was precisely on this basis. My conciliationism was derived from a certain Social Revolutionary fatalism. I believed that the logic of the class struggle would compel both factions to pursue the same revolutionary line. The great historical significance of Lenin’s stand was still unclear to me at that time, his policy of irreconcilable ideological demarcation and, when necessary, split, for the purpose of uniting and steeling the backbone of the truly revolutionary party ... By striving for unity at all costs, I involuntarily and unavoidably had to idealize the Centrist tendencies in Menshevism. Despite the threefold episodic attempts, I arrived at no common work with the Mensheviks, and I could not arrive at it. Simultaneously, however, the conciliatory line brought me into an all the harsher position towards Bolshevism, since Lenin, in contrast to the Mensheviks, mercilessly rejected conciliationism and could do no different. It is obvious that no faction could be created on the platform of conciliationism.” (The Permanent Revolution, New York 1931, p.20ff.)

As for being "anti-Leninist" "all his life" then what of this:

"Dear Comrade Trotsky: It is my earnest request that you should undertake the defence of the Georgian case in the Party C.C. This case is now under “persecution” by Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Quite to the contrary. I would feel at ease if you agreed to undertake its defence. If you should refuse to do so for any reason, return the whole case to me. I shall consider it a sign that you do not accept.[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45E766)"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm

Secondly, the Menshevik stagist theory called for capitalism to run its course under the bourgeoisie before the workers can take over for socialism, while the Marxist-Leninist theory of a stagist revolution towards establishing socialism calls for a proletarian-led state in all its stages.That doesn't seem to mesh with the stagism and class collaborationism of the entire history of Stalinism, leading right back to the failure of the German communists which led to the rise of Nazism. We could of course list countless other events whereby Stalinists have advocated class collaborationism; hell, it's done on this site regularly in the form and name of "anti-imperialist struggle" and "national liberation". You yourself are guilty of this wholesale.

Or we of course could go into the massive list of Mensheviks that held high-ranking positions in the Soviet bureaucracy under Stalin, of course...

Only utopians, and perhaps anarchists, can dream of jumping straight to communism in under-developed and agricultural economies.What does this even mean?

Edit: I should also add that its also idealistic to assume that a purely working class revolution can occur in all countries. The workers will need the alliance of the peasants.Orly?

"In the class struggle now going on in the country, the party must stand, not only in words but in deeds, at the head of the farm-hands, the poor peasants, and the basic mass of the middle peasants, and organize them against the exploiting aspirations of the kulak."
-Trotsky

Uppercut

11th May 2010, 18:32

The above is just a glimpse into this book by Marshal Zhukov. We would suggest that some of these newly-baked Marxists or Leninists (but god forbid to mention Stalin to them) read this whole book, in order to get the whole truth about Stalin and thank their lucky stars that the USSR had Stalin as the leader – otherwise we would be under fascism. Obviously, some of these "born again Marxists" are doing what the British Empire did before and what the US New World Order wishes them to do, in order to help them, Divide and Rule!

I guess I'm not the only leftist that is concerned about the NWO, although I try to distance myself from Alex Jones as much as possible. The way I look at it, monopoly capitalism is a highly organized conspiracy in itself.

bie

11th May 2010, 21:14

Can someone please explain the difference between Marxism and Stalinism?
There were no such thing as "stalinism". Stalin never built its own ideological school. This term was forged to fight against communists, who achieved great successes in Russia. It is usually associated with a series of lies, that Western propaganda developed in the psychological war against USSR. One of those propagandist was Leon Trotsky, the one who gave antisoviet propaganda a "leftist" flavor. That's why term "stalinism" has negative connotations. Marxism itself was enriched by W.I.Lenin, who made an marxist analysis of contemporary capitalism and discovered that capitalism entered a new - monopolistic - stage - he called it imperialism. W.I.Lenin significantly developed marxist theory - both as science and political practice. J. Stalin continued the work and political line of Lenin. This line is called marxism-leninism.

11th May 2010, 22:02

There were no such thing as "stalinism". Stalin never built its own ideological school. This term was forged to fight against communists, who achieved great successes in Russia. It is usually associated with a series of lies, that Western propaganda developed in the psychological war against USSR. One of those propagandist was Leon Trotsky, the one who gave antisoviet propaganda a "leftist" flavor. That's why term "stalinism" has negative connotations. Marxism itself was enriched by W.I.Lenin, who made an marxist analysis of contemporary capitalism and discovered that capitalism entered a new - monopolistic - stage - he called it imperialism. W.I.Lenin significantly developed marxist theory - both as science and political practice. J. Stalin continued the work and political line of Lenin. This line is called marxism-leninism.

Wow what a load of shit. Aside from the generalizations that you make that are blatantly false, the most obviously incorrect thing that you say here is regarding Lenin's "discovery" of imperialism which never actually happened. Lenin himself recognized this. The classical Marxist theory of imperialism was developed primarily by Hilferding and Bukharin, not Lenin. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. You're a perfect example of the incredibly low level of intellectual capacity that goes into the making of a Stalinist.

bie

11th May 2010, 22:19

the most obviously incorrect thing that you say here is regarding Lenin's "discovery" of imperialism which never actually happened.
Well, I am not going to argue who discovered it first. If someone is interested I refer to the fundamental work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)", where this theory is explained by Lenin.

And KC - the fact that you are starting the discussion with personal attack only shows that you lack arguments. Your emotional reaction doesn't say too well about fierce antistalinists (anticommunists?). By the way - I am not a "stalinist" nor "Stalinist" :)

Lyev

11th May 2010, 22:38

Stalin was a Marxist. He didn't kill millions of people.

In before sectarian shitstormDon't be a twat, you're just trying to get some rep points. At least substantiate that even a little a bit, rather than substituting your argument for "in before sectarian shitstorm". Would a Marxist kill so many... Marxists? Of 1,966 delegates to the 17th party congress in 1934, the last congress before his infamous purges, 1,108 were arrested and 848 killed. So, please do defend the statement "Stalin was a Marxist".

Robocommie

11th May 2010, 22:41

Don't be a twat, you're just trying to get some rep points. At least substantiate that even a little a bit, rather substituting an argument for "in before sectarian shitstorm". Would a Marxist kill so many... Marxists? Of 1,966 delegates to the 17th party congress in 1934, this is the last congress before his infamous purges started, 1,108 were arrested and 848 killed. So, please do defend the statement "Stalin was a Marxist".

We've had a bit of a thread since he posted that, man. ;)

Lyev

11th May 2010, 22:52

Yeah I realised that as I posted it, but the position is so infantile, and I find it interesting how people defend their position.

bie

11th May 2010, 22:53

Of 1,966 delegates to the 17th party congress in 1934, the last congress before his infamous purges, 1,108 were arrested and 848 killed.
Can I know what is the source of this information?

The Ben G

11th May 2010, 23:22

All Stalinism is is a variant of Marxism. Its like Trotskyism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, etc.. The overall is that most communism is just a variant of Marxism, its just thought schools believe in different ways to get a Stateless, Classless society.

Crusade

12th May 2010, 00:05

I wanted to make particular note of this because this really sticks in my craw. The argument is that they were not on trial for being Jews, but for accusing the Soviet Union of being anti-Jewish. Fine. But how the hell is that any better?

Did the US, incredibly racist as it was (and still is in many ways), ever put the Black Panthers on trial for calling the United States racist?

You guys are grasping at straws in order to justify your admiration for a single man who has been built into a symbol of incredible strength and leadership, all the while overlooking the gallons of ink that has been spilled to document Stalin's crimes - not all of which are written by anti-Communists or detractors of the Soviet Union.

Stalin did a lot of great things for the Soviet Union, but that doesn't justify a lot of the negative things he did. You guys are letting your hero worship lead you down a road that ends up justifying things like mass killings, purges, and heavy handed autocratic rule. It's insane. You're better than that.

No, but they framed them for other crimes to put them in prison. They also killed and harassed them. Also, they may not have arrested people for calling the US racist, but you're aware of what they did to people for simply BEING communist, right?

howblackisyourflag

12th May 2010, 00:17

No, but they framed them for other crimes to put them in prison. They also killed and harassed them. Also, they may not have arrested people for calling the US racist, but you're aware of what they did to people for simply BEING communist, right?

One of the peoplethey killed was Fred Hampton, one of the Black Panthers best speakers. Search for COINTELPRO online for more info on what the US gov did during this time.

Leo

12th May 2010, 00:17

Here's a post I made a while back about Stalin and what happened to the marxists (the bolsheviks) under his regime. Rather than writing again over this, I am first of all going to use the old post:

Here's a graphic demonstration of what happened to the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party of 1917:http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/cc-1917.jpg

Now, as it can be seen here, only three members of the Central Committee survived the Stalinist terror. Two of them, Kollontai and Stassova had retired from active politics completely before the purges (Kollontai had also recanted her political opinions while Stassove had retired from active politics in the early twenties when Lenin was alive). This leaves only one other person - Muranov, who was involved in politics as a Stalinist who survived. All the rest of the Bolshevik Part Central Committee that was alive at the time of the Stalinist purges were murdered by the regime. Out of six members of the original Politburo during the 1917 Revolution who lived until the Purges, only Stalin wasn't murdered. None from the first Council of People's Commissars formed in 1917 except Stalin who was alive at the time of his counter-revolutionary terror survived from it.

Other prominent Bolshevik leaders who weren't in the Central Committee at the time of the revolution and militant workers were also victims of the counter revolution, such as Karl Radek, Yuri Pyatakov, Alexander Shliapnikov, Yevgeny Preoprazhensky, David Riazanov, Christian Rakovsky, Ivan Smirnov, Varvara Yakovleva, Grigori Safarov, Gabriel Myasnikov, Timotei Sapranov, Vladimir Smirnov, Vyacheslav Zof, Georgy Oppokov, Mikhail Borodin, Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko, Lenin's one time personal secretary Nikolai Gorbunov, Sergei Medvedev, Vladimir Milyutin, Ivan Teodorovich, Nikolai Glebov-Avilov. There were many many others.

A very small amount of Old Bolsheviks survived the purges. The most significant one was Krupskaya who had said that had Lenin been alive, he'd be the first to be shot by Stalin's regime - she was being closely watched of course. There were very few Old Bolsheviks who became Stalinists, and they were ones that did not have prominent roles during the revolution. The most well known Bolsheviks who became Stalinists were Kalinin and Voroshilov. The most prominent role played by Kalinin was the rather sinister role in the suppression of Kronstadt, openly lying in order to get it suppressed before Lenin's death, as for Voroshilov he became a member of the Central Committee in 1921 and that was the most significant thing he had done. There were a few other old Bolsheviks who supported Stalin, such as Molotov, Kaganovich and Mikoyan - although none of them had any distinctive qualities or specific influence as opposed to the Bolshevik leaders murdered during the purges.

Communist leaders from Central Asia such as Sahipgirai Saidgaliev, Sherif Manatov, Sagidullin, Shamilgulov and Atnagulov, from Georgia such as Polikarp Mdivani, people like Afandiyev and Huseynov from Azerbaijan, people like Gayk Bzhishkyan, Vagarshak Ter-Vaganyan and Aghasi Khanchian from Amerina were not spared from the counter-revolutionary terror either.

Neither were communist leaders of workers' revolutions in different countries who resided in the USSR at the time, such as Bela Kun and Joseph Pogany of the Hungarian Revolution, Jaan Anvelt from the Estonian Revolution, Avetis Sultanzade from the Persian Soviet Socialist Republic, Salih Hacioglu who was one of the leaders of the communist struggle against the national liberation movement in Turkey among lots and lots of other communist revolutionaries from different parts of the world. Lots of communist leaders who played a significant role in the formation of Communist Parties in different parties were toppled and replaced with loyal Stalinists who in most cases had been rather insignificant in the parties before. Such events happened in places like Italy, Germany, France, England, Spain, Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, the US, Canada, China, Turkey and Iran, among lots of other places.

In total, about 100,000 members of the Bolshevik Party were arrested, many of whom were tortured and murdered (http://www.answers.com/topic/the-great-purges (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.answers.com/topic/the-great-purges)). In 1922 there were only 44,148 Old Bolsheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bolsheviks).

As for the attitude of the West, when, from 1936, Stalin organized the wretched ‘Moscow Trials', when the old comrades of Lenin, broken by torture, were accused of the most abject crimes and themselves ended up asking for exemplary punishment, this same democratic press in the pay of capital let it be known that ‘there was no smoke without fire' (even if some newspapers made some timid criticisms of Stalin's policies, affirming that they were ‘exaggerated'). It was with the complicity of the bourgeoisies of the great powers that Stalin accomplished his monstrous crimes, that he exterminated, in his prisons and concentration camps, hundreds of thousands of communists, more than ten million workers and peasants. And the bourgeois sectors that showed the greatest zeal in this complicity were the democratic sectors (and particularly Social-Democracy); the same sectors that today virulently denounce the crimes of Stalinism and present themselves as models of virtue. It's only because the regime that consolidated itself in Russia after the death of Lenin and the final crushing of the German revolution was a variant of capitalism, and even the spearhead of the counter-revolution, that it received such warm support from all the bourgeoisies that only a few years earlier had ferociously fought the power of the Soviets. In 1934, in fact, these same ‘democratic' bourgeoisies accepted the USSR into the League of Nations, an institution that Lenin had called a "den of thieves" at the time of its foundation. This was the sign that Stalin had become a ‘respectable Bolshevik' in the eyes of the ruling class of every country, the same rulers who had once presented the Bolsheviks of 1917 as barbarians with knives between their teeth. The imperialist brigands recognized Stalin as one of their own. The communists who opposed Stalin submitted to the persecutions of the entire world bourgeoisie.

Some posters mocked the idea of Stalinism having a kinship to Menshevism. One good example would be Andrey Vyhshinsky. Not that I expect our resident Stalin-kiddies to have heard of him, of course. Vyhshinsky had been a Menshevik since 1903 and remained one until well after the Russian revolution, in fact he joined the RCP(B) only after the end of the civil war. He remained in the RCP(B) - later CPSU - until the end of his life in 1954, and remained a top-level Soviet officer most of his life, including being the Vice-Premier during the Second World War and Minister of Foreign affairs in the post-war period until a year before his death. Anyway, it gets more interesting, because one of the very high posts this man occupied in the Soviet state, was that of being the Prosecutor General of the USSR starting from 1935. He was generally the legal mastermind behind the Great Purges and personally the prosecutor at the Moscow trials. As the post I quoted shows, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik Party as well as its central committee of 1917 perished at these trials. Vyshinsky, the former-Menshevik turned Stalinist apparently shouted "Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism!... Down with these abject animals! Let's put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let's exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let's push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!" at the trials. Incidentally, he had shown how thirsty he was for the blood of the Bolsheviks, as this fella was none other than one of the signatories of an order to arrest Lenin, issued by Kerensky's provisional government in 1917.

I would like to comment a bit on the point of Trotsky. I think Palingenisis highlighted some of the things which can be seen as problematic about Trotsky's historic role (to this I can add problems with lots of his formulations, such as that of the united front, of the degenerated workers state, of the transitional program along with his positions on national liberation movements, trade-unions, parliamentarianism, when to form to party as well as the opportunistic and sectarian approach he at times displayed, all of which lead to his current, the Trotskyists into crossing to the other side - for a more detailed analysis: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism), and KC cleared up how Trotsky wasn't a menshevik at all (although he sided with who were to become the mensheviks in 1903, primarily because what Lenin called the circle spirit, ie because he was close friends with people like Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov etc. while Plekhanov was very hostile to him, and he initially sided with Lenin. Even before 1903 however, Trotsky was politically closer to Lenin rather than Axelrod, Zasulich , Martov etc. and his polemics with Lenin were based on personal emotions rather than political clarity, combined with the shock of how someone could so harshly criticize the sweet old theorists of what was then considered orthodox Russian marxism - for a more detailed account of what went on: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/117_1903.html). What I would like to comment on his alleged anti-communism. With all his faults, mistakes, misconceptions, wrong or even sometimes unacceptable practices, Trotsky, when he took the stand against Stalinism, was defending marxism. He was defending it on a theoretical level, by opposing the bourgeois nationalist ideology of "socialism in one country" and defending the world revolution; and he was defending it one a practical level, by condemning the murder of the thousands of militants of the old Bolshevik Party. Isolated, mocked, humiliated, weakened and slandered by nearly everyone, he embodied a bigger threat to bourgeois society as a whole than Stalin and his regime ever posed to it. “Robert Coulondre, French ambassador to the Third Reich, gives a striking testimony in the description of his last meeting with Hitler, just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Hitler had boasted of the advantages he had obtained from his pact with Stalin, just concluded; and he drew a grandiose vista of his future military triumph. In reply the French ambassador appealed to his ‘reason’ and spoke of the social turmoil and the revolutions that might follow a long and terrible war and engulf all belligerent governments. ‘You are thinking of yourself as a victor...’, the ambassador said, ‘but have you given thought to another possibility - that the victor might be Trotsky?’ At this Hitler jumped up (as if he ‘had been hit in the pit of the stomach’) and screamed that this possibility, the threat of Trotsky’s victory, was one more reason why France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich” ( The Prophet Outcast, Isaac Deutscher). “They are haunted by the spectre of revolution, and they give it a man’s name” Trotsky apparently said upon hearing the story in question (for a more detailed analysis of why the Stalinist regime as well world capitalism needed Trotsky dead: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_trotsky.htm)

Lastly:

Can I know what is the source of this information?

I think it is from "The Russian Revolution" written by Shelia Fitzpatrick.

gorillafuck

12th May 2010, 00:27

Lenin must have been a moron to have an anti-Leninist commanding the Red Army. :rolleyes:
Indeed. In fact, he was so stupid that some of his work was deemed so outrageously stupid that it was necessary to censor it:p

The Vegan Marxist

12th May 2010, 00:34

I guess I'm not the only leftist that is concerned about the NWO, although I try to distance myself from Alex Jones as much as possible. The way I look at it, monopoly capitalism is a highly organized conspiracy in itself.

Well, that came from the article I posted. Me, personally, I don't care what a group of capitalist elitists are called. The New World Order is a name given to represent such an ideal. But the conspiracy theorists put in so many fucking dumb theories with the term that the term, itself, has become a conspiracy theory as well.

Homo Songun

12th May 2010, 04:03

Stalin was a paranoid super-villian who murdered eleventy trillion Trotskyists. He gave ruthless wedgies to the entire 1917 Central Committee. He personally stole all the bread in Ukraine to build a wall around Poland so he could turn it into a giant gulag. He condemned the Old Bolsheviks to death in a series of off-broadway Vaudeville show trials. He betrayed Socialism by developing a backward country into an industrial juggernaut capable of stopping Hitler's war machine, even though he hated Jews more than the Nazis. That was just his way of keeping the capitalists on their toes, you see. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union developed the world's finest neurosurgeons, some of whom he sent to do free operations in Coyoacan.

Homo Songun

12th May 2010, 04:16

Stalinism is an outgrowth of Menshevism.

Wrong. It was Trotsky who was a Menshevik and anti-Leninist for all of his life, except for a few years.
Trotsky was never a Menshevik. That is a ridiculously easily disproven lie made up by Stalin & Co.
It is much less ridiculous than you saying Stalin was a Menshevik, seeing how Stalin directly joined the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP in 1903, whereas Trotksy continued to hang around the Menshevik wing until the eve of the Russian Revolution, 14 years later.

Robocommie

12th May 2010, 04:32

I should mention that besides the victims of the Great Purge who were shot, there were also those individuals who survived but suffered greatly anyway. One noteworthy example is Konstantin Rokossovsky. Perhaps because of his connections to Tukhachevsky, he was arrested, detained and interrogated - his interrogation cost him three cracked ribs, nine teeth and all of his fingernails. Luckily for him he was spared execution, and then in 1940 he was released from prison, recovered in a spa on the Black Sea coast and then went on to become one of the great heroes of Russian military history, and certainly one of the greatest Soviet Marshals of the Second World War.

This is a man who had been so loyal to the Soviet Union that even after his arrest and torture, he still served the Soviet state ably and well for years, until his retirement in 1962. That we should excuse these purges, that went to these extremes, just because of all the other great stuff Stalin's regime did is insane.

Robocommie

12th May 2010, 04:42

No, but they framed them for other crimes to put them in prison. They also killed and harassed them. Also, they may not have arrested people for calling the US racist, but you're aware of what they did to people for simply BEING communist, right?

I actually already addressed this earlier, that said, even if the US was just as bad, it doesn't make it not fucked up for the Sovet Union to do it. We're supposed to be better than the capitalists.

Tablo

12th May 2010, 04:57

Marxism = relatively libertarian(not that authoritarian in comparison to Leninist theories) theories developed by Marx and Engels.

Stalinism = authoritarian state-capitalist shit hole and is a derogatory term directed at Marxist-Leninists(not as bad as they are often treated).

12th May 2010, 05:31

It is much less ridiculous than you saying Stalin was a Menshevik, seeing how Stalin directly joined the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP in 1903, whereas Trotksy continued to hang around the Menshevik wing until the eve of the Russian Revolution, 14 years later.

I never once claimed Stalin was a Menshevik. He was too opportunist to openly align himself.

Homo Songun

12th May 2010, 05:33

Your sophistry is magnificent to behold.

12th May 2010, 05:40

No u!

Chambered Word

12th May 2010, 09:46

How is this:

You see it that way because in your mind some evil superman figure built a totalitarian dictatorship and brutally exploited hundreds of millions.

"Stalinists", being the reasonable people they are, bother with checking what policies each side favoured, criticize them and reach a conclusion on which one would help advance socialism.

For example, re-privatizing nationalized land and part of the industry or slowing down the economy wouldn't. Never moving forward in doing the 1928 changes and waiting for a revolution elsewhere wouldn't as well.

...relevant at all to this:

This is what I find so hard to believe when it comes to the Marxist-Leninist line. So Stalinists really believe that the Russian Revolution was carried out by a party of anti-communist conspirators, fascist spies and what have you along with a few supermen who somehow pulled it off with the workers to found the first socialist state?

...in the slightest way at all?

Do tell.

FSL

12th May 2010, 11:28

How is this:

...relevant at all to this:

...in the slightest way at all?

Do tell.

You think irrationally so you can only assume others think irrationally as well.

People who favoured anti-worker policies obviously weren't at the time concerned with workers' welfare. It's not a first that someone's class allegiance changes with time, is it?
The russian revolution was carried out by the workers and their party and the victory over the kulaks and the NEPmen came again from the workers and that part of the party that remained revolutionary.

But instead of looking at what each side wanted, you prefer to think that the left/right wings must have been right, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator and so on and so forth.

