History Test

[Catillina]

I'm gonna wright a test in history , about Hitler Germany and Stalin Russia, and it would be nice if you could complete my notes^^

I'm only gonna ask about Stalin russia, its not much

So terms I have to know are:
- koulak(s): Rich paysans/landowners, who got in a majority expropriated. The land won trough this action, were distributed to the paysans,( or were transformed into kolkhoze/sovkhoze??? not sure about that)


-kolkhoze: Community farm, where the benefit was distributed between the workers(and a part of it to the state?)

-sovkhoze: Farm of the state(or fabrics), where the hole benefit was for the state(but the workers were payed?)

-Goulag: Name of the organisation of the forced labour camps

-stakhanovism: Stakhanov, hero of work, a miner. Propaganda around him, to promote his style of work, for more moral etc.

I have to know a bit about this
Stalinism, national bolschevism:- opposed to trotskis idea for a worldwide revolution, he wanted to deepen the communism inside the country.

There was a sort of leader-cult around Stalin, who promoted himself: Chief of the worker class worldwide(liberal translation out of french)

He reinforce the state(opposite to mark/lenin). Personal interests have to be subordinated to the state's interests

He proclames(in the opposite of Lenin, for whom the russian empire was the "prison of peoples/nations") that Russia has a civilisation bringing role, and that the UdSSR is his successor. He glorifies the grat men of russia, where he also takes place(Alexander Newski, tzar Peter the Great, general Koutosowk,...,Stalin)

Well this is all I could need your help, thank you comrades.

[lombas]

You might add many Koulaks hid or destroyed (parts of) their harvest in resistance to the socialist policies.

A kholkoz was a cooperation of formerly independent small farmers who made up their own policy toward fulfilling the common demands. A sovkhoz was directed by the general socialist policy.

A gulag is indeed a forced labour camp. You might add these reached a high in the 30' and declined from the 60' on.

Stakhanov: indeed.

Stalin was not as much opposed to a worldwide revolution but believed socialism in one country was possible. The Soviet Union was not a communist state, do not use this term.

There was indeed a personality cult of Stalin - also declining from the 60' on.

I do not think Lenin was opposed to strenghtening the state.

I'd say he did influence Russian sentiment indeed.

[ComradeOm]

So terms I have to know are:
- koulak(s): Rich paysans/landowners, who got in a majority expropriated. The land won trough this action, were distributed to the paysans,( or were transformed into kolkhoze/sovkhoze??? not sure about that)The term you're missing is obshchina (commune) which was the basic unit of peasant society pre-Stalin. All the land in a commune was owned collectively by the peasants; ie, kulaks did not formally own seperate plots of land. Stalin's reforms publically targetted these rich peasants but were designed to effectively break up the communes. Land was not redistributed to the poorer peasants - instead all peasants were expected to reject the commune and join the kolkhoz

[Catillina]

The Soviet Union was not a communist state, do not use this term.


Shit, my bad! The subtile propaganda in the books got me by the balls! It's strange, if you read it often enough, you suddenly say it youself, even if you know(or should now) that its wrong.
I'm gonna wright Soviet Socialism in the Test.^^

But to topic, were the kolhozes and sovkhozes founded during the NEP politic? Or after it?

[lombas]

Shit, my bad! The subtile propaganda in the books got me by the balls! It's strange, if you read it often enough, you suddenly say it youself, even if you know(or should now) that its wrong.
I'm gonna wright Soviet Socialism in the Test.^^

But to topic, were the kolhozes and sovkhozes founded during the NEP politic? Or after it?

I'm not sure, but kolhkozes predate the NEP, originating from right after the Revolution. Sovkhozes began being created in the 20', but I'm not sure this means the NEP dictated this. I would say they're separated issues.