Frankly, start providing reasons as to why you think there shouldn't have been a central plan encompassing the whole economy until Germany went red. Start providing reasons why you think kulaks should have kept their land and increase the number of their employees. Why private industry had a place in a soviet state.
If you can't provide adequate explanations, I will carry on thinking that the people who wanted these things opposed the working class and were in favour of overthrowing its rule.

12th May 2010, 13:02

Personally, I think the title of the thread says it all. "Marxism vs Stalinism".

There were no such thing as "stalinism". Stalin never built its own ideological school. This term was forged to fight against communists, who achieved great successes in Russia. It is usually associated with a series of lies, that Western propaganda developed in the psychological war against USSR. One of those propagandist was Leon Trotsky, the one who gave antisoviet propaganda a "leftist" flavor. That's why term "stalinism" has negative connotations. Marxism itself was enriched by W.I.Lenin, who made an marxist analysis of contemporary capitalism and discovered that capitalism entered a new - monopolistic - stage - he called it imperialism. W.I.Lenin significantly developed marxist theory - both as science and political practice. J. Stalin continued the work and political line of Lenin. This line is called marxism-leninism.

See, the thing is, if someone continues someone else's work and adds more to certain theories or adds completely new theories, their name should follow that of their predecessor. It should be called Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Or Stalinism, for short. Lenin's original ideas, as much as I may be against them, should be preserved simply with Marxism-Leninism. Stalin's name wasn't Lenin, so how the fuck does the ML(S) idea that Lenin should somehow take credit for Stalin's ideas even work?

bie

12th May 2010, 13:26

See, the thing is, if someone continues someone else's work and adds more to certain theories or adds completely new theories, their name should follow that of their predecessor. It should be called Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Or Stalinism, for short. Lenin's original ideas, as much as I may be against them, should be preserved simply with Marxism-Leninism. Stalin's name wasn't Lenin, so how the fuck does the ML(S) idea that Lenin should somehow take credit for Stalin's ideas even work?
The answer is actually quite simple. If you look into late Lenin's work (eg. On Cooperation, 1923 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm) you will see that the direction of development of Soviet country was presented by Lenin and he is an author of a strategy, that his successors put into practice. In general terms, Lenin's theory on building socialism in one country is based on expansion of socialist relations in industry and collectivization of agriculture in co-operational units (kolchoz), as well as an introduction of centrally planned economy. All those points were successfully brought into life by the Communist Party after Lenin's death, especially in the decade 1928-1938. Stalin's work didn't contain any particularly new ideas about the strategy of the development of the socialist society. Term "stalinism" was forged by enemies of the people (eg. Leon Trotsky), and since then have gained negative meaning, describing (not quite accurately) all the negative things that occurred or it is falsely claimed to happen in that period. Actually there is nothing distinct the the practice of building of socialism in 1928-1938 that can't be originated from Lenin's theory. That's why we call this ideology marxism-leninism and CP - Leninist.

I think it is from "The Russian Revolution" written by Shelia Fitzpatrick.
Can I know exactly on what documents it is based? There is a lot of bias in this field, I just want to verify the source.

Chambered Word

12th May 2010, 16:30

You think irrationally so you can only assume others think irrationally as well.

So because I point out something that doesn't make sense it means that my argument doesn't make sense? Sorry, I guess I'm just being irrational. That's obviously why I cannot comphrehend this argument's validity. :rolleyes:

People who favoured anti-worker policies obviously weren't at the time concerned with workers' welfare. It's not a first that someone's class allegiance changes with time, is it?

The russian revolution was carried out by the workers and their party and the victory over the kulaks and the NEPmen came again from the workers and that part of the party that remained revolutionary.

If you're implying that the vast majority of the party had been corrupted after the working class had been decimated, I completely agree. I don't see how it would be possible for a few members - as well as the majority of the new bureaucracy in the party - to remain revolutionary for many years afterwards.

Frankly, start providing reasons as to why you think there shouldn't have been a central plan encompassing the whole economy until Germany went red.

Strawman argument.

Start providing reasons why you think kulaks should have kept their land and increase the number of their employees. Why private industry had a place in a soviet state.

The policy was Lenin's in the first place, are you implying that he was a counter-revolutionary?

FSL

12th May 2010, 18:34

The policy was Lenin's in the first place, are you implying that he was a counter-revolutionary?

NEP wasn't a choise, it was a necessity to avoid losing the support of the large mass of the peasantry. It stopped being a necessity (as proven by the results of the 5-year plan despite Trotsky's hopes that the soviet economy was in grave danger).

If you're implying that the vast majority of the party had been corrupted after the working class had been decimated, I completely agree. I don't see how it would be possible for a few members - as well as the majority of the new bureaucracy in the party - to remain revolutionary for many years afterwards.

Why is it important what you think is possible? Any party is not detouched from reality, workers were the "new bureaucracy". Is it odd that they were revolutionary?

And no, I'm not talking about "corruption". They didn't act in a way that was morally wrong. They simply represented another class and acted in its favour. Overthrowing the workers' government was the only way to effectively do that, so that was what Trotsky or Ryutin called for and possibly many others.

KlÃ©ber

13th May 2010, 06:04

NEP wasn't a choise, it was a necessity to avoid losing the support of the large mass of the peasantry. It stopped being a necessity (as proven by the results of the 5-year plan despite Trotsky's hopes that the soviet economy was in grave danger).
Trotsky's warnings were proven correct by the crisis of 1928, and Stalin's regime adopted precisely the solution that the Left Opposition had proposed (collectivization), but it was too late in terms of the social differentiation that had occurred in the countryside to do it in anything but a brutal, militarized, sudden and uncoordinated matter.

Why is it important what you think is possible? Any party is not detouched from reality, workers were the "new bureaucracy". Is it odd that they were revolutionary?A bureaucrat who got paid 1-2,000 rubles a month, had access to special stores and restaurants, multiple residences, a limousine, maids, chauffeurs, and personal assistants, was a caste apart from an ordinary worker getting paid 1-300 a month. Lenin knew this when he said "if we pay 2,000 ... that is state capitalism."

And no, I'm not talking about "corruption". They didn't act in a way that was morally wrong. They simply represented another class and acted in its favour. Overthrowing the workers' government was the only way to effectively do that, so that was what Trotsky or Ryutin called for and possibly many others.Ryutin called for the removal of Stalin from the post of General Secretary, something Lenin had called for shortly before his demise. Only someone who sees an identity between Stalin and the proletariat and believes Lenin's testament to be a Trot forgery, or has no familiarity with Ryutin's actual platform, could make such a statement. Trotsky for his part called for unconditional defense of the Soviet power against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was those domestic bureaucratic enemies, the political offspring of Stalin and co. who whittled away and abolished the vestiges of workers power.

FSL

13th May 2010, 07:18

Trotsky's warnings were proven correct by the crisis of 1928 and Stalin's regime adopted precisely the solution that the Left Opposition had proposed

Too bad I was talking about a 1932 work of his.

Remember the time, when the USSR was growing at unprecedented rates and all?

KlÃ©ber

13th May 2010, 07:29

Remember the time, when the USSR was growing at unprecedented rates and all?
Oh, you mean under Khrushchev? :lol:

Maybe it's time to stop living in the past. Stalinism failed and "blame it on Gorby" is not a logical let alone Marxist explanation.

DaringMehring

13th May 2010, 08:10

enemies of the people (eg. Leon Trotsky)

The elected leader of the St. Petersburg soviet 1905, twice exiled under Tzarism, in twenty Tzarist prisons, the organizer of thousands of revolutionary workers, founder of the Red Army, leader of hundreds of thousands of revolutionary workers in war time, called by Lenin "since he joined the party, the best Bolshevik" etc. is an "enemy of people"?

It is weird, to see these small groups, manned by people who have probably organized at most five workers, calling one of the greatest revolutionaries of the modern era an "enemy of the people".

I am fine with many Marxist-Leninists, I work with them closely, but the ones that stick to the Stalin cult, replete with its denunciations of good revolutionaries as "enemies of the people" deserving death, go a long way to wrecking the value of the rest. I find that not only do they have these strong views about how magnificent Stalin was in killing these bad revolutionaries, they are obsessed with bringing them up and it only ends up turning off workers not to mention the public at large.

Bright Banana Beard

13th May 2010, 08:13

Oh, you mean under Khrushchev? :lol:

Maybe it's time to stop living in the past. Stalinism failed and "blame it on Gorby" is not a logical let alone Marxist explanation.

Oh, you mean under Stalin? :lol:

Maybe it's time to stop living in the past. Trotskyism failed and "blame it on Stalin" is not a logical let alone Marxist explanation.

Chambered Word

13th May 2010, 09:52

Oh, you mean under Stalin? :lol:

Maybe it's time to stop living in the past. Trotskyism failed and "blame it on Stalin" is not a logical let alone Marxist explanation.

Trotskyist explanations for the USSR's decline and eventual fall are much more in-depth that just 'blame it on Stalin', as you put it. I've yet to see a Stalinist explanation that didn't go along the lines of some evil capitalist roader coming out of nowhere and corrupting the party.

Why is it important what you think is possible? Any party is not detouched from reality, workers were the "new bureaucracy". Is it odd that they were revolutionary?

How many workers were there left by the end of the Civil War whose positions could have been freed up for bureaucratic duties? Even if they were workers:

People who favoured anti-worker policies obviously weren't at the time concerned with workers' welfare. It's not a first that someone's class allegiance changes with time, is it?
The russian revolution was carried out by the workers and their party and the victory over the kulaks and the NEPmen came again from the workers and that part of the party that remained revolutionary.

...are you implying that there was a section of the workers who, due to some metaphorical roll of the dice, remained revolutionary while also being part of the powerful bureaucracy? Why were these workers you claim had been the main body of the bureaucracy somehow uncorruptable by their status?

And no, I'm not talking about "corruption". They didn't act in a way that was morally wrong. They simply represented another class and acted in its favour. Overthrowing the workers' government was the only way to effectively do that, so that was what Trotsky or Ryutin called for and possibly many others.

So why did these people all begin turning into evil capitalists after the revolution?

I'm sorry if there's something I'm not getting here but you're speaking vaguely and to be honest it looks like you're trying to dance around the point.

bie

13th May 2010, 12:06

called by Lenin "since he joined the party, the best Bolshevik" etc. is an "enemy of people"?.
Is it? In few places Lenin admitted it himself explicitly: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/jan/02.htm (V.I.Lenin, Judas Trotsky’s Blush of Shame,1911)

(...)And it is this Judas who beats his breast and loudly professes his loyalty to the Party, claiming that he did not grovel before the Vperyod group and the liquidators.

Such is Judas Trotsky’s blush of shame.
Trotsky's activity after 1928 - plan of coup de etat on X anniversary of the October Revolution, his plots, Trocky-Hess deal, cooperation with German and American intelligence services made his a pathetic, but dangerous tool in hands of imperialists. If you do not trust Soviet sources, here are information about Trotsky cooperation with FBI. Your "hero" was providing information to FBI about Mexican communist heroes and trade union activists in order to get an American visa! Here is the link along with EVIDENCE. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm This is the text of the note from US State Archives RG-84:

'In June [1940], Robert McGregor of the [US] Consulate met with Trotsky in his home... he met again with Trotsky on 13 July... Trotsky told McGregor in detail of the allegations and evidence he had compiled... He gave to McGregor the names of Mexican publications, political and labour leaders, and government officials allegedly associated with the PCM [Mexico and the USSR were the only countries in the world to materially support the fight against Franco's Fascism in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39]. He charged that one of the Comintern's [the Communist international's] leading agents, Carlos Contreras served on the PCM Directing Committee. He also discussed the alleged efforts of Narciso Bassols, former Mexican Ambassador to France, whom Trotsky claimed was a Soviet agent, to get him deported from Mexico.'

'Upon receipt, the State Department transmitted McGregor's memo to the FBI.

'...The Information, while not new, responded to both bodies' concerns.'

On the other hand, there are very serious suspicions that Trotsky was working for the English intelligence (MI6) since he was captured in Halifax on his trip to Petersburg in 1917. Prof. Spence from University of Idaho collected all the information, there is a number of "indirect evidence" for that. His mission in the interest of British Government was to keep Russia at war. It can explain somehow the strange behavior of Trotsky during signing of the Brest treaty.

Spawn of Stalin

13th May 2010, 12:26

I actually already addressed this earlier, that said, even if the US was just as bad, it doesn't make it not fucked up for the Sovet Union to do it. We're supposed to be better than the capitalists.

We are better than the capitalists, we give people trials, capitalists just execute them without question.

See, the thing is, if someone continues someone else's work and adds more to certain theories or adds completely new theories, their name should follow that of their predecessor. It should be called Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Or Stalinism, for short. Lenin's original ideas, as much as I may be against them, should be preserved simply with Marxism-Leninism. Stalin's name wasn't Lenin, so how the fuck does the ML(S) idea that Lenin should somehow take credit for Stalin's ideas even work?

That's the point, Stalin didn't add "completely new theories", he merely put into practice his interpretation of Lenin's theories. Should the Maoists start calling themselves the Prachandaites? Maybe the Trots could start calling themselves Cliffites...oh wait.

Almost all Marxist-Leninists reject the term Stalinist, Stalin himself rejected it too, so no, there really is no such thing, why should it be up to a bunch of Trots and ultra-lefts to dictate what label is attached to everyone to make them sound worse than they really are? Calling someone a Stalinist is an easy way out of a debate, because people hear that word and it instantly conjures up images of famine, murder, and gulags, it's just an insult used to discredit genuine revolutionaries so that the pseudo-communists can fulfill their own opportunistic whims.

bie

13th May 2010, 13:38

Calling someone a Stalinist is an easy way out of a debate, because people hear that word and it instantly conjures up images of famine, murder, and gulags, it's just an insult used to discredit genuine revolutionaries so that the pseudo-communists can fulfill their own opportunistic whims.
This is the point. I can add that under the banner of "fight with stalinism" opportunistic forces within CP in socialist states forced dismantling of economic and political organization of the society. Eg. since 1956 all of leader's of Polish United Workers Party considered themselves as "antistalinists" - some of them supported extremely revisionist (towards social-democracy) line, that eventually resulted in restoration of capitalist relations, enslavement of large parts of the society, subjecting country to Western imperialism and turning it into a semi-colony. "Antistalinism" was the banner of those, who betrayed socialism!

Chambered Word

13th May 2010, 13:38

Is it? In few places Lenin admitted it himself explicitly: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/jan/02.htm (V.I.Lenin, Judas Trotsky’s Blush of Shame,1911)

Written: Written after January 2 (15), 1911

Oh you.

Trotsky's activity after 1928 - plan of coup de etat on X anniversary of the October Revolution, his plots, Trocky-Hess deal, cooperation with German and American intelligence services made his a pathetic, but dangerous tool in hands of imperialists. If you do not trust Soviet sources, here are information about Trotsky cooperation with FBI. Your "hero" was providing information to FBI about Mexican communist heroes and trade union activists in order to get an American visa! Here is the link along with EVIDENCE. http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm This is the text of the note from US State Archives RG-84:

Already been addressed: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/corr-a02.shtml

On the other hand, there are very serious suspicions that Trotsky was working for the English intelligence (MI6) since he was captured in Halifax on his trip to Petersburg in 1917. Prof. Spence from University of Idaho collected all the information, there is a number of "indirect evidence" for that. His mission in the interest of British Government was to keep Russia at war. It can explain somehow the strange behavior of Trotsky during signing of the Brest treaty.

Just like there are 'very serious suspicions' concerning Stalin's status as an Okhrana agent. :rolleyes:

bie

13th May 2010, 14:07

Already been addressed:
Really? :) Read it again, please. I am posting it once more just in case that you might have missed it:

'In June [1940], Robert McGregor of the [US] Consulate met with Trotsky in his home... he met again with Trotsky on 13 July... Trotsky told McGregor in detail of the allegations and evidence he had compiled... He gave to McGregor the names of Mexican publications, political and labour leaders, and government officials allegedly associated with the PCM [Mexico and the USSR were the only countries in the world to materially support the fight against Franco's Fascism in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39]. He charged that one of the Comintern's [the Communist international's] leading agents, Carlos Contreras served on the PCM Directing Committee. He also discussed the alleged efforts of Narciso Bassols, former Mexican Ambassador to France, whom Trotsky claimed was a Soviet agent, to get him deported from Mexico.'

'Upon receipt, the State Department transmitted McGregor's memo to the FBI.

'...The Information, while not new, responded to both bodies' concerns.' from: http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

By the way the text under your link contains number of funny things, let me state few obvious ones:

Trotsky planned to set forth a Marxist analysis of the publicly available history of the counterrevolutionary Stalinist regime in both the Soviet Union and the Third International in his presentation before the House Committee.

What is House Commitee?

The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC or HCUA,[1] 1938–1975) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. In 1969, the House changed the committee's name to "House Committee on Internal Security". When the House abolished the committee in 1975,[2] its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy.[3] McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.[4] McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee.

So Trotsky wanted to denounce "conterrevolutionary stalinist regime" to the counterrevolutionary anti-communist American institution:) and to present them his "true revolutionary" political line! Maybe he also wanted to convert them to trotskism??:lol::lol: Other thing is that Trotsky's last work on GPU agents in Comintern contained nothing but lies. Comintern archives were opened and none of its members were found to be working for GPU. Time to wake up?

Just like there are 'very serious suspicions' concerning Stalin's status as an Okhrana agent
I see that you refute a charge even without knowing its content! How great :lol:

KlÃ©ber

13th May 2010, 15:08

This is the point. I can add that under the banner of "fight with stalinism" opportunistic forces within CP in socialist states forced dismantling of economic and political organization of the society. Eg. since 1956 all of leader's of Polish United Workers Party considered themselves as "antistalinists" - some of them supported extremely revisionist (towards social-democracy) line, that eventually resulted in restoration of capitalist relations, enslavement of large parts of the society, subjecting country to Western imperialism and turning it into a semi-colony. "Antistalinism" was the banner of those, who betrayed socialism!
That's because the Polish government was handpicked for their subservience to Moscow. The "stalinist/anti-stalinist" thing was a joke, hardline Stalinists became "anti-Stalinists" overnight and the anti-Stalinist in jail became "Stalinists."

As for the social-democracy thing, that's because the Eastern European "Communist" parties were enlarged post-war by the merger of the CP's with the Social-Democratic Parties, which happened under Stalin.

So Trotsky wanted to denounce "conterrevolutionary stalinist regime" to the counterrevolutionary anti-communist American institution:) and to present them his "true revolutionary" political line! Maybe he also wanted to convert them to trotskism??:lol::lol: Actually, Trotsky intended to denounce the proceedings, it was because he stated this publicly that the US government revoked his invitation.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/03/dies.htm

That's more than I can say for Earl Browder and William "EZ" Foster, the CPUSA leaders, who appeared before HUAC in 1939 to denounce the Socialist Workers' Party (the American section of the Fourth International) as Nazi Spies..

Other thing is that Trotsky's last work on GPU agents in Comintern contained nothing but lies. Comintern archives were opened and none of its members were found to be working for GPU. Time to wake up?Haha, are you joking? I was just reading a collection of declassified documents, Spain Betrayed, that proves through correspondence that virtually all the Soviet advisers and Comintern agents in Spain were Soviet intelligence assets.

I see that you refute a charge even without knowing its content! How great :lol:Are you saying Stalin was an Okhrana agent? I remember some Stalinist (I think it was MIM) made this argument that Stalin really joined the secret police for the good of the revolution, unlike the "bad men" whose ambitions led them to treason in the 1930's.

bie

13th May 2010, 15:32

That's because the Polish government was handpicked for their subservience to Moscow.
This is what anticommunists say :) Polish government consisted of patriots who were loyal to the soviet communism due to the fact that it was Soviets who brought liberation. But strong nationalist and reactionary currents were present which accused them for being "handpicked for their subservience to Moscow". The dismantling of socialist relations were done also under the sign of "national independence" but ended up it forcing it to UE/USA slavery.

The "stalinist/anti-stalinist" thing was a joke, hardline Stalinists became "anti-Stalinists" overnight and the anti-Stalinist in jail became "Stalinists."
Really? Could you give an example?

As for the social-democracy thing, that's because the Eastern European "Communist" parties were enlarged post-war by the merger of the CP's with the Social-Democratic Parties, which happened under Stalin.
Communist movement were not strong enough to rule the country on its own, therefore the compromise was necessary between communsts and left wing of social-democracy in order to create the People's Power. But dismantling of socialist relations under the sign of "antistalinism" were carried on much later (after 1956, and explicitly - in 1980s). The leadership was influenced by the reactionary and revisionist ideologies - namely "antistalinism".

Haha, are you joking? I was just reading a collection of declassified documents, Spain Betrayed, that proves through correspondence that virtually all the Soviet advisers and Comintern agents in Spain were Soviet intelligence assets.
Provide me with a single document saying that the single member of Comintern leadership was working for the GPU, as stated by Trotsky in his "work".

Are you saying Stalin was an Okhrana agent?
I have never encoutered this sort of theory, I you provide reasonable arguments and evidence I will consider that.

And now by the way - as the expert in Trotsky'sm you may know how Trotsky had enough money to buy 16 second class tickets and 1 first class ticked for the journey from New York to Oslo on the Kristianiafiord ferry for the amount of 1 394.5 USD on 27.03.1917??

His earning were max. not higher than 700$ USD/month brutto, including 7-20 USD/week for the work in Nowyj Mir (some sources say 200 USD/month), artices and lectures (up to max 280-350 $ USD/month and work for Volkszeitung - 150-200 USD/month. Assuming maximum modest life, it comes that he could save maximum 300$? Where did he take additional 1000$ from?

KlÃ©ber

13th May 2010, 16:01

This is what anticommunists say :) Polish government consisted of patriots who were loyal to the soviet communism due to the fact that it was Soviets who brought liberation. But strong nationalist and reactionary currents were present which accused them for being "handpicked for their subservience to Moscow". The dismantling of socialist relations were done also under the sign of "national independence" but ended up it forcing it to UE/USA slavery.
So you believe that these same people were patriots before 1953 and traitors from then on.

Really? Could you give an example?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Pauker

Communist movement were not strong enough to rule the country on its own, therefore the compromise was necessary between communsts and left wing of social-democracy in order to create the People's Power. But dismantling of socialist relations under the sign of "antistalinism" were carried on much later (after 1956, and explicitly - in 1980s). The leadership was influenced by the reactionary and revisionist ideologies - namely "antistalinism".People's Power? You mean bourgeois power under the thumb of the Soviet army. Put aside the crying about poor Stalin, it's no surprise that this leadership was bourgeois-inclined since it was created from a merger with the social-democracy.

I have never encoutered this sort of theory, I you provide reasonable arguments and evidence I will consider that. I'm not going to waste anyone's time with the Stalin Okhrana agent conspiracy theory, because the undebatable crimes of the bureaucratic despotism are damning enough. You Stalinists on the other hand rely for your slanders on nonsense theories about secret meetings between Trotsky, Hitler and a purple hyena at a hotel that never existed.

And now by the way - as the expert in Trotsky'sm you may know how Trotsky had enough money to buy 16 second class tickets and 1 first class ticked for the journey from New York to Oslo on the Kristianiafiord ferry for the amount of 1 394.5 USD.I wonder how Marx survived when he was being exiled across Europe? Must have been a secret jewish conspiracy. You seriously think the revolutionist who ordered Red Guards to seize the power on 25 October 1917 couldn't find a way to come up with $1000 when he was facing deportation and the execution of him and his surviving family?

I haven't heard this crazy slander story before, but I don't care if Trotsky borrowed the money, got it from a sympathizer within the Soviet government, or he beat up someone on the street and took their wallet. History has proven his analysis of the Soviet political regime to be correct.

Provide me with a single document saying that the single member of Comintern leadership was working for the GPU, as stated by Trotsky in his "work".What an incredible question. As if Stalin's clique could be stupid enough not to integrate the political activities of the various bureaus and offices.

Surely Pravda was just speculating when it said that in Catalonia, "cleaning up of Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist elements will be carried out with the same energy as in the USSR." And the Comintern was just joking around when they told the Communist Party of Spain that "Whatever happens, the final destruction of the Trotskyists must be achieved."

Mikhail Trilisser, chief of the OGPU foreign department, doubled as an NKVD officer and Comintern leader. I found a couple documents, a three-way correspondence between Browder, Trilisser, and Yezhov, that illustrates the links between Comintern Parties and Soviet state intelligence.

From The Soviet World of American Communism:

Bedacht made frequent delivery trips, and in January 1938 Earl Browder, who was in Moscow, sent a handwritten note to the Comintern (document 40) suggesting that Bedacht be used as a special courier. Browder's request went to M. A. Moskvin (Mikhail Trilisser), the Soviet intelligence officer who supervised the Comintern's covert activities. Moskvin then wrote a confidential memo (document 41) to Nikolai Yezhov, head of the NKVD, requesting that Bedacht be issued a Soviet visa so that he could perform courier duties.24Document 40:

Earl Browder, "I Recommend Max Bedacht . . . ," 24 January 1938, RTsKhIDNI 495-261-34. Original in English. Handwritten. "I.W.O." is the International Workers Order, a party fraternal organization.

Moscow, Jan. 24. 1938
I recommend Max Bedacht for special courier in connection with U.S.A., (but not for political reports}; He is one of foundation members of CP. and is now Nat'l Secy. of I.W.O.
Earl Browder
Moscow, Jan. 24, 1938Document 41:

Moskvin to Yezhov, 2 February 1938, RTsKhIDNI 495-261-34. Original in Russian.
Secret
No. 20
2.2.1938
To the Secretary of the CC of the AUCP(b)
Com. N. I. Yezhov

I ask you to issue a tourist visa to enter the USSR for:
1.BEDACHT, Max (Amer. passp.)
Born 1883, barber, member of the Swiss Social Democratic Party since 1905, member of the U.S. Socialist Party, 1908 to 1919. Since 1919, member of the CPUSA.
Member of the CC and the PB of the CPUSA since 1921.
Was a representative of the CPUSA at the ECCI in 1926.
Was a delegate to the 3d and 4th congresses of the C.I.
Recommended by the general secretary of the CPUSA, Comrade Browder, as a one-time courier.
Please send visa to New York.
M.A. (M.A. MOSKVIN)
E.[?] Verm[?]

Chambered Word

13th May 2010, 16:33

By the way the text under your link contains number of funny things, let me state few obvious ones:

What is House Commitee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee.

So Trotsky wanted to denounce "conterrevolutionary stalinist regime" to the counterrevolutionary anti-communist American institution:) and to present them his "true revolutionary" political line! Maybe he also wanted to convert them to trotskism??:lol::lol: Other thing is that Trotsky's last work on GPU agents in Comintern contained nothing but lies. Comintern archives were opened and none of its members were found to be working for GPU. Time to wake up?

Emphasis added. From the article I linked to:

Trotsky planned to set forth a Marxist analysis of the publicly available history of the counterrevolutionary Stalinist regime in both the Soviet Union and the Third International in his presentation before the House Committee. This testimony would have educated workers in the "reactionary historical role of Stalinism" and helped them to liberate themselves from any confidence in its politics. "In order to help the workers in this," Trotsky concluded, "I agreed to appear before the Dies Committee." One does wonder what the Committee would have done with such a statement.

Trotsky wanted to make his criticism of the Stalinist regime public and did not want to be speaking with the Committee in private:

When HUAC Chairman Dies decided not to have Trotsky come to the United States, he announced that he might send an investigator to Mexico to "take Trotsky's statement." Trotsky replied that he had "never invited" such an investigator but had "agreed only to make a public deposition" before the House Committee. Less than a week later, he published a statement in which he denied that he was "now answering questions put to me by Mr. Matthews" from the Dies Committee. He repeated his readiness to be a witness before the Committee "in order to give the American public correct information" about Stalinism and his opposition to it. But, he insisted, "I never accepted and I don't accept any invitation to discuss these questions with Mr. Dies or Mr. Matthews behind closed doors."

What makes you surprised at all that Trotsky was going to use this as an opportunity to publicly denounce Stalinism?

bie

13th May 2010, 16:57

So you believe that these same people were patriots before 1953 and traitors from then on.

No, you don't read carefully. After 1953 opportunists simply gained strenght.

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

And where does it say that she was on the GPU paylist?? :)

People's Power? You mean bourgeois power under the thumb of the Soviet army. Put aside the crying about poor Stalin, it's no surprise that this leadership was bourgeois-inclined since it was created from a merger with the social-democracy

Or you do not understand the word "bourgeisie" or you must be simple joking.

You Stalinists on the other hand rely for your slanders on nonsense theories about secret meetings between Trotsky, Hitler and a purple hyena at a hotel that never existed.

We are not "Stalinists" :) Refer to the fact that your Idol - Trotsky was selling mexican communist leaders and trade unionists to FBI. How do you feel about that?

I haven't heard this crazy slander story before, but I don't care if Trotsky borrowed the money, got it from a sympathizer within the Soviet government, or he beat up someone on the street and took their wallet.

Well - have a read - it is a work of a professor of history Richard Spence. Sure you have more titles and "knowledge" without even looking into things :)

History has proven his analysis of the Soviet political regime to be correct.
Really? Wasn't it Trotsky who was saying that "destruction of soviet regime would cost more victims that the civil war" and praising its stability??

Surely Pravda was just speculating when it said that in Catalonia, "cleaning up of Trotskyist and anarcho-syndicalist elements will be carried out with the same energy as in the USSR." And the Comintern was just joking around when they told the Communist Party of Spain that "Whatever happens, the final destruction of the Trotskyists must be achieved."

What a silly argument. It is well known that Commintern took a decisive line against the 5th column after the betrayal of the Republic by POUM. It is not a secret.

Mikhail Trilisser, chief of the OGPU foreign department, doubled as an NKVD officer and Comintern leader.

Dimitrov was a Comintern leader mr. Kleber. :) Trilisser wasn't even in the Executive Comitee. :) Trotsky didn't even mention Trilisser's name in his "Comintern and GPU". (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/08/gpu.htm). What is is telling us, it that all the Comintern leadership, "The convention elected, or rather passively approved, an “honorary presidium” composed of Dimitrov, Manuilsky, Kuusinen, Thaelmann, Carlos Contreras and others"
were agents of GPU. ( Trotsky - "...the leaders of the sections of the Comintern in all countries of the world are in the pay of the Kremlin.")Do you want to defend that? :) Good luck!

What makes you surprised at all that Trotsky was going to use this as an opportunity to publicly denounce Stalinism?
I am surprised that he was denouncing his fellow communists and mexican trade unionist to FBI in order to get an american visa. Are you not surprised? Is it a normal procedure amongs Trotskyists?

KlÃ©ber

13th May 2010, 17:24

No, you don't read carefully. After 1953 opportunists simply gained strenght.
And who was at the wheel when these opportunists were welcomed into the party? Stalin.

And where does it say that she was on the GPU paylist?? :)Read your own post. Are you trolling or have you forgotten that quickly? You asked me for an example of an anti-Stalinist who suddenly became accused of Stalinism while in prison. Ana Pauker is one. The GPU thing was a separate matter for which I provided separate examples. Besides, there was no Comintern for Pauker to be a part of, the world Communist movement had been ended by Stalin in 1943.

Or you do not understand the word "bourgeisie" or you must be simple joking.Uh yes, social-democracy was bourgeois reformism. You said yourself suddenly "bourgeois elements" started appearing out of thin air in the Communist Party of Poland after 1956, if you do not understand how one thing could lead to another then you must be joking.

We are not "Stalinists" :) Refer to the fact that your Idol - Trotsky was selling mexican communist leaders and trade unionists to FBI. How do you feel about that? ... I am surprised that he was denouncing his fellow communists and mexican trade unionist to FBI in order to get an american visa. Are you not surprised? Is it a normal procedure amongs Trotskyists?Actually Trotsky agreed to say nothing about Mexican politics because of the litigation going on in the Mexican Congress against the PCM. He was going to make a mockery of the proceedings and defend the Communist Parties' right to exist which is why the Dies Committee refused to let him appear.

Well - have a read - it is a work of a professor of history Richard Spence.It is a ludicrous fabrication.

Really? Wasn't it Trotsky who was saying that "destruction of soviet regime would cost more victims that the civil war" and praising its stability??Stalin argued that restoration could only come from a foreign imperialist invasion, but "socialism" was safe as long as the CPSU remained in control. Trotsky said the profit system could be restored from within, the bureaucrats would do it if they were not stopped by the workers. Who was correct?

What a silly argument. It is well known that Commintern took a decisive line against the 5th column after the betrayal of the Republic by POUM. It is not a secret. 5th column? All the "evidence" against the (centrist, not Trotskyist) POUM, such as the hideous cover story for the assassination of Andrés Nin, has been proven to be fake. Unlike Stalinists who actually collaborated with fascists during the Second Period (1928-33) and Molotov-Ribbentrop (1939-41) there is no such stain on the banner of the POUM or the Fourth International.

Dimitrov was a Comintern leader mr. Kleber. :) Trilisser wasn't even in the Executive Comitee. :) Trotsky didn't even mention Trilisser's name in his "Comintern and GPU". (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/08/gpu.htm). What is is telling us, it that all the Comintern leadership, "The convention elected, or rather passively approved, an “honorary presidium” composed of Dimitrov, Manuilsky, Kuusinen, Thaelmann, Carlos Contreras and others"
were agents of GPU. Do you want to defend that? :) Good luck!Yes, Dimitrov was "a Comintern leader." Good to see you are so smiley, as if the world revolution was victoriously completed by the Stalinist bureaucracy. I'm not sure what you are asking me to defend, but as far as the Comintern goes, it was Stalin's regime who ended its regular meetings after 1935, subordinating the proletariat to imperialist blocs, and then unceremoniously ended it in 1943 to please the US and UK.

Perhaps you are asking me to defend Trotsky's claim that the GPU was trying to assassinate him? Do you think we are still in fucking 1940 when he was alive?

bie

13th May 2010, 17:54

And who was at the wheel when these opportunists were welcomed into the party? Stalin.
Every single one? :) Well you claim that the purges should be more extended? Actually for all his life Stalin fought opportunism within the party - both ultra-left and rightist opportunism.

Are you trolling or have you forgotten that quickly? You asked me for an example of an anti-Stalinist who suddenly became accused of Stalinism while in prison. Ana Pauker is one. The GPU thing was a separate matter for which I provided separate examples.
Aha, ok, it was the example for the first question, I see. But I thought we were talking about post-war Poland?

Uh yes, social-democracy was bourgeois reformism. You said yourself suddenly "bourgeois elements" started appearing out of thin air in the Communist Party of Poland after 1956, if you do not understand how one thing could lead to another then you must be joking.
Communist Party of Poland did not exist at 1956 :) It was United Workers Party. Petty-bourgeioise and bourgeisie elements did not appear from nowhere, but were the the expression of contrerevolutionary movement from within. Those forces were pretty strong before the war (revolution) and you don't expect them to vanish complety, don'y you?

It is a ludicrous fabrication.
Hahaha how do you know it? Have you red it? Did you do any forensic studies on that paper?

Stalin argued that restoration could only come from a foreign imperialist invasion, but "socialism" was safe as long as the CPSU remained in control.
Really? Where Stalin stated that?

Trotsky said the profit system could be restored from within, the bureaucrats would do it if they were not stopped by the workers.
Really? Didn't he said that the bureucracitc deformation will lead to the deformed workers state - not to capitalist counterrevolution, that is a stable form of power? What you are telling us is another myth - that has no basis in facts.

All the "evidence" against the POUM has been proven to be fake.
Really? So what was Harro Schulze Boysen executed for?

Good to see you are so smiley, as if the world revolution was victoriously completed by the Stalinist bureaucracy
Well, they did what they could, but faced not only external enemies, thanks to internal "antistalinists" who actually destroyed the whole thing.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to defend.
Ok, I will make myself more clear. In one of his last articles Trotsky stated that he has evidence that the all leaders of Comintern, including
Dimitrov, Manuilsky, Kuusinen, Thaelmann, Carlos Contreras etc. were GPU agents and spies. Comintern archives were opened and no such relationship was found. Therefore the whole thing - is an another evidence that Trocki fabricated lies against Comintern and USSR.

But how do you find this information about Trotsky passing information to FBI? Will you defend him or what%3

KlÃ©ber

13th May 2010, 18:20

Every single one? :) Well you claim that the purges should be more extended? Actually for all his life Stalin fought opportunism within the party - both ultra-left and rightist opportunism.
You are defending the merger with social-democracy, I'm not defending the purges. Don't be an asshole. Stalin oversaw the appointment of all these opportunists. You shouldn't take it personal, that they erased him from history, that's just what happens when bureaucrats get their hands dirty - Stalin erased Yezhov too, but owed him for smashing the opposition and ensuring the "full and happy life" of the nomenklatura.

Petty-bourgeioise and bourgeisie elements did not appear from nowhere, but were the the expression of contrerevolutionary movement from within. Those forces were pretty strong before the war (revolution) and you don't expect them to vanish complety, don'y you?Stalin said there were no more antagonistic classes in "socialism" after 1936. Therefore, it makes no sense that there could be class struggle against a nonexistent class, unless you admit that the People's Republics of Eastern Europe started out as bourgeois regimes under Soviet control.

Hahaha how do you know it? Have you red it?"Hahaha," have you replied honestly to any actual reactionary policies in the USSR like forced migrations, social inequality, mass murder of communist dissidents? No, so as I said earlier, I don't really care about where Trotsky got that $1,000 but it sure as hell wasn't the CIA or Jewish bankers or whatever else you are implying.

Really? Where Stalin stated that?
The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital. ...
Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.
No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.
Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?
Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

Really? Didn't he said that the bureucracitc deformation will lead to the deformed workers state - not to capitalist counterrevolution, that is a stable form of power? What you are telling us is another myth - that has no basis in facts.No.
The juridical and political standards set up by the revolution exercised a progressive action upon the backward economy, but upon the other hand they themselves felt the lowering influence of that backwardness. The longer the Soviet Union remains in a capitalist environment, the deeper runs the degeneration of the social fabric. A prolonged isolation would inevitably end not in national communism, but in a restoration of capitalism.

If a bourgeoisie cannot peacefully grow into a socialist democracy, it is likewise true that a socialist state cannot peacefully merge with a world capitalist system. On the historic order of the day stands not the peaceful socialist development of “one country”, but a long series of world disturbances: wars and revolutions. Disturbances are inevitable also in the domestic life of the Soviet Union. If the bureaucracy was compelled in its struggle for a planned economy to dekulakize the kulak, the working class will be compelled in its struggle for socialism to debureaucratize the bureaucracy.

On the tomb of the latter will be inscribed the epitaph:

“Here lies the theory of socialism in one country.”

...

This is the first time in history that a state resulting from a workers’ revolution has existed. The stages through which it must go are nowhere written down. It is true that the theoreticians and creators of the Soviet Union hoped that the completely transparent and flexible Soviet system would permit the state peacefully to transform itself, dissolve, and die away, in correspondence with the stages of the economic and cultural evolution of society. Here again, however, life proved more complicated than theory anticipated. The proletariat of a backward country was fated to accomplish the first socialist revolution. For this historic privilege, it must, according to all evidences, pay with a second supplementary revolution – against bureaucratic absolutism. The program of the new revolution depends to a great extent upon the moment when it breaks out, upon the level which the country has then attained, and to a great degree upon the international situation. The fundamental elements of the program are already clear, and have been given throughout the course of this book as an objective inference from an analysis of the contradictions of the Soviet regime.

It is not a question of substituting one ruling clique for another, but of changing the very methods of administering the economy and guiding the culture of the country. Bureaucratic autocracy must give place to Soviet democracy. A restoration of the right of criticism, and a genuine freedom of elections, are necessary conditions for the further development of the country. This assumes a revival of freedom of Soviet parties, beginning with the party of Bolsheviks, and a resurrection of the trade unions. The bringing of democracy into industry means a radical revision of plans in the interests of the toilers. Free discussion of economic problems will decrease the overhead expense of bureaucratic mistakes and zigzags. Expensive playthings palaces of the Soviets, new theaters, show-off subways – will be crowded out in favor of workers’ dwellings. “Bourgeois norms of distribution” will be confined within the limits of strict necessity, and, in step with the growth of social wealth, will give way to socialist equality. Ranks will be immediately abolished. The tinsel of decorations will go into the melting pot. The youth will receive the opportunity to breathe freely, criticize, make mistakes, and grow up. Science and art will be freed of their chains. And, finally, foreign policy will return to the traditions of revolutionary internationalism.

More than ever the fate of the October revolution is bound up now with the fate of Europe and of the whole world. The problems of the Soviet Union are now being decided on the Spanish peninsula, in France, in Belgium. At the moment when this book appears the situation will be incomparably more clear than today, when civil war is in progress under the walls of Madrid. If the Soviet bureaucracy succeeds, with its treacherous policy of “people’s fronts”, in insuring the victory of reaction in Spain and France – and the Communist International is doing all it can in that direction – the Soviet Union will find itself on the edge of ruin. A bourgeois counterrevolution rather than an insurrection of the workers against the bureaucracy will be on the order of the day. If, in spite of the united sabotage of reformists and “Communist” leaders, the proletariat of western Europe finds the road to power, a new chapter will open in the history of the Soviet Union. The first victory of a revolution in Europe would pass like an electric shock through the Soviet masses, straighten them up, raise their spirit of independence, awaken the traditions of 1905 and 1917, undermine the position of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, and acquire for the Fourth International no less significance than the October revolution possessed for the Third. Only in that way can the first Workers’ State be saved for the socialist future.

Really? So what was Harro Schulze Boysen executed for?How does that have anything to do with the spurious allegation of links between the POUM and the fascists?

Well, they did what they could, but face not only external enemies, but thanks to internal "antistalinists" who actually destroyed the whole thing.Internal "antistalinists" who came out of nowhere? A more progressive system was reverted to a reactionary, obsolete system by the hatred of a few bureaucrats for one man?

Ok, I will make myself more clear. In one of his last articles Trotsky stated that he has evidence that the all leaders of Comintern, including
Dimitrov, Manuilsky, Kuusinen, Thaelmann, Carlos Contreras etc. were GPU agents and spies. Comintern archives were opened and no such relationship was found. Therefore the whole thing - is an another evidence that Trocki fabricated lies against Comintern and USSR. They were Stalinist hacks. Their spineless political behavior proves that. Stalin actually destroyed the Comintern and his policies led to the destruction of USSR so how about that. I have better things to do than dig up dirt on each particular hack, which you could do yourself if you weren't such a dishonest fanatic, but the fact that the Comintern put up no protest to being leashed and muzzled from 1935 then dissolved in 1943 is proof enough of how independent it was.

Are you suggesting that there wasn't close collaboration between various official bodies of the Soviet state in carrying out their domestic and international policies? Because I for one don't think that Stalin's henchmen were that stupid.

But how do you find this information about Trotsky passing information to FBI? Will you defend him or what? :)I will defend the organizer of victory, commander of the Red Guards in October 1917, Commissar of the Red Army who organized an invincible fighting force against the White bandits and interventionists, against your evidence he passed anything to the FBI, which is none.

∞

13th May 2010, 18:33

Actually I recommmend the blog us Anarchists have posted about the Soviet Union.
IMO if you want to theorize about a Communism that values free development, I suggest you read some Rosa Luxemburg. Think about the soviet union for one second and then think of this quote.

"Capital Punishment can never be justified in any society that calls itself civilized" (Marx, to the New York Tribune)

"To use the state, until the state shall 'withers away',"

bie

13th May 2010, 19:31

You are defending the merger with social-democracy, I'm not defending the purges. Don't be an asshole
What would you recommend in this situation, mr. Kleber? The alternative was the monopolization of power in hands of a small group people and facing the opposition of nationalists and socialists together. How about the legitimation of power? How would you keep it than?

Stalin said there were no more antagonistic classes in "socialism" after 1936. Therefore, it makes no sense that there could be class struggle against a nonexistent class, unless you admit that the People's Republics of Eastern Europe started out as bourgeois regimes under Soviet control.
What a nonsense. And who was this "bourgeoisie"??

I don't really care about where Trotsky got that $1,000
JEven when it came from eg. Wiseman agency?

Originally Posted by Stalin
Where can you see in that text that "Stalin argued that restoration could only come from a foreign imperialist invasion, but "socialism" was safe as long as the CPSU remained in control.". There is no single word about that. Please stop wasting my time :)

No.
Really? Have a look at this part:

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.

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/12/kirov.htm)

Surely you will not expect consistency from late Trocki, but this statement is rather clear... This is how Trotsky "predicted" restoration of capitalism.