[Rjevan]

I have to know a bit about this
Stalinism, national bolschevism:- opposed to trotskis idea for a worldwide revolution, he wanted to deepen the communism inside the country.
The term you look for is "socialism in one country", not national bolshevism; that's something very different ;): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism
Basically socialism in one country is the theory that socialism can be built in a single isolated country after a proletarian revolution. Therefore it is directly opposed to Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" but in no way opposed to world revolution. The aim is not to build a strong socialist country just for its own sake but to strengthen the whole proletariat and the international communist movement as well as anti-imperialist national liberation struggles because it is clear that the chances for the socialist country to survive are drastically increased if revolutions in other countries occur.

That's just a short outline, in order to avoid that this threads turns into a tendency war about the joys and horrors of socialism in one country I'll give you these links to threads about this topic, you can see all the Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist arguments there:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/problem-socialism-one-t125968/index.html?t
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t123138/index.html?t


There was a sort of leader-cult around Stalin, who promoted himself: Chief of the worker class worldwide(liberal translation out of french)
Depends on what you want to believe and on what you want to write in that test. There existed a cult of personality around Stalin which glorified him in many ways. Anti-Stalin communists and the bourgeoisie say it was started and led by Stalin himself very much like Hitler's "Führerkult", Marxist-Leninist say it was started and led by revisionists who later used it against Stalin. There are indeed various quotes which show that Stalin was annoyed and disgusted by the cult around his person and if you have some spare time you might want to read this: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm
But I guess your teacher wants the mainstream version.


He reinforce the state(opposite to mark/lenin). Personal interests have to be subordinated to the state's interests
Strengthening the proletarian (!) state, especially against capitalist individualism, isn't opposite to Lenin, quite the contrary.


He proclames(in the opposite of Lenin, for whom the russian empire was the "prison of peoples/nations") that Russia has a civilisation bringing role, and that the UdSSR is his successor. He glorifies the grat men of russia, where he also takes place(Alexander Newski, tzar Peter the Great, general Koutosowk,...,Stalin)
I've never heard about Stalin hailing the "civilisation bringing role of Russia"... where did you get this from? Stalin actually condemned Great Russian chauvinism repeatedly. And I'm pretty sure he didn't glorify himself as heroic Russian simply because he was a Georgian. ;)

[ComradeOm]

The term you look for is "socialism in one country", not national bolshevism; that's something very different ;): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_BolshevismI'd argue that Stalin benefited from the national bolshevik elements that were increasingly prominent within the CPSU. There is certainly considerable overlap between the constant theme of raising up backwards Russia and the national bolshevik desire to see Russia reclaim its place amongst the Great Powers


Stalin actually condemned Great Russian chauvinism repeatedly. And I'm pretty sure he didn't glorify himself as heroic Russian simply because he was a Georgian. ;)Stalin's first major rift with Lenin was in 1922 over the former's imposition of Great Russian policies in Georgia

[Kléber]

Stalin actually condemned Great Russian chauvinism repeatedly. And I'm pretty sure he didn't glorify himself as heroic Russian simply because he was a Georgian. ;)
So that makes forced migrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union) and "Ethnic Operation" massacres by the NKVD perfectly okay.

I guess the fact that Obama condemns intolerance, and is of African ancestry, makes racist brutality and militarized deportation of immigrants by US police and security services into non-issues as well.

[Rjevan]

I'd argue that Stalin benefited from the national bolshevik elements that were increasingly prominent within the CPSU. There is certainly considerable overlap between the constant theme of raising up backwards Russia and the national bolshevik desire to see Russia reclaim its place amongst the Great Powers
Well, but there's a difference between the national bolshevik desire to make Russia become a superpower and Stalin's efforts to modernize Russia. The latter was done in order to create a solid basis for the proletariat and for the further construction of socialism as well as for the defence of the USSR against imperialist aggression which was certain to take place rather sooner than later. Stalin knew that Russia was hopelessely underdeveloped and had no choice but to modernize the USSR so that more means of productions could be produced and the means for defending the isolated and besieged USSR were increase.
The national bolsheviks aim of a "Greater Russian Reich" is something very different. And Russia's national bolshevik leader Nikolai Ustrialov wasn't shot without any reason but because of "counter-revolutionary activity and anti-Soviet agitation".