How does that have anything to do with the spurious allegation of links between the POUM and the fascists?
Harro Schulze Boysen was executed by Nazi in 1942 for passing to the Soviet the information that the uprising in 1937 was prepared with the help of gestapo. Here is the original text :
"Anfang 1938, während des Spanienkrieges, erfuhr der Angeklagte dienstlich, daß unter Mitwirkung des deutschen Geheimdienstes im Gebiet von Barcelona ein Aufstand gegen die dortige rote Regierung vorbereitet werde. Diese Nachricht wurde von ihm gemeinsam mit der von Pöllnitz der sowjetrussischen Botschaft in Paris zugeleitet.". This was also confirmed by Sudoplatov in his memories in 1990.

Internal "antistalinists" who came out of nowhere?
Who said they come out of nowhere? :) They were there all the time. Do you think that everybody liked what communists did?

They were Stalinist hacks. Their spineless political behavior proves that.
I did not ask for the profoundly deep political analysis ;) but to your explanation why Trocki put a series of lies and false accusation in his last article "Komintern & GPU"

I will defend the organizer of victory, commander of the Red Guards in October 1917, Commissar of the Red Army who organized an invincible fighting force against the White bandits and interventionists, against your evidence he passed anything to the FBI, which is none.
You are defending nothing but a myth. Trotsky was no "a brave genuine revolutionary".. He was the tool in hand of anticommunist forces. And this is the sad true, the faster you accept in, the better for you.

13th May 2010, 19:37

"The paranoid person can be very intelligent, make excellent use of his reason in all areas of life except in that isolated part where his paranoid system is involved. The rationalizing person does exactly the same. We talk to an intelligent Stalinist who exhibits a great capacity to make use of his reason in many areas of thought. When we come to discuss Stalinism with him, however, we are suddenly confronted with a closed system of thought, the only function of which is to prove that his allegiance to Stalinism is in line with and not contradictory to reason. He will deny certain obvious facts, distort others, or, inasmuch as he agrees to certain facts and statements, he will explain his attitude as logical and consistent. He will at the same time declare that the fascist cult of the leader is one of the most obnoxious features of authoritarianism and claim that the Stalinist cult of the leader is something entirely different...When you tell him that is what the Nazis claimed too, he will smile tolerantly about your want of perception or accuse you of being the lackey of capitalism. He will find a thousand and one reasons why...authoritarianism is democracy, why slave labor is designed to educate and improve anti-social elements. The arguments which are used to defend or explain the deeds of the inquisition or those used to explain racial or sex prejudices are illustrations of the same rationalizing capacity."
-Fromm, Erich. Psychoanalysis and Religion, p.56.

bie

13th May 2010, 19:42

Common_Means

14th May 2010, 01:30

Stalin was a Marxist. He didn't kill millions of people.

In before sectarian shitstorm

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist."

The Ben G

14th May 2010, 02:28

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist."

I dont think that Stalin said that...

SammXVX

14th May 2010, 06:11

Funny, I'm learning this too and I have the same question.

Stalin is a hell of a man because he was not willing to let down the people nor did he let the Nazi's consume.
The Russian's knew what was up and were the strongest against the Nazi's.

NoOneIsIllegal

14th May 2010, 06:36

I hate coming to this website to see people still kissing Stalin's cold dead ass. :cursing:

CChocobo

14th May 2010, 09:56

*sighs* Stalin should never be praised, i find it hard to believe there are some apologists here for Stalin.:mad:

bie

14th May 2010, 11:53

*sighs* Stalin should never be praised, i find it hard to believe there are some apologists here for Stalin.
Well, you may like Stalin or not - it is your choice - leaving behind thing that to like or not you need to know it first - did you read any Stalin's work? do you rely on any other source of information than prepared in Cold War as the mean of the psychological warfare? how well do you know problems of Soviet society of that time? How much you read about this? How many soviet sources do you know? etc. etc. But let's leave it behind.

Even if someone doesn't like Stalin (as a person), he has to admit that his economic policy towards building of socialism and his stance on the theory of value in socialism in the great dispute of the 50s against "tovarniki" was proved to be correct. Also his political line of the industrialization in the 1928-1938 against right opportunists allowed the future victory in the World War. His predictions about the necessity of the rapid industrialization saved the hundreds millions of lives (remind Auschwitz, this was just the beginning). Not everyone knows that Nazi planned to build huge death camps behind Ural mountains, comparing to which, existing ones were just the preparations. Road and rail plans remained only. So next time, when it comes to criticizing comrade Stalin, think about that.

I dont think that Stalin said that...
This statement belongs to Karl Marx :)

Chambered Word

14th May 2010, 15:59

Well, you may like Stalin or not - it is your choice - leaving behind thing that to like or not you need to know it first - did you read any Stalin's work? do you rely on any other source of information than prepared in Cold War as the mean of the psychological warfare? how well do you know problems of Soviet society of that time? How much you read about this? How many soviet sources do you know? etc. etc. But let's leave it behind.

Even if someone doesn't like Stalin (as a person), he has to admit that his economic policy towards building of socialism and his stance on the theory of value in socialism in the great dispute of the 50s against "tovarniki" was proved to be correct. Also his political line of the industrialization in the 1928-1938 against right opportunists allowed the future victory in the World War. His predictions about the necessity of the rapid industrialization saved the hundreds millions of lives (remind Auschwitz, this was just the beginning). Not everyone knows that Nazi planned to build huge death camps behind Ural mountains, comparing to which, existing ones were just the preparations. Road and rail plans remained only. So next time, when it comes to criticizing comrade Stalin, think about that.

Spare us the emotional appeals. I've seen this same kind of rant in just about every single USSR-related thread and heard it in real life. You seem to be forgetting the workers and soldiers who made the industrialization and defence of the Soviet Union against the Nazis possible while Stalin sat in Moscow.

Chimurenga.

14th May 2010, 16:06

*sighs* Stalin should never be praised, i find it hard to believe there are some apologists here for Stalin.:mad:

Yeah. Good point. Let's just listen to reactionaries, guys. Who the hell needs to think objectively anymore?

bie

14th May 2010, 16:21

You seem to be forgetting the workers and soldiers who made the industrialization and defence of the Soviet Union against the Nazis possible while Stalin sat in Moscow.
But isn't it ok that he didn't disturb them? :)

Chambered Word

14th May 2010, 16:24

But isn't it ok that he didn't disturb them? :)

Well yeah it'd be an even bigger dick move by him I suppose. Purging all their old leaders and then waking up soldiers with ridiculous pranks at night wouldn't get him any rep with the working class.

I'm not 100% sure what you meant but I hope this answers your question.

bie

14th May 2010, 16:32

I'm not 100% sure what you meant but I hope this answers your question.
Not quite. He could say "sorry boys, there will be no industrialization, we are coming back to capitalism and we will be waiting for the revolution somewhere else."

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 17:13

We are better than the capitalists, we give people trials, capitalists just execute them without question.

Trials in which the verdict is pre-determined is no trial. And do you really mean to tell me that there are never trials in a bourgeois democracy? This statement is absurd.

And it still doesn't justify the concept of charging Jews with the crime of calling the state anti-Semitic, for fuck's sake. You're making weak excuses by merely insisting we're better and that corruption and injustice is impossible in a socialist state, going so far as to suggest that bourgeois courts don't even exist.

Let's be honest here motionless, right now in the US a debate is raging about whether terror suspects deserve Miranda rights. The other week when the last of Malcolm X's killers was released, having served his sentence and now an old man, your response was, "Good, now we can kill him." The US legal system is far from ideal, even far from acceptable, rife with classism and racism as it is, but your idea of justice isn't justice.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 17:14

Not quite. He could say "sorry boys, there will be no industrialization, we are coming back to capitalism and we will be waiting for the revolution somewhere else."

Right, because that would have been politically feasible. That Stalin was not an idiot is not exactly glowing praise.

bie

14th May 2010, 18:09

Right, because that would have been politically feasible
What makes you think that it was so obvious? Some circles, even in USSR objected the necessity of rapid industrialization (eg. Bucharin). Who was proved to be right?

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 18:16

What makes you think that it was so obvious? Some circles, even in USSR objected the necessity of rapid industrialization (eg. Bucharin). Who was proved to be right?

Comrade, you didn't say "There will be no rapid industrialization" you framed the alternative as Stalin saying there would be NO industrialization at all, and that there would be a return to capitalism.

But Stalin wasn't the only proponent of industrialization, so it's not like the dilemna was "Stalin and industry" vs "Not Stalin and semi-feudalism."

bie

14th May 2010, 18:24

I think that VKP(b) leadership realized that there will be or rapid industrialization or none. Especially in light of the incoming war.

But Stalin wasn't the only proponent of industrialization, so it's not like the dilemma was "Stalin and industry" vs "Not Stalin and semi-feudalism."
True. I just want to state that this line was correct and it actually succeeded under leadership of Stalin. This is also the reason why he is so hated by the bourgeoisie. So not everything that was made "under Stalin" was bad. If we look carefully there are more points. The success of the progress in 1930s was the result of the correct political line of VKP(b) but also - the work of millions of Soviet people.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 18:36

True. I just want to state that this line was correct and it was actually succeeded under leadership of Stalin.

Questionably succeeded. It achieved the objective of providing a vast industrial base for the Soviet Union, but it was in many ways badly organized and had several key problems which would become much bigger problems over the coming decades. It was impressive for what it was, and I think it can be called one of the positive aspects of the Stalin period, but as Comrade Lewis pointed out, it wasn't done alone and it wasn't done without serious flaws.

You can build the world's biggest hydro-electric dam and receive praise for it, but if structural faults in the dam's design cause it to crack and flood thirty years later... Well...

bie

14th May 2010, 18:42

You can build the world's biggest hydro-electric dam and receive praise for it, but if structural faults in the dam's design cause it to crack and flood thirty years later... Well...
This is one interpretation. The other is, that the dams stops working when someone messes too much at its construction afterwards. And it was the real scenario. Problems in Soviet economy did not arise from mistakes made in its basis but originated from abandoning its very principles later on.

Questionably succeeded. It achieved the objective of providing a vast industrial base for the Soviet Union, but it was in many ways badly organized and had several key problems
Well. I would say that it was a decisive success. USRR from a semi-feudal country became a strong and modern economy (2nd world economy!) and 200 mln peasants were brought from middles ages straight to the XX century. You may like Stalin or not, agree with him or not - but you have to admit that this was a correct decision made in 1928.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 18:50

This is one interpretation. The other is, that the dams stops working when someone messes too much at its construction afterwards. And it was the real scenario. Problems in Soviet economy did not arise from mistakes made in its basis but originated from abandoning its very principles later on.

We know differently from analysis of primary sources from the '30s and '40s made available after the opening of the CPSU archives in 1991. There are, for example, statements of exasperation at the bureaucratic muddle it had become, made by Sergo Ordzhonikidze, stating frustratedly that no matter how many attempts were made to reorganize the commissariat's structure, it was seemingly impossible to get an accurate picture of the entire organization.

KlÃ©ber

14th May 2010, 18:56

What would you recommend in this situation, mr. Kleber? The alternative was the monopolization of power in hands of a small group people and facing the opposition of nationalists and socialists together. How about the legitimation of power? How would you keep it than?
Uh, not by letting social-democrats flood into the Party. Catering to reformism did not legitimize Soviet power in Eastern Europe, it might have temporarily led to some illusory rise in membership tallies, but it also made sure that the pro-Soviet parties would be polluted by petty-bourgeois elements scheming to restore market relations. Did Lenin ever say "let's bring in thousands of Bernstein revisionists into our party, we would be so much stronger?" lol.

What a nonsense. And who was this "bourgeoisie"??The bourgeoisie was eventually expropriated, and bourgeois social-democrats were incorporated into the pro-Soviet bureaucracy, but the People's Republics of Eastern Europe definitely started out in 1945 with a bourgeoisie. They were not SSR's for a reason.

JEven when it came from eg. Wiseman agency?LOL, and Lenin was just an agent of the Kaiser, and all the great revolutionary movements have been bankrolled by some sinister Jewish agency. Fuck off.

Where can you see in that text that "Stalin argued that restoration could only come from a foreign imperialist invasion, but "socialism" was safe as long as the CPSU remained in control.". There is no single word about that. Please stop wasting my time :)Uh yes there is, Stalin says that only foreign imperialists could carry out restoration. Not what happened unless you think Gorbachev was a Martian alien CIA implant who destroyed a socialist superpower with his own bare hands.

Surely you will not expect consistency from late Trocki, but this statement is rather clear... This is how Trotsky "predicted" restoration of capitalism.That is how he predicted it in 1934, before the purges. Are you saying Trotsky was wrong? Socialism can be turned on and off like a light-switch by a committee of bureaucrats? A more progressive system can be reverted to a reactionary obsolete system by the ideas of one Khrushchev or Brezhnev? Let me guess you will ignore this like all of my main points, and regurgitate more of the conspiracy theories.

There was such a wave of counter-revolutionary violence as Trotsky predicted: the purges of 1936-1941. After the revolutionary vanguard had been decapitated it was only a matter of time before the bureaucracy restored market capitalism, with themselves as the capitalists.

Harro Schulze Boysen was executed by Nazi in 1942 for passing to the Soviet the information that the uprising in 1937 was prepared with the help of gestapo. Here is the original text : This was also confirmed by Sudoplatov in his memories in 1990.There was no uprising in 1937, the liberals and right-wing socialists sent the PCE troops to crush the CNT/FAI and POUM and restore bourgeois "regularity" to Catalonia, the "shame of the country" because workers had too much power there.

If you think Sudoplatov's fairy tales that he wrote to get some money in old age are true, then I can start quoting Orlov that Stalin was an Okhrana agent, and all the crazy conspiracies.. how about you drop the conspiracy nonsense and stop ignoring the points about Stalin's reactionary policies.

Who said they come out of nowhere? :) They were there all the time. Do you think that everybody liked what communists did?"They" were Stalin's closest friends and collaborators. Apparently Stalin's clique had some reservations about the gains of October 1917 and wanted to roll them back. Don't forget who were the Bolsheviks who opposed taking power in 1917: Stalin and Kamenev.

I did not ask for the profoundly deep political analysis ;) but to your explanation why Trocki put a series of lies and false accusation in his last article "Komintern & GPU" So are you alleging that Trotsky was not assassinated by agents of the Soviet bureaucracy? You believe the lie that Mercader was a disillusioned Trotskyist?

You are defending nothing but a myth. Trotsky was no "a brave genuine revolutionary".. He was the tool in hand of anticommunist forces. And this is the sad true, the faster you accept in, the better for you.How many monarchist and imperialist armies have you beaten? I guess if you have led a workers' council and militia to seize power, organized a Workers' and Peasants' Army from scratch and beaten all the capitalist countries, you are much more of a revolutionary than the heresiarch Trotsky.

Some circles, even in USSR objected the necessity of rapid industrializationSuch as Stalin, who opposed industrialization in his alliance with the petty-bourgeois Right against the proletarian Left Opposition during the 1920's, and infamously said that to build the Dnieperstroy hydro-electric station would be the same thing as for a peasant to buy a gramophone instead of a cow.

Not quite. He could say "sorry boys, there will be no industrialization, we are coming back to capitalism and we will be waiting for the revolution somewhere else." Are you implying that Trotsky was against industrialization? The Five-Year Plan was initially proposed by Trotsky and opposed by Stalin. It was not until the defeat of the Left that Stalin came out as an "industrializer."

Are you also suggesting that Trotsky said the revolution should happen in every city and country simultaneously? Hm, then I wonder why Trotsky gave the order to Red Guards under his command to cut off electricity and seize power throughout Petrograd on the eve of 25 October, 1917..

Not a single country must ‘wait’ for the other countries in its struggle. It will be useful and necessary to repeat this elementary idea so that temporizing international inaction may not be substituted for parallel international action. Without waiting for the others, we must begin and continue the struggle on national grounds with the full conviction that our initiative will provide an impulse to the struggle in other countries.

You may like Stalin or not, agree with him or not - but you have to admit that this was a correct decision made in 1928. And if fewer opportunists like Stalin had opposed industrialization and collectivization before 1928, USSR would have been much stronger.

The proletariat was weak and got defeated by an alliance of the bureaucracy and petty-bourgeoisie. Then the bureaucracy destroyed the petty bourgeois and industrialized, yes, but the system was never socialist or democratic, and neither did it suddenly become hell on earth under Khrushchev.

bie

14th May 2010, 19:03

We know differently from analysis of primary sources from the '30s and '40s made available after the opening of the CPSU archives in 1991. There are, for example, statements of exasperation at the bureaucratic muddle it had become, made by Sergo Ordzhonikidze, stating frustratedly that no matter how many attempts were made to reorganize the commissariat's structure, it was seemingly impossible to get an accurate picture of the layout of his commissariat.
True problems started along with the decentralization in the late 50s and later on. Sure, you may argue that there was mess, bureaucracy (excess of formality) or so and you will be probably right. But as far as I know nothing is ideal and it is practice that verifies things. The best test for the soviet economy was during 1942-1945. It was proved that it works better than a whole economy of German's occupied Europe.

KlÃ©ber

14th May 2010, 19:05

The best test for the soviet economy was during 1942-1945. It was proved that it works better than a whole economy of German occupied Europe.
And under Tsar Alexander I in the Patriotic War of 1812, the Slavic peasant masses proved superior to all the armies of French-occupied Europe.

And under Comrade Khrushchev, the Soviet socialist space program proved superior to the whole US imperialist-dominated world.

:rolleyes:

bie

14th May 2010, 19:17

WWII was specific. It required the total subordination of the production to the army needs. That's why it was a test for the efficiency of economy as the whole. I actually though that is obvious..

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 19:27

True problems started along with the decentralization in the 50s and later on. Sure, you may argue that there was mess, bureaucracy (excess of formality) or so and you will be probably right. But as far as I know nothing is ideal and it is practice that verifies things. The best test for the soviet economy was during 1942-1945. It was proved that it works better than a whole economy of German occupied Europe.

This is just hand waving. Saying nothing is ideal means nothing if we're discussing the systemic problems. As I said, the system worked to get Soviet industry off the ground and it served the SU well during the war, but it was not sustainable.

Furthermore, you're oversimplifying the causes of victory in WW2. Firstly, the Soviet Union was saved by its massive size - if the SU had been the size of France then an operation the size of Barbarossa would have finished it off. Instead, they had the opportunity to relocate their industry to Siberia (which, make no mistakes, was an impressive feat itself) and continue the war. Additionally, the Soviet Union's massive manpower allowed it to recover from military defeats that would have crippled many other nations.

Secondly, the Soviet Union did not fight alone. The United States in particular helped out (at a price paid in gold bars) with massive amounts of supplies and materiel. Additionally, stresses were placed on the German war machine by the fact that Germany had to fight on nearly every front it occupied - France, Italy, as well as the USSR, and that every advance the Germans made in the Soviet Union brought them deeper into hostile, freezingly cold territory, lengthening their supply lines and shortening the Soviet's.

What's more, the German-occupied industry of Europe could be a liability at times. After WW2, some Jewish soldiers of the Haganah Israeli militias had gotten ahold of surplus German Mauser Kar98k's. They found that not one single rifle shot straight. It turned out they had all been Czech-manufactured, and the Czech workers had all bent the rifle sights ever so slightly, to throw the German's aim off.

It's not as straightforward a question of industrial superiority as you make it out.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 19:34

WWII was specific. It required the total subordination of the production to the army needs. That's why it was a test for the efficiency of economy as the whole. I actually though that is obvious..

He's making the point that victory in war doesn't always prove a society is more advanced or progressive than the vanquished, as Imperial Russia defeated Napoleon's cutting edge army.

bie

14th May 2010, 19:36

As I said, the system worked to get Soviet industry off the ground and it served the SU well during the war, but it was not sustainable.
Ok, but do you have anything to support this thesis? I think we both agree on the importance of the production efficiency during the war.

He's making the point that victory in war doesn't always prove a society is more advanced or progressive than the vanquished, as Imperial Russia defeated Napoleon's cutting edge army.
In case of the modern welfare, where success is determined by the amount of tanks, artillery, planes, rockets etc. the level of development of the industry is significant, don't you think?

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 19:41

Ok, but do you have anything to support this thesis? I think we both agree on the importance of the production efficiency during the war.

Well yes, there's all that analysis of party archives I mentioned earlier. This is becoming a circular argument. The problems in Soviet industry were present on day one, under Stalin, and over time they snowballed and became a serious crisis which had to be dealt with, as Krushchev attempted.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 19:43

In case of the modern welfare, where success is determined by the amount of tanks, artillery, planes, rockets etc. the level of development of the industry is significant, don't you think?

On this, refer to what I said in post #139.

bie

14th May 2010, 19:48

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 20:14

I cannot really see the connection between mess in the secretary of one of the officials and your statement that "the economy was not sustainable". I may say that the economy, regardless its faults was actually sustainable and faults could be corrected, especially by solving the problem of the law of value. If you are so certain, that is "wasn't sustainable" - prove it.

That comment by Ordzhonikidze was just an example of the numerous other primary sources that demonstrates the faults with the Soviet industry which were present from the outset. There are numerous others, but I cited one off the top of my head because I have no inclination to rewrite the term paper I wrote on the subject here on the forum.

All of that were just additional factors. I am not going to analyze every single point you have mentioned. None of that would help if soviet economy wouldn't be strong enough.

This is ridiculous, all you're doing is insisting that the role you wish to emphasize is the only key one, basing your argument solely on the strength of your convictions. It's like saying that a boat with a hole in the hull didn't sink because it was a boat, that the carpenter's repair work didn't really matter.

bie

14th May 2010, 20:34

That comment by Ordzhonikidze was just an example of the numerous other primary sources that demonstrates the faults with the Soviet industry which were present from the outset. There are numerous others, but I cited one off the top of my head because I have no inclination to rewrite the term paper I wrote on the subject here on the forum.
So you don't have any evidence then? All your "theory" is based on Ordzhonikidze letter? Well - I might say - "This is ridiculous..."

This is ridiculous, all you're doing is insisting that the role you wish to emphasize is the only key one, basing your argument solely on the strength of your convictions.
I am quite surprised here because you are first person I have ever met to deny the role of the soviet heavy industry in the victory over Nazi Germany.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 21:21

So you don't have any evidence then? All your "theory" is based on Ordzhonikidze letter? Well - I might say - "This is ridiculous..."

...That is the exact opposite of what I said. How the hell are we supposed to have a discussion if you're going to ignore what I say?

I am quite surprised here because you are first person I have ever met to deny the role of the soviet heavy industry in the victory over Nazi Germany.That's a strawman argument. I didn't deny it. I denied it was the only role. I have specifically said that the Soviet industry worked well for the purposes of WW2 but that the system as originally designed was not sustainable, that the problems people claim Khrushchev started and Brezhnev intensified were actually started under Stalin as a result in the shortcomings of the planning agencies.