Stalin's first major rift with Lenin was in 1922 over the former's imposition of Great Russian policies in Georgia

At first Lenin supported Stalin's stance towards Georgia but suddenly changed his mind. He somehow came to believe that Stalin, Ordzhonikidze (both Georgians) and Dzerzhinsky (a Pole) pursued "Great Russian chauvinist" policies but that was clearly not the case. Georgia was ruled by the Mensheviks who were on good terms with the capitalist West and followed a nationalist line. The invasion of menshevik Georgia was no act of Russian chauvinism, its aim was not to "russify" Georgia but to overthrow a nationalist and bourgeois regime supported by the Entente.


So that makes forced migrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union) and "Ethnic Operation" massacres by the NKVD perfectly okay.

I guess the fact that Obama condemns intolerance, and is of African ancestry, makes racist brutality and militarized deportation of immigrants by US police and security services into non-issues as well.
Oh come on, Kléber...
I was stating that Stalin certainly didn't hail himself as heroic Russian in the line of Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great simply because he wasn't Russian but Georgian. That's a fact and it has absolutely nothing to do with "NKVD massacres" and implies in no way me saying that "racism in the USSR existed and was just fine, 'cos Stalin wasn't Russian, lol". You know that.

[Kléber]

Oh come on, Kléber...
I was stating that Stalin certainly didn't hail himself as heroic Russian in the line of Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great simply because he wasn't Russian but Georgian. That's a fact and it has absolutely nothing to do with "NKVD massacres" and implies in no way me saying that "racism in the USSR existed and was just fine, 'cos Stalin wasn't Russian, lol". You know that.
No, it seems more like you are saying "'Racism' in the USSR did not exist because Stalin wasn't Russian." What Stalin "hailed himself" as is irrelevant, as is his ethnic background; politicians should be assessed based on what they do not what they say. Obama is a murderous imperialist scoundrel who presides over a racist state in spite of his charismatic hypocrisy and non-white ancestry.

Alexander Nevsky was indeed hailed as a heroic Russian leader (I'm guessing you've seen the movie) by Stalin's regime, as were Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible. Stalin changed his own political position over time; the Nevsky movie was banned from theaters during Molotov-Ribbentrop, for its anti-German allegory, and a study of Soviet propaganda shows that Great-Russian nationalism was rehabilitated and glorified at the expense of proletarian internationalism throughout the 1930's and 40's. Tsars, despots and generals once denounced for the oppression of peoples came to be regarded as national heroes.

As noted by Maureen Perrie in The Cult of Ivan the Terrible in Stalin's Russia (Studies in Russian & Eastern European History, Palgrave Macmillan 2002), Stalin personally intervened in the production of Eisenstein's film about Ivan IV, referred to him as a "great and wise ruler," and bemoaned his failure to "knife through" five noble families the elimination of whom he alleged could have spared Russia the Time of Troubles. The opening scene declares: "This film is about the man who first united our country in the sixteenth century; about the Prince of Muscovy who created a single mighty state from various divided and self-seeking principalities; about the commander who enhanced the military renown of our Motherland in the East and in the West; about a ruler who, in order to fulfil these gr'eat tasks, was the first to assume the title of ‘Tsar of All the Russias’." While the script went through many revisions at state behest, mainly to draw parallels between Ivan's conquest of Livonia and Stalin's annexation of the Baltic States, and deal with the shift from Poland to Germany being the prime enemy after the end of Molotov-Ribbentrop, the film ended up arousing the Gensec's ire because of an apparent derisory analogy between the oprichnina and the NKVD.

From Perrie:

The concept of ‘tsarism as the prison of peoples’ was officially modified as early as August 1937, when the results of the competition for the new primary-school history textbook were announced. The Jury's report criticized the texts submitted for failing to give a positive assessment of the role of Bogdan Khmel'nitskii in the struggle of Ukraine against Polish and Turkish occupation, and it stated that Russia's acquisition of Ukraine in the seventeenth century, like that of Georgia at the end of the eighteenth, had to be seen not as an ‘absolute evil’, but as a ‘lesser evil’ than the alternatives of conquest by Poland and Turkey, and by Persia and Turkey, respectively. In relation to foreign policy, similar shifts were taking place. The Jury's report had criticized the authors of the textbooks for failing to give a correctly positive assessment of the role of Alexander Nevskii in halting the eastward movement of the ‘German occupiers’ in the Battle on the Ice of 1242, thereby dropping a clear hint about a contemporary analogy that would soon be taken up both by professional historians and by creative artists. Shortly after the announcement of the results of the textbook competition in August 1937, Pravda stated that ‘in response to demand from its readers’ it was beginning to publish a series of articles on the history of ‘our native land’. The series began with an article about Alexander Nevskii's defeat of the knights of the Livonian Order, which stressed parallels with the Nazis. And although the ‘Observations’ of 1934 had stated that tsarist foreign policy was reactionary from the reign of Catherine the Great onwards (i.e. from the late eighteenth century), only a few days after publishing the article about Alexander Nevskii, Pravda began its celebration of the 125th anniversary of the Battle of Borodino (which fell on 7 September). This commemoration included articles about Kutuzov, illustrated with portraits of the ‘great general’; another theme in the commemorations was the way in which Borodino had been celebrated not only in Russian folklore but also in the works of the greatest writers and poets of the Russian people: Pushkin, Lermontov and – of course – Leo Tolstoi. Thus within the space of a few days we can see the beginnings of what was to become a definite pattern in Soviet patriotic popularization of history: the marking of events which provided analogies with specific contemporary relevance (such as the Battle on the Ice), and also anniversaries (such as that of 1812) which had a more general patriotic resonance.
Observant contemporaries noticed what was going on. A report from the US Military Attaché in Moscow, of 15 September 1937, entitled ‘Nationalism in the Soviet Union’, drew attention to many current manifestations of this phenomenon, including not only the celebration of 1812, but also the release of the feature film Peter I, in which ‘Czar Peter is shown as the heroic defender of his country against the invading forces from the west’. The report also noted that in the new school history textbooks, ‘Historical events which involved defense against invading Poles, and Germans are especially stressed’. And a report to Washington from the US Chargé d'Affaires in Riga, dated 10 November 1937, enclosed a translation of the findings of the Jury in the history textbook competition, and drew attention to the contemporary relevance of some of the issues highlighted in the Jury's report: the depiction of the historical role of the Orthodox church; the extension of Russian rule over Georgia and Ukraine; and the defeat of the German knights in the mid-thirteenth century.

...

With the German invasion of June 1941, the ‘defence’ theme again became more relevant. Even before that date, some of the more far-sighted Soviet leaders, anticipating an enemy attack, had called for the preparation of propagandistic historical works for defence purposes. The effectiveness of artistic works about Russian history was stressed in a report to Zhdanov from A. Zaporozhets, the head of political propaganda of the Red Army, in January 1941. Zaporozhets complained about the shortage of historical-patriotic propaganda to raise the morale of the troops. He called for more theatrical works such as Ivan Susanin, Suvorov and Field Marshal Kutuzov, and he suggested that films should be made on such themes as 1812 and the defence of Sevastopol' during the Crimean War. Even earlier than this, in a speech in May 1940, L. Z. Mekhlis, Zaporozhets' predecessor as chief of the Red Army's political directorate, had evoked the tsarist generals Suvorov, Kutuzov and Bagration as military heroes who should feature in patriotic propaganda directed towards the troops.
The Nazi invasion triggered a great outburst of propaganda about historical precedents, most of them already familiar from the late 1930s. Yaroslavskii's Pravda article of 23 June 1941 cited Alexander Nevskii, Kutuzov and Bagration. Eisenstein's Alexander Nevskii returned to cinema screens on the second day of the war, and in July 1941 the film was advertised by a poster in which Nevskii and a German knight cast shadows in the form of a Red Army soldier and a Nazi stormtrooper respectively. Throughout the war, the film was constantly shown at the front.