Frankly, it's not even that contentious to point out that heavy industry, like the manufacture of steel and capitol goods, and therefore tanks, howitzers, aircraft and ammunition was the strong point of the Soviet economy, which is the aspect demanded by war, whereas consumer goods production suffered and routinely failed to meet demand. Even most Marxist-Leninists will admit that.

Spawn of Stalin

14th May 2010, 21:28

Trials in which the verdict is pre-determined is no trial. And do you really mean to tell me that there are never trials in a bourgeois democracy? This statement is absurd.

And it still doesn't justify the concept of charging Jews with the crime of calling the state anti-Semitic, for fuck's sake. You're making weak excuses by merely insisting we're better and that corruption and injustice is impossible in a socialist state, going so far as to suggest that bourgeois courts don't even exist.

No I'm not, not at all, merely putting things into perspective. Your point however, is moot, I openly admit to supporting trials (see the Moscow Trials) and executions when necessary (see Leon Trotsky).

Let's be honest here motionless, right now in the US a debate is raging about whether terror suspects deserve Miranda rights. The other week when the last of Malcolm X's killers was released, having served his sentence and now an old man, your response was, "Good, now we can kill him."

Link please because this is an outright lie, I did not say that. For what it's worth I don't think that it would be such a terrible thing if Malcolm X's killers were accidental struck by a large moving object such as a bus or a falling rock, it's also true that I would applaud an assassination of the individual responsible, and yeah I don't really care how old he is, if anything bad happens to him, it's his problem. These are my thoughts on the issue of Malcolm X's murderer, but I did not once say we can or should kill them.

The US legal system is far from ideal, even far from acceptable, rife with classism and racism as it is, but your idea of justice isn't justice.

Well then what is justice?

Sorry if my argument is a bit thin, but to be honest I don't really see what the need is. Your original point was that the United States didn't put the Panthers on trial for show or psychological/propaganda purposes, when we all know that they just had the cops kill them instead.

FSL

14th May 2010, 22:10

Well yes, there's all that analysis of party archives I mentioned earlier. This is becoming a circular argument. The problems in Soviet industry were present on day one, under Stalin, and over time they snowballed and became a serious crisis which had to be dealt with, as Krushchev attempted.

The tovarniki appeared in the press and in the party when growth was well over 10%.
The attempts to improve the situation somehow made it worse.

If you think 20% industrial growth (like the one USSR had after WW2) is a "serious crisis", to use your words, that can only be fixed by reforms that end up bringing the economy to a standstill you have a very odd perception of what a sound economic policy is like.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 22:15

Link please because this is an outright lie, I did not say that. For what it's worth I don't think that it would be such a terrible thing if Malcolm X's killers were accidental struck by a large moving object such as a bus or a falling rock, it's also true that I would applaud an assassination of the individual responsible, and yeah I don't really care how old he is, if anything bad happens to him, it's his problem. These are my thoughts on the issue of Malcolm X's murderer, but I did not once say we can or should kill them.

I found the thread in question, and I owe you an apology. I had crossed memories of something someone else said (which was mod-deleted) with the mere fact that you were in that thread. What's funny though is that while you didn't say it there, you pretty much did here, by saying you would applaud his assassination.

Well then what is justice?I won't belittle your intelligence by defining justice as a social concept. What I will do is argue that justice cannot be served by a state without the full body of civil rights and legal protections before the law. The power of the state is unquestionable, if we are to have a state (which I believe is necessary) we must also have due process and full accountability. Stalin's trials were set up to get rid of people using confessions extracted with beatings.

I mean shit, Genrikh Yagoda interrogated the suspects in the first wave of trials, and then later he was himself shot for being part of the right-wing Trotskyist bloc, just like how in turn, Yezhov himself was shot. And then finally, Stalin was evidently betrayed by even Beria, who dismissed all charges and exonerated the accused in the Doctor's Plot that Stalin had alleged, once Stalin had died.

Apparently, Stalin must have truly been one of the most gullible and trusting of leaders in history to surround himself with so many traitors. Lenin as well, given how many Old Bolsheviks turned out to be traitors.

Sorry if my argument is a bit thin, but to be honest I don't really see what the need is. Your original point was that the United States didn't put the Panthers on trial for show or psychological/propaganda purposes, when we all know that they just had the cops kill them instead.Except the vast majority of un-assassinated and non-incarcerated leftists says something, doesn't it? The fact that Mumia Abu Jamal has had 27 years, my entire lifespan, to appeal his sentence, even in this racist stronghold of capitalism, says something pretty fucked up about the Moscow Trials.

FSL

14th May 2010, 23:01

Except the vast majority of un-assassinated and non-incarcerated leftists says something, doesn't it? The fact that Mumia Abu Jamal has had 27 years, my entire lifespan, to appeal his sentence, even in this racist stronghold of capitalism, says something pretty fucked up about the Moscow Trials.

If we also take into account the 4 million Vietnamese that probably didn't even have a full second between the gunshot or the bombing and their demise, we can reach the safe conclusion that the US movement for the greater part of the 20th century was in ruins, therefore no real challenge was ever posed.

Like comparing the weekly march the Ladies in White do in Cuba nowadays with the mafia, the capitalists and all their lackeys the country had to deal with in the 60s, and claiming the government was too tough then or too easygoing now.

Class struggle takes different forms in different times, as necessary. If you think american capitalists respect the "rule of law", I'd say it's you who are mistaken.

Robocommie

14th May 2010, 23:38

If we also take into account the 4 million Vietnamese that probably didn't even have a full second between the gunshot or the bombing and their demise, we can reach the safe conclusion that the US movement for the greater part of the 20th century was in ruins, therefore no real challenge was ever posed.

I have no fucking clue how the fact that the US killed civilians in an imperialist war is supposed to have any bearing on the way habeas corpus is practiced in the US compared to the Stalinist period.

The courts in the US are the way they are because of centuries of historic struggle. It doesn't represent anything so asinine as the respect of American capitalists for the rule of law, their claims to the contrary.

redwasp

14th May 2010, 23:59

peace,

comrade stalin was a realist. he, and the bulk of the communist party with him, chose a real socialist society and not a fairy tale fantasy. under his leadership the socialist sovjet union overcame some of the hardest difficulties any people had ever dealt with. from a backward agricultural society the soviet union was changed into an industrial superforce, without colonies to exploit or child-laborers to starve in the factories. in twenty years the country, that was ruine by the first world war, was transformed into a nation stron enough to win the war against the nazis.

to achieve this many difficult choices had to be made. as in all real live situations some of these choices may have been wrong. the communists, under comrade stalins leadership, understood that it was better to make a bad choise than to do nothing at all. as i said, they prefered a real life socialism to an idealistic and impossible fairy tale.

comrade ludo martens, the former chairman of my party in belgium, who unfortunatly is very ill now, wrote a book about stalin, you may be interested in reading it:

h t t p : / / m a r x i s m . h a l k c e p h e s i . n e t / L u d o % 2 0 M a r t e n s / i n d e x . h t m l

peace,

redwasp

15th May 2010, 00:08

Yeah. Good point. Let's just listen to reactionaries, guys. Who the hell needs to think objectively anymore?
Oh yeah. You know them social anarchists. With their love of private property, the state and nationalism. Such reactionaries, they all are.

T_T

Btw, you're not thinking objectively. You're taking in all the regurgitated shit that Stalin and your party spew out.

SammXVX

15th May 2010, 00:27

*sighs* Stalin should never be praised, i find it hard to believe there are some apologists here for Stalin.:mad:
Even though he actually FOUGHT the Nazi's?

The Ben G

15th May 2010, 00:33

Even though he actually FOUGHT the Nazi's?

Well, so did Churchill, Chang Kai-Shek, Truman, Roosevelt, etc.. Whats any difference in them being praised?

15th May 2010, 00:38

Even though he actually FOUGHT the Nazi's?
You know Stalin. He got right out there into the fight with his rifle and shot up some Nazis.

And the USSR only fought Germany after Hitler's invasion of the USSR broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Remember that?

FSL

15th May 2010, 00:45

I have no fucking clue how the fact that the US killed civilians in an imperialist war is supposed to have any bearing on the way habeas corpus is practiced in the US compared to the Stalinist period.

The courts in the US are the way they are because of centuries of historic struggle. It doesn't represent anything so asinine as the respect of American capitalists for the rule of law, their claims to the contrary.

No, they are the way they are because of centuries of a lack of a real struggle.
If there was real struggle in the US they'd just send the army out to shoot everyone.

Spawn of Stalin

15th May 2010, 00:49

I found the thread in question, and I owe you an apology. I had crossed memories of something someone else said (which was mod-deleted) with the mere fact that you were in that thread.

Not a problem, misunderstanding

What's funny though is that while you didn't say it there, you pretty much did here, by saying you would applaud his assassination.

At least I do so unashamedly, most people here know that I am a staunch advocate of the death penalty, and since this guy isn't going to be hitting the chair anytime soon, I really wouldn't have a problem with anyone who chose to take matters into their own hands.

I won't belittle your intelligence by defining justice as a social concept. What I will do is argue that justice cannot be served by a state without the full body of civil rights and legal protections before the law. The power of the state is unquestionable, if we are to have a state (which I believe is necessary) we must also have due process and full accountability. Stalin's trials were set up to get rid of people using confessions extracted with beatings.

I mean shit, Genrikh Yagoda interrogated the suspects in the first wave of trials, and then later he was himself shot for being part of the right-wing Trotskyist bloc, just like how in turn, Yezhov himself was shot. And then finally, Stalin was evidently betrayed by even Beria, who dismissed all charges and exonerated the accused in the Doctor's Plot that Stalin had alleged, once Stalin had died.

Apparently, Stalin must have truly been one of the most gullible and trusting of leaders in history to surround himself with so many traitors. Lenin as well, given how many Old Bolsheviks turned out to be traitors.

Traitors is a strong word, I don't know all the ins and outs of every single old Bolshevik case but from what I do know I am willing to trust the judgement of Stalin and the Soviet Union. Therefore I'm quite prepared to accept that these people were potentially damaging to socialism.

Except the vast majority of un-assassinated and non-incarcerated leftists says something, doesn't it? The fact that Mumia Abu Jamal has had 27 years, my entire lifespan, to appeal his sentence, even in this racist stronghold of capitalism, says something pretty fucked up about the Moscow Trials.

A lot of Stalin's opponents survived too, the only difference is that they didn't have large amounts of support from the general population like Mumia does, Mumia is easily one of the most famous political prisoners of all time and as much as I admire the man's great intellect, he is far more dangerous dead than he is alive. If Mumia was just a no-name working class black man he would have been put down a long time ago, the same goes for all the others, Peltier, the lot.

Oh yeah. You know them social anarchists. With their love of private property, the state and nationalism. Such reactionaries, they all are.

T_T

Btw, you're not thinking objectively. You're taking in all the regurgitated shit that Stalin and your party spew out.

You don't need to support capitalism to directly or indirectly oppose socialism. In my, and most other Marxist-Leninist's opinions, anarchism poses absolutely no threat to the bourgeoisie and imperialism, and since they will fight "Stalinism" or any kind of state socialism to the bitter end there can be only two outcomes, the victory of socialism, or a return to capitalism. I would argue than any anarchist who fights state socialism without having a realistic plan of action for a transition to communism should they emerge victorious is a reactionary, though this may not be their intention. I do know of several anarchists who applauded the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of Soviet socialism, in doing so they were also applauding the rise of capitalism, these people are utter reactionaries.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 00:51

No, they are the way they are because of centuries of a lack of a real struggle.
If there was real struggle in the US they'd just send the army out to shoot everyone.

Well that's a fantastic way of nullifying every single thing won by the working class in this country. You sound like a Left Communist, now.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 00:56

You don't need to support capitalism to directly or indirectly oppose socialismOr what you define as "socialism"

anarchism poses absolutely no threat to the bourgeoisie and imperialismIt only has killed them and directly attacked there institutions lol

and since they will fight "Stalinism" or any kind of state socialism to the bitter end there can be only two outcomes, the victory of socialism, or a return to capitalismOr victory for anarchism or victory for the repressive state whether Bourgeois or a Red Bureaucrat who would have us all shot.

I do know of several anarchists who applauded the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of Soviet socialism, in doing so they were also applauding the rise of capitalism, these people are utter reactionaries. Because in your mind its all black and white. The utter dogma of marxists is quite hilarious. Its your way or the highway, better ask Nestor or the Kronstadt rebels how they feel.

15th May 2010, 00:59

You sound like a Left Communist, now.
Here comes another sectarian pissing contest. I was just merely contributing to the old one.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:02

Here comes another sectarian pissing contest. I was just merely contributing to the old one.

Don't even bother, as if being ultra left is a bad thing lol. How dare you be against make authoritarian states and gulags!

15th May 2010, 01:10

Don't even bother, as if being ultra left is a bad thing lol. How dare you be against make authoritarian states and gulags!
Glory to Stalin!

Spawn of Stalin

15th May 2010, 01:20

Or what you define as "socialism"
Definitions don't matter here, the Soviet Union was the closest thing to a stable socialist state that has ever existed.

It only has killed them and directly attacked there institutions lol
Yeah but killing them and attacking their institutions doesn't do a whole lot for the working class, it just gives the capitalists justification to clamp down on all anti-capitalists.

Or victory for anarchism or victory for the repressive state whether Bourgeois or a Red Bureaucrat who would have us all shot.
Like I said, I personally believe anarchism to be untenable.

Because in your mind its all black and white. The utter dogma of marxists is quite hilarious. Its your way or the highway, better ask Nestor or the Kronstadt rebels how they feel.
Pretty much yeah, it is our way or the highway, and history would agree with me.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 01:26

At least I do so unashamedly, most people here know that I am a staunch advocate of the death penalty, and since this guy isn't going to be hitting the chair anytime soon, I really wouldn't have a problem with anyone who chose to take matters into their own hands.

I did know you felt that way before. Obviously there's a big debate about the death penalty, and while I don't agree with you on it, I appreciate the experiences in your life that led you to that view and feel the debate is too big to drag in here.

Traitors is a strong word, I don't know all the ins and outs of every single old Bolshevik case but from what I do know I am willing to trust the judgement of Stalin and the Soviet Union. Therefore I'm quite prepared to accept that these people were potentially damaging to socialism.

Hm. Well, again, I strongly disagree, but I doubt I'm going to convert you to my point of view. I will say though that I think you're being too trusting, and even if people are potentially damaging to socialism, doesn't mean they should be put on trial and executed. Especially executed. If people in positions of power are a potential problem, they can be fired, and become just another citizen.

A lot of Stalin's opponents survived too, the only difference is that they didn't have large amounts of support from the general population like Mumia does, Mumia is easily one of the most famous political prisoners of all time and as much as I admire the man's great intellect, he is far more dangerous dead than he is alive. If Mumia was just a no-name working class black man he would have been put down a long time ago, the same goes for all the others, Peltier, the lot.

You have a point, but while I'm sure the high-profile nature of their case plays a role, that doesn't mean nobody else has a long appeals process. In fact, in the US, death penalty sentences are required to undergo a fairly complicated review process at every level of the judicial branch, from the local appellate court to the federal courts. And there are still high profile sentences that get carried out, despite that long appeals process. Probably the best example of this is Stanley Tookie Williams.

SammXVX

15th May 2010, 01:26

Well, so did Churchill, Chang Kai-Shek, Truman, Roosevelt, etc.. Whats any difference in them being praised?I don 't support Stalin other than that, just so you know.

However, he did not succumb to Hitler's demands as easily. Like, the Anglo-German Naval Pact was a policy of British appeasement, because the Brit's did not want another war, spoon-feeding Hitler to avoid it.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:28

Definitions don't matter here, the Soviet Union was the closest thing to a stable socialist state that has ever existed.
Or says the blood written on the gulags walls.

Yeah but killing them and attacking their institutions doesn't do a whole lot for the working class, it just gives the capitalists justification to clamp down on all anti-capitalists.
As if Anarchists are the only ones doing this? Better tell the Maoists that or most leftists who have fought them from the RAF to even Stalin's early days, when anarchists do it its a bad thing, when maoists do its "a peoples war". If they clamp down you hit them harder, its a class war.

Like I said, I personally believe anarchism to be untenable.
That's great, do away with not only Capital, but the State and society goes to shit right?

Pretty much yeah, it is our way or the highway, and history would agree with me.

I'm tempted to put this in my signature.
Stalinists...excuse me.. Anti-Revisionists are all would be murderers because "History". To bad im looking back right now and I see what you fuckers are capable of. We wont accept your firing squads next time around, which will never come because today's left in the 1st world is stuck in the past.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 01:29

Don't even bother, as if being ultra left is a bad thing lol. How dare you be against make authoritarian states and gulags!

If that's all being ultra-left is then I'm fine with it, except it tends to also involve a dogmatic refusal to adapt to conditions that don't resemble 19th century London, as well as a refusal to consider anything as a progressive gain if it isn't a complete and total overturn of the bourgeoisie, quickly followed by an international revolution that encompasses all or most of the globe in a relatively fast period.

That just strikes me as impossible, so I have no time for it.

bie

15th May 2010, 01:30

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:30

I don 't support Stalin other than that, just so you know.

However, he did not succumb to Hitler's demands as easily. Like, the Anglo-German Naval Pact was a policy of British appeasement, because the Brit's did not want another war, spoon-feeding Hitler to avoid it. Non-aggression pact. The fucker should of been shot as soon as he had any support, not after he took state control.

If that's all being ultra-left is then I'm fine with it, except it tends to also involve a dogmatic refusal to adapt to conditions that don't resemble 19th century London, as well as a refusal to consider anything as a progressive gain if it isn't a complete and total overturn of the bourgeoisie.
We're the dogmatic ones? We aren't the ones who put Lenin or Stalin's picture up any chance we can, our methods change more then anything I don't know where you get this 19th century London crap.

SammXVX

15th May 2010, 01:32

Non-aggression pact. The fucker should of been shot as soon as he had any support, not after he took state control. Exactly. It should have been read into further, but you know, people are... desperate? I guess. That's a major fault of a nation ran with money, for sure.
Assuming that we're talking about Hitler.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 01:35

Could you explain me what is so "fucked up" in bringing to justice a bunch of saboteurs and terrorists on its way to coup de etat just before the Hitler's invasion?

Well I'm pretty sure the issue at question about the Moscow Trials is whether that really was the case or not, but since most of those confessions were acquired through threats or torture, that really isn't so clear.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:38

Could you explain me what is so "fucked up" in bringing to justice a bunch of saboteurs and terrorists on its way to coup de etat just before the Hitler's invasion?

You guys are like Holocaust Deniers in a way. Stalins tyranny is so well documented, the Moscow trails were riddled with torture its really pathetic you guys defend this man so much.

bie

15th May 2010, 01:38

Well I'm pretty sure the issue at question about the Moscow Trials is whether that really was the case or not, but since most of those confessions were acquired through threats or torture, that really isn't so clear
How do you know that "most of confessions were acquired through threats and tortures"?

You guys are like Holocaust Deniers in a way. Stalins tyranny is so well documented, the Moscow trails were riddled with torture its really pathetic you guys defend this man so much.
Is it "so well documented"? Please show me those documents then.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 01:40

We're the dogmatic ones? We aren't the ones who put Lenin or Stalin's picture up any chance we can, our methods change more then anything I don't know where you get this 19th century London crap.

You're an anarchist, right? I'm referring to the ultra-left current of Left Communism.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:43

Is it "so well documented"? Please show me those documents then.
You've got to be kidding me. If i did its all Bourgeois propaganda and trotskyist fabrication and or slander. Replace bourgeois with jew and you can see the scale of your dogmatism. Anything to stop the evil revisionists right?

You're an anarchist, right? I'm referring to the ultra-left current of Left Communism.
Gotcha.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 01:44

How do you know that "most of confessions were acquired through threats and tortures"?

Because they were. Acquiring such confessions was the responsibility of the NKVD under Genrikh Yagoda, then Nikolai Yezhov, then Lavrentiy Beria.

bie

15th May 2010, 01:51

Because they were
Is it a sort of religious belief?

Spawn of Stalin

15th May 2010, 01:52

You have a point, but while I'm sure the high-profile nature of their case plays a role, that doesn't mean nobody else has a long appeals process. In fact, in the US, death penalty sentences are required to undergo a fairly complicated review process at every level of the judicial branch, from the local appellate court to the federal courts. And there are still high profile sentences that get carried out, despite that long appeals process. Probably the best example of this is Stanley Tookie Williams.

I don't really know enough about the Tookie case to pass judgement, but I do know the man had A LOT of support from working class communities and even some celebrities so you may well be onto something there. I'll have to read up on it some more because I really can't say either way right now.

Or says the blood written on the gulags walls.
This is an emotion fuelled response, one I would expect from a liberal or a neocon. No objective analysis whatsoever.

As if Anarchists are the only ones doing this? Better tell the Maoists that or most leftists who have fought them from the RAF to even Stalin's early days, when anarchists do it its a bad thing, when maoists do its "a peoples war". If they clamp down you hit them harder, its a class war.
Well the Maoists have been successful, largely due to their mass support, anarchists have never enjoyed such support so they are not in a position to be using revolutionary violence. If anarchism had any kind of backing from the working class I am sure things would be different, but this is not the case, because generally working class people know that anarchism is untenable.

I'm tempted to put this in my signature.
Stalinists...excuse me.. Anti-Revisionists are all would be murderers because "History". To bad im looking back right now and I see what you fuckers are capable of. We wont accept your firing squads next time around, which will never come because today's left in the 1st world is stuck in the past.
Please don't call us fuckers, comrade.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:53

Is it a sort of religious belief?
See below

Acquiring such confessions was the responsibility of the NKVD under Genrikh Yagoda, then Nikolai Yezhov, then Lavrentiy Beria.

Qayin

15th May 2010, 01:55

This is an emotion fuelled response, one I would expect from a liberal or a neocon. No objective analysis whatsoever.
Its in front of you. Forced labor camps and firing squads aren't in my revolution and history.

Well the Maoists have been successful, largely due to their mass support, anarchists have never enjoyed such support so they are not in a position to be using revolutionary violence. If anarchism had any kind of backing from the working class I am sure things would be different, but this is not the case, because generally working class people know that anarchism is untenable.
Tell the Spanish or Greeks this.

Please don't call us fuckers, comrade.
You are not my comrade. You represent the failings of the state that was supposed to push us towards a better world, and ended in disaster.

Spawn of Stalin

15th May 2010, 01:56

You've got to be kidding me. If i did its all Bourgeois propaganda and trotskyist fabrication and or slander. Replace bourgeois with jew and you can see the scale of your dogmatism. Anything to stop the evil revisionists right?
The bourgeois imperialists and Trotskyists are the natural enemies of Marxism-Leninism, anything they write about Marxism-Leninism is going to be influenced by their bias. If you can find documentation of these horrible crimes that does not come from bourgeois sources, or from an anti-"Stalinist" communist trend, I will read it with an open mind.

bie

15th May 2010, 01:57

On February 17, 1937, Ambassador Davies reported in a confidential dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull that almost all the foreign diplomats
in Moscow shared his opinion of the justice of the verdict. Ambassador Davies wrote:—

I talked to many,
if not all, of the members
of the Diplomatic Corps here and, with possibly •
one exception, they are all of the opinion that
the proceedings established clearly the existence
of a political plot and conspiracy to overthrow
the government.

This is the statement of the American Ambassador in Moscow. He was present at all the trials. Is it it enough just to put a single thought through a mind that
things could be different than we were told? Almost all members of the foreign Diplomatic Corps were convinced that the trials exposed the malicious plot. Is it not enough to treat this case seriously?

Acquiring such confessions was the responsibility of the NKVD under Genrikh Yagoda, then Nikolai Yezhov, then Lavrentiy Beria.

Do you have any proof that confessions were made by tortures and threats? Or is it just your strong conviction?

Spawn of Stalin

15th May 2010, 02:01

Its in front of you. Forced labor camps and firing squads aren't in my revolution and history.
How do you feel about the firing squads that were used by anarchists during the SCW to execute countless Catholic priests then?

Tell the Spanish or Greeks this.
I would but the Greek anarchists are too busy worrying about how they can undermine both the state and the KKE at the same time. Honestly though, you make it sound as if there is going to be an anarchist revolution in Greece, there isn't, I'm sorry, it's untenable.

You are not my comrade. You represent the failings of the state that was supposed to push us towards a better world, and ended in disaster.

Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall was indeed a disaster. Possibly the greatest human tragedy in history.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 02:38

Do you have any proof that confessions were made by tortures and threats? Or is it just your strong conviction?

Does it matter? You apparently have the ability to transmute my statements into a direct contradiction of themselves. But there's evidence, from the testimony of Soviet intelligence officers that were released in the years after Stalin's death. Some of these, like Aleksandr Orlov, are of dubious quality, others, not so much.

Some hours ago I e-mailed a professor I know who specializes in Soviet history, inquiring about the Moscow Trials. I'm hoping she will have some more leads.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 02:42

Qayin

15th May 2010, 06:00

The bourgeois imperialists and Trotskyists are the natural enemies of Marxism-Leninism, anything they write about Marxism-Leninism is going to be influenced by their bias. If you can find documentation of these horrible crimes that does not come from bourgeois sources, or from an anti-"Stalinist" communist trend, I will read it with an open mind.

Your view of marxism is almost religious. Its laughable and most will see past this.

How do you feel about the firing squads that were used by anarchists during the SCW to execute countless Catholic priests then?
You do know the Spanish Catholic Church collaborated with the Fascists and Nationalists.

I would but the Greek anarchists are too busy worrying about how they can undermine both the state and the KKE at the same time. Honestly though, you make it sound as if there is going to be an anarchist revolution in Greece, there isn't, I'm sorry, it's untenable.
The KKE is a shell wishing for the 20th century to return, there an irrelevant party in the face of history and wont take power any time soon.

Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall was indeed a disaster. Possibly the greatest human tragedy in history.
Tell that to those who were executed escaping and whos families were split up.

CChocobo

15th May 2010, 06:02

Stalin was nothing but an authoritarian tyrant. I don't care it he fought the nazis, the enemy of my enemy does not make him my friend. Look at the Spanish Civil War, you had the Spanish Republic allied with socialists, communists,(stalinist) marxists, and anarchists. What happened? They allied to fight fascism right? What a great glorious alliance what could go wrong? Hmm i guess it got as sectarian as it can get, you know communists acting under orders of the comintern and stalin to carry out purges against anarchist comrades and marxists who were then called "trotskyists". So much for that alliance.

The only reason the Soviet Union gave supplies to the Spanish Republic during the civil war was because they didn't want another fascist nation on the border of France. Stalin didn't want the balance of powers to be upset.. It had nothing to do with helping out revolutionaries in Spain, or aiding the cause to help comrades. In the end once supplies funneled in they wanted to setup a Stalinst style dictatorship under the rule of the PCE (Communist party in Spain)

Chimurenga.

15th May 2010, 07:50

Stalin was nothing but an authoritarian tyrant

You know, I could go and listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck say those same exact words. You're obviously refusing to look at Stalin or Russia objectively.

I don't care it he fought the nazis, the enemy of my enemy does not make him my friend.

You don't care that he successfully led the defeat of Fascism in Europe?

The only reason the Soviet Union gave supplies to the Spanish Republic during the civil war was because they didn't want another fascist nation on the border of France.

Even so, that's a damn good reason if you ask me.

Stalin didn't want the balance of powers to be upset..

Or maybe he wanted to suppress Fascist growth in Europe...

DaringMehring

15th May 2010, 08:06

The idea that Stalin masterminded the defeat of fascism is laughable. Who led the defeat of fascism were the workers and peasants of the USSR, through incredible sacrifice, skill, and dedication. Stalin made their job harder, not easier.

As far as anyone who can review the evidence of the Moscow trials, the confessions of Old Bolsheviks to murdering workers by causing industrial accidents etc, and the critiques showing the fabrication of the prosecution, and not come to the conclusion that it was an obvious rig-up, it's not only doubtful whether they have the mental capacity to lead workers, it's no doubt better for workers that they not.

Sad to see in this thread that the Stalin cult is still strong. You know, the M-L I thought were past Stalin, since the USSR itself was for its last several decades. But any time I talk with M-L or see a thread like this, you always find some eager to glorify Joe the Butcher. At least they're slowly filling up the ash heap of history.

The Intransigent Faction

15th May 2010, 08:53

The bourgeois imperialists and Trotskyists are the natural enemies of Marxism-Leninism, anything they write about Marxism-Leninism is going to be influenced by their bias. If you can find documentation of these horrible crimes that does not come from bourgeois sources, or from an anti-"Stalinist" communist trend, I will read it with an open mind.

You say you'll consider documentation of horrible crimes, yet you exclude evidence from every group critical of Stalin as unacceptable propaganda? You do realize the problem with this?

Granted, bourgeois sources do exaggerate and fabricate "Communist" atrocities and minimize atrocities of pro-West regimes. The problem is not slander of Stalin. It's the painting Stalin as somehow a legitimate Communist and the attacking of Communism on that basis.

Consider this: Bourgeois sources want to represent Communism as bad. Clearly they could ask for nothing better than a despot whose regime slaughters, imprisons and deports critics while all the while claiming to do so in the interests of a working class and "Socialism".

So yes, there is so much bourgeois propaganda out there that cannot be trusted to represent Communism, but because they distort what Communism is, not because they are wrong in every way about Stalin.

As for the organizer of the Red Army being an enemy of Leninism...no further comment needed.

Authoritarian government by party bureaucrats is not a dictatorship of the working class.

BeerShaman

15th May 2010, 09:09

Understand that what was said above was based on opinionated speculation. It's up to you for what you find yourself believing in.

That felt like a "kind fuck you"... for the once commenting above... Hahahahahah:p

bie

15th May 2010, 10:09

As far as anyone who can review the evidence of the Moscow trials
How can you "review" the evidence on Moscow Trials if, apart from confessions, if it was never made public? Why do you write things based on "strong conviction" when they are so obviously biased? I see we have here a number of "experts" on Moscow Trials, each one having the stronger conviction than the other. Lets agree on one - the is not the political problem, it will not be solved by supporting blindly this or other thesis. It is the issue for historians to figure out - what actually happened. It is funny that the all foreign eye-wittnesses of trials agreed on the justice of the verdict, while some of you even without the basic knowledge of facts shout the opposite.

Does it matter?
Do you seriously ask me if does it matter if you support your statements with any sort of the confirmation or not? Do you really expect me to take at your's word?

You apparently have the ability to transmute my statements into a direct contradiction of themselves
Well, everyone can say to support every thesis "there are evidence, I have them". :) I actually asked you to present it. Did you do it?

Some hours ago I e-mailed a professor I know who specializes in Soviet history, inquiring about the Moscow Trials. I'm hoping she will have some more leads.
Thank you, I am really looking forward to hear the answer. I am also waiting on your evidence that "soviet economy was unsustainable" (eg. even it could be a letter from Ordzhonikidze, saying things like "Comrade Stalin, our economy will not last too long" etc.). Please also make comment on the Ambassador Davies note. So far I prefer to trust an independent eye-witnesses than a politically involved person having strong convictions only.

As for the organizer of the Red Army being an enemy of Leninism...no further comment needed.
Well, he should be left to speak for himself.
The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay. '(Letter to Chkeidze 1913)

15th May 2010, 12:50

How do you feel about the firing squads that were used by anarchists during the SCW to execute countless Catholic priests then?
Actually, considering they collaborated with fascists, I feel quite nonchalant about that.

Yes, the fall of the Berlin Wall was indeed a disaster. Possibly the greatest human tragedy in history.
The completion of the wall was even worse. When you need a wall to keep people in, you really fucked up your country.

You know, I could go and listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck say those same exact words. You're obviously refusing to look at Stalin or Russia objectively.

Objectively: Through the party's eyes; in such a way that follows the party line.

You don't care that he successfully led the defeat of Fascism in Europe?
Just like the British Empire did.

Or maybe he wanted to suppress Fascist growth in Europe...
Why the hell did he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then? A non-aggression pact doesn't seem very anti-fascist to me.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

15th May 2010, 15:12

Why the hell did he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then? A non-aggression pact doesn't seem very anti-fascist to me.

Noooo, please...

Not this crap again.

Buying time, etc (Stalin offered pact with the British and so on in the late 1930's for example). This has been discussed sooo many times yet for some reason it keeps coming up again and again.

KlÃ©ber

15th May 2010, 15:51

It was not just "buying time" for prisoners who got exchanged between GULAG and Nazi concentration camps, Polish prisoners of war who got massacred, and Poles who were forcibly deported and dispersed throughout the union republics. The revisionist Popular Front, which included an abandonment of the national liberation struggle in the "Allied" colonies, wasn't so great either.

bie

15th May 2010, 15:59

Polish prisoners of war who got massacred,
What is to do with the non-agression pact? Polish prisoners of war were massacred in 1941 by Germans, after beginning of war. This is really reactionary mr. Kleber.

Chimurenga.

15th May 2010, 16:22

Why the hell did he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then? A non-aggression pact doesn't seem very anti-fascist to me.

That pact bought almost a year and a half worth of time to develop and build the forces that they had. Without it, I believe Russia would've been taken over. I mean, I thought this was a no-brainer.

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 17:09

Thank you, I am really looking forward to hear the answer. I am also waiting on your evidence that "soviet economy was unsustainable" (eg. even it could be a letter from Ordzhonikidze, saying things like "Comrade Stalin, our economy will not last too long" etc.). Please also make comment on the Ambassador Davies note. So far I prefer to trust an independent eye-witnesses than a politically involved person having strong convictions only.

Listen man. I'm a history student. Digging up primary resources, verifying them, analyzing them and writing up such an analysis into a report is what I'm trained to do. It's also a lot of a hard work. I don't come to this forum to bust my ass. I come here to hang out with other socialists, learn some things but mainly to discuss politics and socialist issues in a more laidback, casual way.

The information I read, from which I made a reference to Ordzhonikidze's report from, is part of a nearly 30 page article published in 2002 in the Slavic Review. It's the kind of resource which is unfortunately not available unless you have access to resources like JSTOR, which unfortunately is hellaciously expensive and usually only universities and research institutions have subscriptions. But I read this article and I wrote an analysis of it as part of my coursework, and that's why I have the position I do on Soviet industry having been unsustainable in the long term without serious reforms.

Take that or leave it, I don't really care at this point. I've said my piece.

15th May 2010, 17:30

Uh, history proved that it unstable in the 80's/90's.

bie

15th May 2010, 17:37

Uh, history proved that it unstable in the 80's/90's.
Socialist economy went into the stagnation in the 80/90 due to economic "reforms" in late 50s and forth - that actually aimed in "softening" of central planning, decentralization and subjecting it to the law of value - i.e. reproduction of market economy within the socialist structure. It contributed to the creation of vast black market and made the planning process less effective (as visible by the slowdown of the economic growth). But the initial model itself was ok.

Listen man. I'm a history student. Digging up primary resources, verifying them, analyzing them and writing up such an analysis into a report is what I'm trained to do. It's also a lot of a hard work. I don't come to this forum to bust my ass. I come here to hang out with other socialists, learn some things but mainly to discuss politics and socialist issues in a more laidback, casual way.
Ok. I didn't want to bother you, just to point out that some points require more attention. It is not always a good thing to take for granted what the "official" (ie. bourgeoisie) version say. It may be often just a creation of the anticommunist propaganda, isn't it?

Robocommie

15th May 2010, 18:27

Ok. I didn't want to bother you, just to point out that some points require more attention. It is not always a good thing to take for granted what the "official" (ie. bourgeoisie) version say. It may be often just a creation of the anticommunist propaganda, isn't it?

Propaganda plays a part, sure. But if we start to doubt everything as propaganda, pretty soon we'll just be in a place where we only have to believe the things we want to. Of course, it is good to question, as you say.

You didn't really bother me, so no hard feelings.

Socialist economy went into the stagnation in the 80/90 due to economic "reforms" in late 50s and forth - that actually aimed in "softening" of central planning, decentralization and subjecting it to the law of value - i.e. reproduction of market economy within the socialist structure. It contributed to the creation of vast black market and made the planning process less effective (as visible by the slowdown of the economic growth). But the initial model itself was ok.I should comment on this and try and breakdown the overall gist of the article I mentioned. Basically, the article explains that the attitude towards economic planning over the course of the Five Year Plans (and all the permutations of that, like the annual plans) was to place extreme emphasis on the people put in charge, rather than the specific mechanisms and organization itself. The Presidium put a great deal of effort in making sure they had people they could trust who would get the job done placed in charge of the important positions. The emphasis was always on putting "responsible" people in charge, Stalin was fixated on it, it was his specialty. Most of his records pertaining to administration were about personnel and appointments. In late 1931, it's shown that Stalin and the Presidium spent three whole weeks with their main focus being solely the appointment of a new transportation commissar. Meanwhile, actual organizational rules, procedures and principals were being neglected - out of thousands of pages pertaining to Gosplan and the industrial commissariats, the researchers could not find a single one that pertained to regulations and procedures.

At first glance this looks like a strength, a positive trait of the system, because it's good to have qualified people. But the problem is, with such strong emphasis on people, it essentially placed all the responsibility for the success or failure of a plan on that manager. If problems came up, the commissariats didn't want to hear about it. Rukhimovich, the transport commissar who had been replaced in 1931, had complained about lack of investment and deteriorating equipment, and Stalin angrily wrote to Kaganovich in response; "Although decrees of the Central Committee have great significance, they cannot save the day. Why? Because as long as a pack of narcissistic and self-satisfied bureaucrats such as Rukhimovich are sitting in the commissariat of transport, avoiding fulfilling the decrees of the Central Committee, and sowing seeds of skepticism - the decrees of the Central Committee will be put off until doomsday. To save the railroads, it is necessary to drive out this pack."

Managers couldn't plead that things had gone wrong, they couldn't complain that deliveries had not been made, or even that accidents had occured. It was like this on every single level of industry, from Gosplan and the Commissariats down to individual factories and plants. In the Soviet management culture, a good manager dealt with problems on their own. They didn't want to hear about difficulties or problems, they only wanted to issue orders and then receive results, and if results were not forthcoming, the managers could expect to be sacked. I mean, imagine if you're a factory worker, and every time a worker reports to the shift supervisor that a machine has broken down, they get fired. It won't be long until you simply stop telling the boss that the machine is broken. And that's exactly what happened.

Managers started turning to "horizontal" trades of hazy legality. Factories, mills, even entire bureaus and departments would engage in unofficial backroom deals to get the resources they needed to meet some of the production goals of a bureau. A surplus from an overproduction of steel could be sold off to a tractor factory that had never gotten it's delivery of steel on time, for a price paid to the manager of the steel mill - who would pocket some of that money and use the rest to take care of his own department's needs and shortages. Because "good" managers got the job done, whatever it took, with no questions asked by their superiors, a sort of grey market formed in between the branches of the Soviet state economy, with a whole marketplace of resources, supplies and goods circulating around, not being kept on paper anywhere and therefore not actually available to the Soviet state until it appeared once again in the official ledgers. And the whole time, these bureaucrats were taking their cut, here and there, leeching off of some departments not just out of greed, but because they would have to be able to make the horizontal trades that kept the system working.

Furthermore, the plans and production targets sent down by Gosplan were so numerous, and changed so frequently that they often became contradictory, or made it impossible to meet one set of goals without abandoning another, so managers had to choose which set of goals they would pursue. The goals they couldn't meet, they either had to lie about to their superiors, which meant that further plans made by Gosplan and the commissariats were based on bullshit fictional figures, or they had to blame their own subordinates, which is often what happened. Scapegoating became a major aspect of the Soviet system. Some of the best bureaucrats became adept at this kind of game. The article cites collegium minutes showing that Kaganovich used his own deputies to propose new major programs and projects, and Kaganovich would shield himself from potential failures by merely pointing out what could go wrong. Then if it did go wrong, he could place the blame squarely on the deputy's head, and the deputy would be either demoted or placed in another department and the whole sick game would continue. This scapegoating became particularly destructive during the Great Purge - subordinates found to be responsible for plan failures could be accused of deliberate sabotage and "wrecking" and ended up being purged.

I'm obviously summarizing because as I said, the article is just about 30 pages long, and replete with citations that were found after the CPSU archives were opened up with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. If you've actually read all this, then thank you. But I hope you can see why what you said, about how the initial model was ok, is just not true.

Spawn of Stalin

15th May 2010, 19:36

Your view of marxism is almost religious. Its laughable and most will see past this.
How so?

You do know the Spanish Catholic Church collaborated with the Fascists and Nationalists.
But that's besides the point, you explicitly stated that firing squads are not part of your revolution, clearly they are. So it's okay to shoot fascist collaborators and sympathisers, but not wreckers and spies?

The KKE is a shell wishing for the 20th century to return, there an irrelevant party in the face of history and wont take power any time soon.
The KKE is the biggest left wing party in all of central/western Europe and north America, certainly in terms of influence on workers and unions, it may well be irrelevant to an anarchist, but that changes nothing.

Tell that to those who were executed escaping and whos families were split up.
Oh dear, more emotional drivel. The fall of the Berlin Wall gave way to a huge drop in the standards of living in central and east Europe, life expectancy went dropped, the number of schools and hospitals dropped, whether you supported the DDR and the Soviet Union or not, anyone who thinks materially can see that the fall of socialism was a terrible thing.

But you know, I'll take a page out of your book. Tell that to the massive number of Berliners who still believe that life was better in east Germany than it is in "unified" Germany.

You say you'll consider documentation of horrible crimes, yet you exclude evidence from every group critical of Stalin as unacceptable propaganda? You do realize the problem with this?
I don't actually, Trots dismiss the Marxist-Leninist analysis of most events as Stalinist propaganda, why are we not allowed to do the same?

Granted, bourgeois sources do exaggerate and fabricate "Communist" atrocities and minimize atrocities of pro-West regimes. The problem is not slander of Stalin. It's the painting Stalin as somehow a legitimate Communist and the attacking of Communism on that basis.
Maybe they would attack other communists such as anarchists and Trotskyites but unfortunately these trends have no recent actions to their names to be attacked, why attack something which is completely irrelevant? Something which has changed nothing for the working class....ever.

Consider this: Bourgeois sources want to represent Communism as bad. Clearly they could ask for nothing better than a despot whose regime slaughters, imprisons and deports critics while all the while claiming to do so in the interests of a working class and "Socialism".

So yes, there is so much bourgeois propaganda out there that cannot be trusted to represent Communism, but because they distort what Communism is, not because they are wrong in every way about Stalin.
This here pretty much sums up the #1 problem with the world today, even left wingers believe the lies concerning Stalin. No matter how many people are liberating themselves under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, they would rather dismiss these revolutionary actions than swallow their pride and say "okay, there is a small chance I could be wrong".

As for the organizer of the Red Army being an enemy of Leninism...no further comment needed.
But there is, Trotsky's anti-party actions are very well documented, he was one of the original anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky may have been the organiser of the Red Army, but he was also the organiser of the August Bloc of Mensheviks and Otzovists, for which Lenin branded Trotsky "Judas Trotsky". If Trotsky was such a friend of Leninism, why did he only join the Bolsheviks in 1917 when it became apparent that they were going to be the ones to emerge victorious? Why didn't he join in 1904 or 1912? Why did he support Martov's ideas for a party which were in direct opposition to those of Lenin? If Trotsky was such a great Leninist, why did he oppose Lenin on so many different occasions? Why?

KlÃ©ber

15th May 2010, 20:11

Trots dismiss the Marxist-Leninist analysis of most events as Stalinist propaganda, why are we not allowed to do the same?Because unlike the theorized encounter between Trotsky, Hitler and a Purple Hyena at a candy store next to a hotel that never existed is not an actual "event," whereas 800,000 executions, collaboration between Communist Parties and fascism, forced migration of peoples, the illegalization of abortion and homosexuality, to name a few Stalinist crimes, actually happened.

Maybe they would attack other communists such as anarchists and Trotskyites but unfortunately these trends have no recent actions to their names to be attacked, why attack something which is completely irrelevant? Something which has changed nothing for the working class....ever.What world are you living on? You say there is no bourgeois propaganda against Trotsky? that is absolutely false. He is pilloried in the bourgeois history books as a red dictator who machinegunned and decimated his own troops to win the impossible victory of the workers, which was doomed to end in stalinist absolutism, blablabla

Here are some examples of the bourgeois hatred for Trotsky:

http://debbienathan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/antisem-trotsky-poster.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Leon_Trotsky.JPG

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/serv-n11.shtml

Trotsky may have been the organiser of the Red Army, but he was also the organiser of the August Bloc of Mensheviks and OtzovistsYes, forget about leading the seizure of power in Petrograd and defeating 14 nations plus the White armies.. he was guilty of some sectarian transgression so, fuck him.

If Trotsky was such a friend of Leninism, why did he only join the Bolsheviks in 1917 when it became apparent that they were going to be the ones to emerge victorious?Things hardly looked victorious when Trotsky joined, it was because they came to agreement over the demand for all power to the soviets and put aside the sectarian crap from the past.

Compare that to Vyshinsky, Stalin's judge who oversaw the murder of the leaders of October.. he was Menshevik counter-revolutionary who did not join Bolsheviks until 1920, when the Red Army under War Commissar Trotsky was almost victorious.

15th May 2010, 20:37

If Trotsky was such a friend of Leninism, why did he only join the Bolsheviks in 1917 when it became apparent that they were going to be the ones to emerge victorious?

“Leon Davidovich was not formally at that time a member of our party but as a matter of fact he worked continuously within it from the day of his arrival from America. At any rate, immediately after his first speech in the Soviet, we all looked upon him as one of our party leaders.”
July Days, Proletarskaya Revolutsia, No.5 (17), 1928, pp.71f.

bie

15th May 2010, 21:11

Here are some examples of the bourgeois hatred for Trotsky:
This makes me laugh every time I hear that. Do you realize that they are from 1920? :) This is more recent picture - 21.11.1927

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1927/1101271121_400.jpg

By the way, this is also interesting - from anticommunist "The Time": http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,786194,00.html

(...)LEADERS. Outstanding personalities in present day Russia are:

MIKHAIL IVANOVITCH KALININ, 52, First Chairman of the Union Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party, a position roughly corresponding to the Presidency of the Soviet Union. Born a peasant, Kalinin (Karlee'neen) migrated to St. Petersburg (now Leningrad) at the age of 14 to work in a cartridge factory. There he became interested in revolutionary intrigue; imprisonment, banishment repeated themselves, as in the case of most of the revolutionists. Liberated in 1917, he took an active part in the Bolshevist revolution and in 1921 was elected to his present post. He is a small, wiry, typical Russian peasant, with all the peasant's limitations; yet, because of these shortcomings, he has proved invaluable to the Bolshevist cause by the restraint he has helped to impose upon the fiery out-and-out Communists in the interests of the peasants.

JOSEF VISSARIONOVITCH STALIN, 48, virtual dictator of the Soviet Union, is the General Secretary of the Polit-bureau (Political Bureau) of the Communist Party, in which the supreme power of the party is vested. Like his comrades, M. Stalin (Starleen) suffered imprisonment and banishment for his revolutionary activities. He is distinguished by a well-shaped head surrounded by a shock of black hair, just beginning to grey. He has a silky black mustache. His eyes are black, and rarely is there a gleam of merriment in them. His facial features suggest cruelty—a hard mask of oriental ruthlessness. He is a silent man, not given to speechifying; and behind his mask lies a singular determination. That is why M. Stalin is feared.
...
LEV (LEON) DAVIDOVITCH TROTSKY, 50, a Jew, from early manhood until the revolution braved the perils and vicissitudes that beset all revolutionaries, although he did not join the Communist Party until 1917. Undoubtedly the most brilliant man in Bolshevist circles, even more brilliant, say many, than was Lenin, he is today shorn of power and has been completely excommunicated from the party. Yet, he is not a nonentity; for he is the leader of the opposition and he is uncompromisingly outspoken in his criticism of Stalinism.

After all, Trotsky's contributions to the success of the Bolshevist experiment, insofar as it may be called a success, are considerable—just how considerable it would be difficult precisely to determine.

He was first arrested in 1898 at the age of 19; Tsarist persecution followed. Escaping from Siberia in 1902, he remained abroad until the 1905 revolution broke out. He then returned to Russia, only to be arrested as the Chairman of the Workers' Committee. Railroaded to Siberia, he managed to escape and for ten years lived in foreign lands, coming to the U. S. in 1916.

While in the U. S., Trotsky lived for nearly three months at No. 1522 Vyse Ave., the Bronx, New York City. With him were his wife (sister of Lev Borisovitch Kamenev) and his two small sons. He is said to have eked out a precarious livelihood on $15 a week, which he got for writing brilliant revolutionary articles in the Novy Mir, New York Russian language newspaper. It is possible, however, that Trotsky earned much more, for his coming was advertised widely among the radicals, who organized many a reception for him and, he, brilliant as always, made many a scintillating speech.

When the 1917 revolution broke out, he abandoned the Bronx and embarked for Russia. The British imprisoned him at Halifax, but released him later, and he made his way without further molestation to his native land, where he joined Lenin. In September, 1917, he was elected President of the Petrograd (Leningrad) Soviet; and the next year, as the first Commissar for Foreign Affairs, he conducted the peace negotiations for the Russians at Brest-Litovsk. He refused to sign the treaty that the Germans drew up, resigned and became Commissar for War, in whiqh capacity he organized the Red Army, now said to be the largest in the world.Until Lenin died, Trotsky's authority and prestige were supreme. Young, with a penchant for sarcasm, he made many enemies. After Lenin's death, Trotsky's political demise set in. He has held himself up as the disciple and interpreter of Leninism; the men in power have regarded him as an upstart and a renegade. The difference is not merely political; behind all there lies an inscrutable 'tissue of venemous personal hatred. For the nonce, Trotsky is in the discard. Who can say but that the fate of Robespierre and Danton hangs like Damocles' sword over his head?
This is how bourgeoisie "hated Trotski" :lol: Fairy tales, dear comrades!

I'm obviously summarizing because as I said, the article is just about 30 pages long, and replete with citations that were found after the CPSU archives were opened up with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. If you've actually read all this, then thank you. But I hope you can see why what you said, about how the initial model was ok, is just not true.
Thanks. It is quite an interesting description of faults in Soviet management. We will probably have to solve similar type of problems while building the socially owned, centrally planned economy, especially while under siege like condition. I am sure that with the application of modern technologies that sort of flaws can be successfully avoided.

KlÃ©ber

15th May 2010, 23:30

Do you realize that they are from 1920?
Do you realize the Soviet Union no longer exists?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1927/1101271121_400.jpgThis is how bourgeoisie "hated Trotski" :lol: Fairy tales, dear comrades!
So what about the "Ambassador Davies loved Stalin" stuff? You want to post pictures? here we go. Bourgeois TIME magainze chose Stalin as their "Man of the Year" twice.
http://brianakira.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/stalin_time.jpeghttp://s11.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/e/l/elymtl5c29udduc.jpghttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/stalin-time_man_of_year_1942.jpghttp://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/09876ebc8707c575_landinghttp://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1945/1101450205_400.jpghttp://70.85.195.205/images2/stalin%20time.jpg

COMPARE WITH...

http://debbienathan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/antisem-trotsky-poster.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Leon_Trotsky.JPG

bie

16th May 2010, 00:03

I cannot really understand why do you post Stalin here when we talk about Trotsky. And why do you use posters from 1920?

"Undoubtedly the most brilliant man in Bolshevist circles, even more brilliant, say many, than was Lenin" :) became the puppet of the bourgeoisie later on, after 1927. It is actually a manipulation to present posters from the times of the Civil War and Polish-Bolshevik war in 1920 as the illustration of the hatred against our hero.

KlÃ©ber

16th May 2010, 00:14

There was also a Hollywood movie, Mission to Moscow, that glorified Stalin and the purges.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Stalin_greets_davies_in_mission_to_moscow.jpg

bie

16th May 2010, 00:25

There was also a Hollywood movie, Mission to Moscow, that glorified Stalin and the purges.
You mean tells the truth? :) Thanks, I didn't know about this film! It is actually based on a book written by the witnesses of that events. It show all the traitors and 5th column members in a proper light.

KlÃ©ber

16th May 2010, 01:06

You mean tells the truth? :) Thanks, I didn't know about this film! It is actually based on a book written by the witnesses of that events. It show all the traitors and 5th column members in a proper light.
I am glad to see you have found your place, hand in hand with the US bourgeois propagandists, worshiping the murderer of the leaders of October.

bie

16th May 2010, 01:14

I am glad to see you have found your place, hand in hand with the US bourgeois propagandists, worshiping the murderer of the leaders of October.
Hearing an insult from a supporter of Nazi collaborators is an honor. :)

16th May 2010, 02:00

HAHAHA wow you got demolished on that TIME magazine thing. You really need to learn to just accept when you're wrong.

The Intransigent Faction

16th May 2010, 07:35

Hearing an insult from a supporter of Nazi collaborators is an honor. :)

The leaders of the October Revolution were Nazi collaborators...say what?

I think you missed his point.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th May 2010, 07:39

The leaders of the October Revolution were Nazi collaborators...say what?

I think you missed his point.

And I think this thread is a morass of sectarian squabbles.

16th May 2010, 08:27

And I think this thread is a morass of sectarian squabbles.
...and that's why we love it, no? :wub:

KlÃ©ber

16th May 2010, 08:42

This would really be an epic tendency war if I was claiming Stalin was an undercover cop (http://books.google.com/books?id=SE8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false). I don't believe that, but it would make more sense than the lies that Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin, together with virtually all the Bolshevik leaders and Red Army officers of proven merit from the 1917 Revolution and Civil War, abandoned Bolshevism in 1918 and became secret terrorists and Nazi agents. Trotskyists have real criticisms of the Stalinist regime's policies, not unprovable conspiracy theories. The real sectarians are the ones who say all the deformed workers' states, except Albania or China depending on which type of sectarian you are, instantly became "revisionist state capitalist" after the death of Stalin or Beria.

Chambered Word

16th May 2010, 10:23

Are you saying Trotsky was wrong? Socialism can be turned on and off like a light-switch by a committee of bureaucrats? A more progressive system can be reverted to a reactionary obsolete system by the ideas of one Khrushchev or Brezhnev? Let me guess you will ignore this like all of my main points, and regurgitate more of the conspiracy theories.

This is definately the biggest problem with the Stalinist line, let's see if anyone has an answer.

bie

16th May 2010, 11:40

The leaders of the October Revolution were Nazi collaborators...say what?
Lets concentrate on more obvious examples. Never heard of gen. Vlasov?

And I think this thread is a morass of sectarian squabbles.
True. Some are trying to cover the valuable arguments and information under piles of rubbish.

Are you saying Trotsky was wrong?
THATS IT! Trotsky was wrong. Let me repeat explicitly where:

On Kirov assassination
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.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...4/12/kirov.htm)

Socialism can be turned on and off like a light-switch by a committee of bureaucrats?
No. It is actually quite a long and complex process. The decisive role is the balance of power - explicitly within rulling CP (as the principle of the dictatorship of proletaryat). When CP is dominated by the forces/ideology that is by definition hostile to the interests of proletaryat, there is a danger of the counterrevolutionary actions. The essence of counterrevolution lies in demolishing socialist relations of production and imposing ones based on the private property and market economy. Thats why the counterrevolution finally succeeded in 1991 (not 1917, 1928, 1956 as some confused comrades admit). The sources of counterrevolutionary influence are:
1) internal groups that lost power/priviledges in the Revolution (bourgeoisie, aristocracy, rich peasants) - this is quite rich and influential group
2) external influence of imperialism and imperialist ideology - eg. spies, saboteurs, anti-communist propagandists etc.
3) groups reproducing on the basis of remaining capitalist-like relations (eg. black market)
4) organizations like Catholic Church

The balance of forces in the power of the socialist state is obviously influenced by the objective factors as the international situation, arm race, state of economy etc. If you want to find an explanation what actually happened - you won't find it if you believe in trivial and ahistorical theory the the "power in hands of bureaucracy".

A more progressive system can be reverted to a reactionary obsolete system by the ideas of one Khrushchev or Brezhnev?
This is bulshit again. Who told you that more progressive system can be reverted back to reactionary by ideas of one Khruszchev or Brezhnev? There was a huge discussion on it in the whole period of 1928-1991, where supporters of capitalist relations in socialism (eg. Bucharin) with support of the reactionary groups and remains of reactionary classes were struggling with ones that wanted to expand socialist relations. And the overall balance of ideas was based on the balance of the struggle of internal forces - revolution vs counterrevolution. If you don't believe that a progressive system can be reverted to a reactionary, there is a number of historical examples:

Capitalist relations of production, as a historically new form of exploitation of man by man, with the relation of wage labour-capital, appeared and were extended in the second half of the 14th century in the cities of northern Italy (e.g. Genoa, Venice, etc.) However, for a variety of reasons, they could not pass to a higher level of development and become dominant, which had as a result a return to feudal relations. The development of capitalist relations later in England and in Holland in the 16th century brought the bourgeoisie to the forefront and led to a series of bourgeois revolutions until, finally, through a process of conflict and compromise with the feudal classes, it was able to establish itself in the 19th century. In the “History of the World” of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. C2, p. 943-983, the course of the extension of capitalist relations in the cities of northern Italy is described in detail, as well as the process of their decay and overthrow, that led to the return and dominance of feudal relations. A characteristic revealing the extent that capitalist relations had reached in Italian cities was that harsh class conflicts, including uprisings and strikes, took place between hired laborers and bourgeois artisans, merchants and bankers. One characteristic event concerns the case of the uprising of 4,000 workers in textile manufacturing shops in Florence in 1343. In the 15th century the manufacturing industry was restricted and the rich city residents transferred funds into agricultural activities. One key fact that reveals the retreat of capitalist relations is that, while in the 13th century, in certain cities serfdom had been abolished or relaxed, in the second half of the 15th century a return to it took place. (Vol. C2, p. 962-964)

Let me guess you will ignore this like all of my main points, and regurgitate more of the conspiracy theories.
You are right as always :) They are not "conspiracy theories", but quite an important chapter in the history of XX Socialism and not only. 5th columns were quite an important source of Nazi power in the occupied areas. Let me state a few examples:

In Czechoslovakia: Trotskyites were working in collaboration with the Nazi agent Konrad Henlein and his Sudeten Deutsche Partei (German Sudeten Party). Sergei Bessonov, the Trotskyite courier who had been a counselor at the Soviet Embassy in Berlin, testified when he was on trial in 1938 that in the summer of 1935 he had established connections in Prague with Konrad Henlein. Bessonov stated that he personally had acted as an intermediary between Henlein's group and Leon Trotsky.

In France: Jacques Doriot, Nazi agent and founder of the fascist Popular Party, was a renegade Communist and Trotskyite. Doriot worked closely, as did other Nazi agents and French fascists, with the French section of the Trotskyite Fourth International.

In Spain: Trotskyites permeated the ranks of the P.O.U.M., the Fifth Column organization which was aiding Franco's Fascist uprising. The head of the P.O.U.M. was Andreas Nin, Trotsky's old friend and ally.

In China: Trotskyites were operating under the direct supervision of the Japanese Military Intelligence. Their work was highly regarded by leading Japanese Intelligence officers. The chief of the Japanese espionage service in Peiping stated in 1937: "We should support the group of Trotskyites and promote their success, so that their activities in various parts of China may benefit and advantage the empire, for these Chinese are destructive to the unity of the country. They work with remarkable finesse and skill."

In Japan: Trotskyites were called the "brain trust of the secret service." They instructed Japanese secret agents at special schools on the techniques of penetrating the Communist Party in Soviet Russia and of combating anti-fascist activities in China and Japan.

In Sweden: Nils Hyg, one of the leading Trotskyites, had received a financial subsidy from the pro-Nazi financier and swindler, Ivar Kreuger. The fact. of Kreuger's subsidization of the Trotskyite movement were made public after Kreuger's suicide, when the auditors found among his papers receipts from all sorts of political adventurers, including Adolf Hitler.

Throughout the world, the Trotskyites had become the instruments by which the Axis intelligence services sought to penetrate the liberal, radical and labor movements for their own ends.(3)

The final debacle of the Russian Fifth Column at the Moscow trail of the Bloc of the Rights and Trotskyites was a stunning blow to Trotsky. A note of desperation and hysteria began to dominate his writings. His propaganda against the Soviet Union grew increasingly reckless, contradictory and extravagant. He talked incessantly about his own "historical rightness." His attacks against Josef Stalin lost all semblance of reason. He wrote articles asserting that the Soviet leader derived sadistic pleasure from "blowing smoke" in the faces of infants. More and more, his consuming personal hatred of Stalin became the dominating force in Trotsky's life. He set his secretaries to work on a massive, vituperative 1000-page Life o f Stalin.
(...)

Notes:

3. Even after Trotsky's death, the Fourth International continued to carry on its Fifth Column activities.

In Great Britain, in April 1944, Scotland Yard and police officials raided the Trotskyite headquarters in London, Glasgow, Wallsend and Nottingham, after discovering that Trotskyites were fomenting strikes throughout the country in an attempt to disrupt the British war effort.

In the United States, on December 1, 1941, eighteen leading American Trotskyites were found guilty in a Federal District Court in Minneapolis of conspiring to undermine the loyalty and discipline of American soldiers and sailors.

Convicted along with Trotsky's lawyer, Albert Goldman, were James P. Cannon, national secretary of the Socialist Workers' Party (the name under which the Trotsky movement operated in the United States); Felix Morrow, editor of the Trotskyite newspaper, the Militant; Jake Cooper, one of Trotsky's former bodyguards in Mexico; and fourteen other leading members of the American Trotskyite movement. They received prison sentences ranging from a year and a day to sixteen months.

Grant Dunne, one of the chief Trotskyites in the American labor movement, who had been named in the Federal indictment, committed suicide three weeks before the trial began.

In March 1943, the Trotskyite organ, the Militant, was barred from the U.S. mails on the grounds that the publication was seeking "to embarrass and defeat the government in its effort to prosecute the war to a successful termination." After an investigation of the Militant, the Department of Justice issued a statement which read in 'part: "Since December 7, 1941, this publication has openly discouraged participation in the war by the masses of the people. . . . The lines of this publication also include derision of democracy . . and other material . . . appearing to be calculated to engender opposition to the war effort, as well as to interfere with the morale of the armed forces."

The American foreign correspondent, Paul Ghali of the Chicago Daily News, reported from Switzerland on September 28, 1944, that Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Gestapo, was making use of the European Trotskyites as part of the planned Nazi underground for postwar sabotage and intrigue. Ghali reported that fascist youth organizations were being trained in Trotskyite "Marxism," supplied with false papers and arms and left behind Allied lines with orders to infiltrate the Communist Parties in the liberated areas. In France, Ghali revealed, members of Joseph Darnand's fascist Militia were being armed by the Nazis for terrorism and postwar Fifth Column activities. "This scum of the French population," Ghali's report added, "is being now trained for Bolshevik activity in the tradition of Trotsky's International under the personal orders of Heinrich Himmler. Their work is to sabotage allied communication lines and assassinate De Gaullist French politicians. They are being instructed to tell their fellow-countrymen that the presentday Soviet represents only a bourgeois deformation of Lenin's original principles and that it is high time to return to sound Bolshevik ideology. This formation of groups of red terrorists is Himmler's most recent policy, aimed at creating a fourth international, amply contaminated by Nazi germs. It is aimed against both British and Americans and Russians, particularly the Russians."

From: Sayers and Kahn

bie

18th May 2010, 15:49

Some hours ago I e-mailed a professor I know who specializes in Soviet history, inquiring about the Moscow Trials. I'm hoping she will have some more leads.
Any answer yet? If it is "so obvious", it shouldn't be a problem to find an evidence that the confessions on Moscow trials were forced. If not - what stops us from admitting that "maybe there was something in those charges"? A sort of a strong conviction? Or a religious belief?

Robocommie

18th May 2010, 15:56

.
Any answer yet? If it is "so obvious", it shouldn't be a problem to find an evidence that the confessions on Moscow trials were forced. If not - what stops us from admitting that "maybe there was something in those charges"? A sort of a strong conviction? Or a religious belief?

Good Lord, are you still harping on about this and making jibes about a religious belief? I'm not the one clinging to my demigods, and there's far more faith and stubbornness required to believe the Moscow Trials and the Purges actually had a purpose other than reckless and tragic waste of life.

But you're not going to get a quick answer. The Spring semester is over, the summer break has begun. It's likely the professor I e-mailed won't even be checking her e-mail for several months. Why don't you just relax and find something more worthy of your attentions, like I've been doing?

bie

18th May 2010, 16:10

ok, no problem, take your time :)

Spawn of Stalin

18th May 2010, 19:55

KlÃ©ber

18th May 2010, 20:25

Some are trying to cover the valuable arguments and information under piles of rubbish.
You are the one who, instead of defending Stalinist crimes, flings 100-year old turds of conspiracy theory nonsense.

THATS IT! Trotsky was wrong. Let me repeat explicitly where:I already responded to that. Since you didn't read my post, I don't feel like repeating myself.

No. It is actually quite a long and complex process. The decisive role is the balance of power - explicitly within rulling CP (as the principle of the dictatorship of proletaryat). When CP is dominated by the forces/ideology that is by definition hostile to the interests of proletaryat, there is a danger of the counterrevolutionary actions.Forces/ideology? You can't specify? It is because you can't identify restorationist forces under "socialism." Socialism was not destroyed by ideas. Socialism never existed, and public industry was abolished by the interests of a bureaucratic ruling caste, not ghosts of the nonexistent bourgeoisie nor black-market hucksters on the corner. Your analysis is fundamentally un-Marxist.

The essence of counterrevolution lies in demolishing socialist relations of production and imposing ones based on the private property and market economy. Thats why the counterrevolution finally succeeded in 1991 (not 1917, 1928, 1956 as some confused comrades admit). Yes, the ruling caste did not transition into a bourgeoisie until 1991, but there was a social division there already, the bourgeois ideas didn't come out of thin air. Socialist relations of production were never established. The wage differences were not reduced (inequality grew if anything as privileges accumulated under Stalin, partmaximum was abolished, and corruption exploded under Brezhnev), proletarian democracy was not established, so it remained partially capitalist as Lenin had said. As for the 1928 thing, the Left Opposition was defeated in 1928 but that doesn't mean the social system changed any more than Khrushchev's rise to power constituted a qualitative shift in relations of production. Remember that even Stalin did not claim to have established socialism in 1928, it was not until 1936 that they started pushing that lie.

The sources of counterrevolutionary influence are:
1) internal groups that lost power/priviledges in the Revolution (bourgeoisie, aristocracy, rich peasants) - this is quite rich and influential group
2) external influence of imperialism and imperialist ideology - eg. spies, saboteurs, anti-communist propagandists etc.
3) groups reproducing on the basis of remaining capitalist-like relations (eg. black market)
4) organizations like Catholic ChurchThe Catholic Church, people whose granddaddy was a prince, and people selling watches out of their coat pocket weren't the "socialist" rulers who privatized the economy and capitulated to US imperialism. It was the Communist Party bureaucrats who restored capitalism, not the "imperialist-inclined" petty bourgeoisie. You think Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev were some sort of petty-bourgeois who watched American cartoons and sold black market goods in an alleyway on weekends?

The balance of forces in the power of the socialist state is obviously influenced by the objective factors as the international situation, arm race, state of economy etc. If you want to find an explanation what actually happened - you won't find it if you believe in trivial and ahistorical theory the the "power in hands of bureaucracy".It was the bureaucracy that controlled the political system, and despite strong limits on profit accumulation until 1991, they slowly accumulated power until they were strong enough to become an outright capitalist class. The bureaucracy did restore capitalism in 1991, it's proven fact. That theory makes a lot more sense than yours, that some Catholic smugglers broke into the Kremlin and pressed the "TURN OFF SOCIALISM" button one day in 1991!

This is bulshit again. Who told you that more progressive system can be reverted back to reactionary by ideas of one Khruszchev or Brezhnev? There was a huge discussion on it in the whole period of 1928-1991, where supporters of capitalist relations in socialism (eg. Bucharin) with support of the reactionary groups and remains of reactionary classes were struggling with ones that wanted to expand socialist relations. Oh yeah, what happened to the people who opposed the restorationists? They were shot and sent to forced labor camps. Without democracy, the proletariat can't challenge the bureaucrats. Stalinism has only led to capitalist restoration, never to socialism.

And the overall balance of ideas was based on the balance of the struggle of internal forces - revolution vs counterrevolution. If you don't believe that a progressive system can be reverted to a reactionary, there is a number of historical examples:Yes and there were actual social forces, as it happened in the USSR, not some evil leader who pissed away Great Stalin's inheritance that we can handily blame everything on.

You are right as always :) They are not "conspiracy theories", but quite an important chapter in the history of XX Socialism and not only. 5th columns were quite an important source of Nazi power in the occupied areas. Let me state a few examples: (Sayers and Kahn) Lies, lies, and more lies. There are no sources for all of these claims except slanderous Stalinist rags. Collaboration between the KPD and NSDAP during the Third Period in joint marches and the "Red Referendum," and the actual alliance between Germany and the USSR which partitioned Poland and allowed Hitler to take over Western Europe unchallenged, is widely known and documented unlike these fairy tales. Tell me who was the opportunist traitor when the Comintern said India and Vietnam didn't deserve freedom but Austria and Czechoslovakia did during the Popular Front, or praised the anti-imperialism of Hitler and Mussolini during Molotov-Ribbentrop.

The claim that Doriot was a Trotskyist was hilarious though. Apparently just being slandered as one when he was kicked out of the PCF makes him one. Actually "Trotskyite" was a catch-all term for any socialist who opposed the zig-zags of Stalinist policy, it's just about meaningless when analyzing Stalinist slander.

As for the British and American Trotskyists, yes, they opposed Browderism? good for them. Unlike Trotsky who did not appear before the Dies Committee, CPUSA goons Earl Browder and William Z. Foster did appear before HUAC to denounce the SWP.

The claims about the POUM are total bullshit. Goebbels said that he thought the POUM was controlled by the Comintern because it had been loyal to the Popular Front to the bitter end.

Ask a college professor sixty or seventy years ago and they will tell you that US congressmen and British QCs attended some of the hearings and gave the trials their approval, they will also recommend you watch a good Hollywood film commissioned by pres FDR called Mission to Moscow, in which the trials are largely portrayed as due process, and Stalin is portrayed in an exceptional light. That being said I do understand that living in America or western Europe it is difficult to form your own opinions about some things, especially when your government changes its mind about who is one of the good guys or one of the bad guys every five minutes.
Apparently Stalinist trolls change their line every five minutes too. First, you lot were saying that a TIME magazine article that speaks favorably about Trotsky's political abilities proves that the revolutionary leader was a CIA agent. Now you say that since American and British imperialists applauded the massacre of Bolsheviks in 1936-41, Stalin must have been progressive indeed.

KlÃ©ber

18th May 2010, 20:44

there's far more faith and stubbornness required to believe the Moscow Trials and the Purges actually had a purpose other than reckless and tragic waste of life.
It was tragic, but it wasn't reckless, from the perspective of Stalin's clique holding onto power. There was massive opposition to the Stalin regime, some of these people were almost certainly plotting to fulfill Lenin's testament and remove the General Secretary. Stalin was not a great Marxist thinker, but he was a great politician. The only way for him to deal with the opposition from the working class, and fellow bureaucrats who thought his clique were incompetent buffoons, was to wipe out everyone who was capable of making independent political decisions, and strangle what remained of party democracy after the doomed Seventeenth Congress. This ensured Stalin's hold on power, but it severely lowered the cultural level of the ruling stratum, as it left hardly any Bolsheviks with both principle and intelligence alive. Some of the charges in the trials are probably true; which ones, we will never know, because the jurispudential standards of the purges made the Inquisition look fair. More charges also (as with Yagoda and Yezhov) were likely Stalin's own calls being blamed on scapegoats.

Spawn of Stalin

18th May 2010, 21:16

Apparently Stalinist trolls change their line every five minutes too. First, you lot were saying that a TIME magazine article that speaks favorably about Trotsky's political abilities proves that the revolutionary leader was a CIA agent. Now you say that since American and British imperialists applauded the massacre of Bolsheviks in 1936-41, Stalin must have been progressive indeed.

This is not changing lines, both are true and well documented, there are many bourgeois sources (including Time magazine) which portray Trotsky in a partially positive, or at least sympathetic light, and the establishment, or at least part of it, did at one point support the Moscow Trials. Though for what it's worth, I did not claim that Time were sympathetic towards Trotsky, but I would probably agree with such a claim, I read a Time article quite a long time ago, this before I considered myself a Marxist-Leninist and I was actually close to the British SWP at the time, called 'Exile Trotsky', I don't remember all the details of the article but I do specifically remember the magazine referring to Trotsky as Lenin's "Ideological successor" and the "Logical heir to socialist Russia", they also called him one of the "Original and greatest leaders of the Russian Revolution", whether or not these things are true is a debate for another day, but there can be no denying that this demonstrates clear bias towards Trotsky, and against Stalin.

And please don't call us trolls, until I was accused of being one myself I didn't know what this word meant, so I looked it up, and since we are generally sincere in our beliefs, we are not trolls. There are a lot of things you could accuse us of being, instead you choose to call us trolls

Spawn of Stalin

18th May 2010, 21:20

This is not changing lines, both are true and well documented, there are many bourgeois sources (including Time magazine) which portray Trotsky in a partially positive, or at least sympathetic light, and the establishment, or at least part of it, did at one point support the Moscow Trials. Though for what it's worth, I did not claim that Time were sympathetic towards Trotsky, but I would probably agree with such a claim, I read a Time article quite a long time ago, this before I considered myself a Marxist-Leninist and I was actually close to the British SWP at the time, called 'Exile Trotsky', I don't remember all the details of the article but I do specifically remember the magazine referring to Trotsky as Lenin's "Ideological successor" and the "Logical heir to socialist Russia", they also called him one of the "Original and greatest leaders of the Russian Revolution", whether or not these things are true is a debate for another day, but there can be no denying that this demonstrates clear bias towards Trotsky, and against Stalin.

Okay I actually found the article and funnily enough it begins by talking about how Trotsky wrote in the New York Times. Why on earth would the Times give Trotsky even five lines in their paper? Unless they liked the guy...

It also repeatedly refers to Stalin as "the Dictator", but not once speaks of Trotsky's authoritarian ills.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846273-1,00.html

Robocommie

18th May 2010, 21:23

With regards to the Moscow Trials, historians' opinions and analysis of them changes like the wind and it will probably be the same with a college professor, most will tell you that they were illegal and illegitimate, with a few exceptions, Grover Furr perhaps being the most notable. Ask a college professor sixty or seventy years ago and they will tell you that US congressmen and British QCs attended some of the hearings and gave the trials their approval, they will also recommend you watch a good Hollywood film commissioned by pres FDR called Mission to Moscow, in which the trials are largely portrayed as due process, and Stalin is portrayed in an exceptional light. That being said I do understand that living in America or western Europe it is difficult to form your own opinions about some things, especially when your government changes its mind about who is one of the good guys or one of the bad guys every five minutes.

Ultimately this just seems to lead to a sort of nihilistic attitude where you can really believe whatever you want, because if you cling to your evidence, and I cling to mine, the truth is irrelevant.

While I'm not a strict empiricist, this seems really un-helpful. Particularly because saying what you say about historian's opinions changing like the wind implies they're sitting in their office, making up their mind at the start of each day of which position they're in the mood to support. But when historians change their mind, they do so through argumentation and the analysis of newly available information. History isn't like biology or mathematics, but there is a science to it nonetheless.

Robocommie

18th May 2010, 21:28

Okay I actually found the article and funnily enough it begins by talking about how Trotsky wrote in the New York Times. Why on earth would the Times give Trotsky even five lines in their paper? Unless they liked the guy...

Well, frankly, having a personal affinity for somebody is not as important in the magazine business as doing something you think would sell well.

I once saw CNN's Wolf Blitzer give an interview to David Duke. As much as I thought it was morally bankrupt and idiotic to do so, I don't imagine you would think this means a Polish-American Jew like Wolf Blitzer digs what David Duke is all about.

Spawn of Stalin

18th May 2010, 22:07

Well, frankly, having a personal affinity for somebody is not as important in the magazine business as doing something you think would sell well.

I once saw CNN's Wolf Blitzer give an interview to David Duke. As much as I thought it was morally bankrupt and idiotic to do so, I don't imagine you would think this means a Polish-American Jew like Wolf Blitzer digs what David Duke is all about.

I don't know, I would argue that being interviewed on television and writing an article for a bourgeois newspaper are quite different things. There is a line to be drawn somewhere, if someone from my party was interviewed on BBC news I would have no problems, but if they wrote an article and it got printed in say, the Guardian, or the Express, I would be pretty unhappy about it.

Robocommie

19th May 2010, 01:35

I don't know, I would argue that being interviewed on television and writing an article for a bourgeois newspaper are quite different things. There is a line to be drawn somewhere, if someone from my party was interviewed on BBC news I would have no problems, but if they wrote an article and it got printed in say, the Guardian, or the Express, I would be pretty unhappy about it.

Why? The Guardian is likely to get pretty wide exposure. We're not obligated to be a niche group.

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2010, 01:59

Oh I completely agree that revolutionaries should use as many platforms as possible to get their message across, but having the revolutionary message printed in a bourgeois newspaper, whether it is the Guardian or the New York Times, strongly suggests to me that the message is not so revolutionary anymore, that they have toned things down a bit, whether of their own accord or at the request of the publications. The Times doesn't print the words any old Communist, and they especially didn't in the '30s, just a decade after the first "Red Scare". The New York Times has always represented the establishment and its agenda, they have nothing to gain from giving revolutionaries a platform. I haven't actually read the article in question but it's pretty easy to see that either the Times were using Trotsky as part of their anti-Communist crusade, or that Trotsky was willing to abandon socialism in order to spread the anti-Stalin word, my guess would be that it was somewhere inbetween, a bit of both. The important thing to realise here is that Trotsky used the Times to voice his anti-Stalinism, when he should have been voicing his anti-capitalism. It's pretty clear to me that Trotsky would have rather been associated with capitalism than risk being associated with the Soviet Union, and this is an unfortunate mistake made by many Trots today, Trots who tone down their revolutionary Communism and work with the state (read: the British Labour Party). One thing should be understood, the bourgeois media do not want us to be heard, and they would never give a prominent Communist figure such a Trotsky a platform if there was nothing in it for them. The only point in history when the bourgeois media have shown any sympathy to Communists (though not necessarily Communism) was during the war, and even then it was pretty fringe, they would not just drop their rigid anti-Communist stance for no good reason.

KlÃ©ber

19th May 2010, 06:59

I do specifically remember the magazine referring to Trotsky as Lenin's "Ideological successor" and the "Logical heir to socialist Russia", they also called him one of the "Original and greatest leaders of the Russian Revolution", whether or not these things are true is a debate for another day, but there can be no denying that this demonstrates clear bias towards Trotsky, and against Stalin.
And this is strawman reasoning because the bourgeoisie clearly took Stalin's side in supporting the purges and WWII.

Once again, are you defending actual policies of Stalin's regime like forced resettlement, mass executions, bureaucratic privileges? No, apparently you can't hear because you are head over heels digging through the trash to look for rotten eggs and dirty banana peels to throw at Trotsky's grave. All that is being proved by such putrid century-old slander is the sectarian twittery of Stalinism.

having the revolutionary message printed in a bourgeois newspaper, whether it is the Guardian or the New York Times, strongly suggests to me that the message is not so revolutionary anymoreSo writing in the New York Times, even if they let you say what you want, makes you un-Marxist.. I wonder what you think about the fact that Karl Marx himself, when he was a political exile without a country, wrote for the New York Tribune (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/newspapers/new-york-tribune.htm)?

And please don't call us trolls, until I was accused of being one myself I didn't know what this word meant, so I looked it up, and since we are generally sincere in our beliefs, we are not trolls. There are a lot of things you could accuse us of being, instead you choose to call us trolls Since you know what it means, you should cease and desist from fulfilling the word's definition by pissing on every thread you can with some discredited ancient slander about Trotsky being a Nazi CIA agent, apparently to make "the Trots" look bad by provoking an emotional response. If you were sincere you would answer the criticisms of state policy and the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution, and cut the conspiracy theory turd-flinging.

It's pretty clear to me that Trotsky would have rather been associated with capitalism than risk being associated with the Soviet UnionIf Trotskyists didn't want to be associated with the Russian Revolution they would not have called themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists."

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2010, 10:43

You know Kleber I'm not even going to respond to you if all you can do is call us sectarian trolls. I will discuss anything with almost anyone, but you frankly are an idiot and a coward, you refuse to respond to the real criticisms instead relying on technicalities and historical inaccuracies thus becoming a Trotskyite parody of the Stalinists you despise so so much. Please reply to the message I left on your profile a few days ago, you know, the one you swiftly deleted.

xx

Qayin

19th May 2010, 10:48

You know Kleber I'm not even going to respond to you if all you can do is call us sectarian trolls. Your are an idiot and a coward. Please reply to the message I left on your profile a few days ago, you know, the one you swiftly deleted.

Reply to his message above then.

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2010, 10:55

Please don't a. derail the topic, or b. tell me what to do,especially the second one, if you're going to tell me what to do you should at least say please. I might consider replying to him when he takes the time to reply to me...but I probably won't because a. his positions are clearly not going to change, and b. it's not really something I give a shit about, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Frankly I have much better things to do with my time than sit around replying to thoughtless posts, like reading the new edition of Vogue, or slowly cutting off my balls with blunt scissors.

KlÃ©ber

19th May 2010, 17:11

I don't remember what the message you left was. Can't have been good. Repost it here? Also, if you're going to cry about being called out as a troll, you should know that your clever little portmanteau of a user title, "Trollskyist," is just a tad hypocritical.

Oh and hundreds of thousands of innocent people being executed, entire peoples being forcibly migrated, and the bureaucracy living a privileged existence at the expense of the proletariat aren't "technicalities and historical inaccuracies" like the ridiculous slander you have been spewing.

bie

19th May 2010, 17:24

...hundreds of thousands of innocent people being executed,

It is highly doubtful if the above information is true. According to Dimitri Volkogonov, the person appointed by Yeltsin to take charge of the old Soviet archives, there were 30,514 persons condemned to death by military tribunals between 1 October 1936 and 30 September 1938. In would be quite extravagant to presume that they were all innocent. The number of 700 k executed in 1937-1938 was given by KGB in 1990 only. There is no other document that confirms that. Concerning that in the same time the number of falsified documents accusing Soviets were fabricated (eg. Beria's letter from 05.03.1940) it is highly doubtful that the number given by KGB is true.

Anyway, there were people accused and prosecuted unjustly in that period. And the honor has to be given to them. But thanks to Trotsky and Tuchchevsky for their plan of coup de etat that forced Soviet authorities to such drastic measures.

("According to Isaac Deutscher, himself a Trotskyite, who wrote several books against Stalin and the Soviet Union, the coup was to have been initiated by a military operation against the Kremlin and the most important troops in the big cities, such as Moscow and Leningrad. The conspiracy was, according to Deutscher, headed by Tukhachevsky together with Gamarnik, the head of the army political commissariat, General Yakir, the Commander of Leningrad, General Uborevich, the commander of the Moscow military academy, and General Primakov, a cavalry commander.")

KlÃ©ber

19th May 2010, 17:31

The archives clearly indicate there were around 700,000 executions. That doesn't include everyone who died due to overwork or poor conditions in labor camps under the bourgeois Naftaly Frenkel "work 'em 'til they drop" system of prisoner exploitation.

Trotsky and the shattered opposition were not connected in any way to the planned military coup, which was if anything a defensive response by officers and bureaucrats to the purges which began 1936, not what provoked them. Neither could Trotsky, his supporters having been smashed long before 1937, have known that a coup was underway, nor used his nonexistent organization to make any contact with the secretive plotters if he did know, nor would they have wanted any contact with Trotsky, who they saw as a political enemy and connections with whom would have been a liability. Tukhachevsky, Gamarnik, Yakir, Uborevich and Primakov had all eagerly purged suspected Trotskyists from the army.

bie

19th May 2010, 17:36

Tukhachevsky, Gamarnik, Yakir, Uborevich and Primakov had all eagerly purged suspected Trotskyists from the army
Really? I thought they were best chaps (from Red Cossacs I suppose).

if anything a defensive response to the mass purges by officers and bureaucrats
Ok, but the point is that that "defensive" coup de etat (prepared with help of Germans) caused the death of innocent civilians.

but government archives say there were around 700,000 executions.
I know that you will love if it was true (not only you - but the whole anticommunist and bourgeoisie spectrum). But it is a matter of independent historical research not the preferences of Trots or other anticommunists.

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2010, 17:38

I don't remember what the message you left was. Can't have been good. Repost it here?

To be honest I don't remember either, it probably would helped if you had just replied instead of deleting it. But it was with regards to the neg rep you gave me for this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1747311#post1747311) which said "have you done a revolution in the american hemisphere anywhere lately? trot. fucking trot." I don't know I suppose I was just a little confused as to what it meant, I mean I've always been under the impression that when you neg rep someone you should either call them out on what they are saying, or just say nothing at all instead of resorting to insults which frankly do not make sense, maybe I expected too much from you, or perhaps I missed something.

Also please don't use my user title as an excuse to call me a troll, any idiot can see that it is jest...like I said, there are lots of things you can legitimately call me, but a troll is not one of them, and I'm certainly not a "fucking trot".

bie

19th May 2010, 17:47

The archives clearly indicate there were around 700,000 executions.
Not "the archives" but a single document "found" by KGB in 1990. Dimitri Volkogonov issued another statement on that matter.

Trotsky and the shattered opposition were not connected in any way to the planned military coup, which was if anything a defensive response by officers and bureaucrats to the purges which began 1936, not what provoked them.
Interesting theory but Tuchachevsky himself had also a different opinion. Regardless if plot was "deffensive" or "offensive" or whatever you call it - it was made with the cooperations of Germans and it was the aimed in the people's government. During 2nr world war there was 25 mln of Russian killed. This number would be a leats 2 times greater it Trotsky/Tuchachevsky plot succeded.

KlÃ©ber

19th May 2010, 17:53

Really? I thought they were best chaps (from Red Cossacs I suppose).
Are you implying that they had a better grasp of modern warfare than the cavalryman of past era Budyonny and medal-covered toady Voroshilov? I'll give you that. The fact that the armored warfare and deep operational doctrines of Tukhachevsky and co. could have prevented the disasters of 1941 does not, however, make them into Trotskyists.

Ok, but the point is that that "defensive" coup de etat (prepared with help of Germans) caused the death of innocent civilians.Prepared with help of Germans? I guess no one sins without the help of Satan either? The claim that the Germans were involved is absolutely ludicrous. Tukhachevsky, commander of the Moscow garrison with huge support in the Red Army, hardly needed German paratroopers for his simple task of walking into the Kremlin and shooting Stalin. On the contrary, if there was German aid, obvious arrival of German troops as claimed in the trial accusations would have turned the Soviet people against the coup. This is just part of the Stalinist ideology that restoration could not come from within the USSR, it had to come from outside. This has been proven wrong in 1991 when the bureaucrats themselves restored capitalism.

This misinformation about Nazi-Tukhachevsky was prepared by German SD intelligence and passed through Czechoslovakia in a ploy by Hitler to get the best Soviet generals executed. Stalin for his part wasn't stupid enough to believe Tukhachevsky had anything to do with Nazism (in fact, Tukha was one of the few defendants to protest the charges of espionage at his trial), but he needed to wipe out his political opponents.

I know that you will love if it was true (not only you - but the whole anticommunist and bourgeoisie spectrum). But it is a matter of independent historical research not the preferences of Trots or other anticommunists.Indeed, it is a matter of the historical record, not the preferences of Trotskyites, Stalinites or other strange beasts. The historical record does not say "Stalin good Trotsky bad" or vice versa, it says there were around 700,000 executions by Soviet security services during the purges.

During 2nr world war there was 25 mln of Russian killed. This number would be a leats 2 times greater it Trotsky/Tuchachevsky plot succeded. Considering that Tukhachevsky's theories of mechanized deep battle were rehabilitated after the disasters of 1941, the top Soviet Marshals Zhukov and Rokossovsky (http://www.great-victory1945.ru/marshals_zhukov_and_rokossovsky.jpg) who won the 1945 victory had been disgraced in 1937 for their links to Tukhachevsky, that Tukhachevsky seriously considered the risk of penetration of USSR by German armies as opposed to Stalin and Voroshilov's boasts about "winning the war on the enemy's soil," and that Tukhachevsky's anti-German foreign policy might have prevented the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which allowed Hitler to seize Western Europe unchallenged and then turn all his guns against the Soviet Union.... I don't think so.

this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread...11#post1747311 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1747311#post1747311)) which said "have you done a revolution in the american hemisphere anywhere lately? trot. fucking trot."
I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. You criticized a Great Socialist Man.. how dare you? Have you actually led a revolution? What gives you the right to criticize Comrade Fidel and slander the revolutionary Cuban people? You are obviously supporting the CIA by criticizing socialism in Cuba. Cry more, CIA agent.

Also please don't use my user title as an excuse to call me a troll, any idiot can see that it is jest...like I said, there are lots of things you can legitimately call me, but a troll is not one of them, and I'm certainly not a "fucking trot". And with your little nickname you are implying that all Trotskyists are "Trollskyists" who do nothing other than slander Real Existing Socialism™. In fact, all you apparently do is post illogical troll attacks asserting Trotsky-Nazi-CIA links to provoke an emotional response. So no, you aren't a "fucking trot," you're a fucking hypocrite.