...

Stalin's specific criticisms [of Eisenstein] repeated points made in earlier official responses to the film (which had, of course, been based on the Party leader's own initial reaction). He criticized Eisenstein's depiction of the oprichnina as ‘like the Ku-Klux-Klan’ (adding that ‘the oprichniki during their dances look like cannibals and remind one of some kind of Phoenicians and Babylonians’), whereas in reality it was ‘a royal troop …, a progressive army’. Ivan was shown as ‘irresolute, like Hamlet. Everyone tells him what to do, he himself does not make decisions.’ In reality he was a ‘great and wise ruler’, in a much higher class than Louis XI. Zhdanov added that Eisenstein's Ivan looked ‘like a neurasthenic’, while Molotov complained about the film's stress ‘on psychologism, on inner psychological contradictions and personal emotions’.
It was Molotov who first raised the issue of the film's depiction of ‘repressions’: ‘You can show conspiracies and repressions, but not exclusively.’ At this point Stalin made his comment that ‘Ivan the Terrible was very ruthless. One can show that he was ruthless. But you must show why it was necessary to be ruthless.’ Stalin too was clearly not disturbed by the depiction of executions in the film: Cherkasov asked specific questions about Staritskii's assassination and about an episode, apparently intended for Part Three, in which Malyuta strangled Filipp, and the actor was assured by Stalin that these scenes could be retained. In relation to this point Molotov added helpfully that, ‘repressive measures can and must be shown, but we must show why they were implemented, and for what purpose. For this we must show more state activities – not only scenes in basements and enclosed places but general state activities.’

[Rjevan]

You're completely misinterpreting my post...


What Stalin "hailed himself" as is irrelevant
No, it isn't, not in the context of this thread. Catillina told us he has to write a history test and asked some questions and made some statements. I directly replied to these statements, more specific to the following which I'll now split into two separate quotes to hopefully make it clear how my reply was meant:


He proclames(in the opposite of Lenin, for whom the russian empire was the "prison of peoples/nations") that Russia has a civilisation bringing role, and that the UdSSR is his successor.
That's part one. My reply to this was "I've never heard about Stalin hailing the 'civilisation bringing role of Russia'... where did you get this from? Stalin actually condemned Great Russian chauvinism repeatedly."

Like he did e.g. in the "Speech to the Twelfth Congress of the RCP(b)":

The chief danger that arises from this is that, owing to the N.E.P., dominant-nation chauvinism is growing in our country by leaps and bounds, striving to obliterate all that is not Russian, to gather all the threads of government into the hands of Russians and to stifle everything that is not Russian. The chief danger is that with such a policy we run the risk that the Russian proletarians will lose the confidence of the formerly oppressed nations which they won in the October days [...]
Unless we all arm ourselves against this new, I repeat, Great-Russian chauvinism, which is advancing, creeping, insinuating itself drop by drop into the eyes and ears of our officials and step by step corrupting them, we may lose down to the last shreds the confidence we earned at that time. It is this danger, comrades, that we must defeat at all costs.

This is the point where we disagree, we could discuss if he just payed lip-service to the struggle against Russian chauvinism but in reality fueled and used it for his aims or if he really did his best to fight it under varying and difficult circumstances.

But now comes part two, which deals with another statement and was answered by me in a second sentence, separated from the first statement as well as from the first reply:

He glorifies the grat men of russia, where he also takes place(Alexander Newski, tzar Peter the Great, general Koutosowk,...,Stalin)
My reply: "[And] I'm pretty sure he didn't glorify himself as heroic Russian simply because he was a Georgian. ;)"

I said (for the sake of historical accuracy and the history test) Stalin didn't glorify himself as a great Russian and could have hardly done so because he isn't Russian but Georgian (note the winking smiley which was placed there to emphasize that it's a funny contradiction to call the Georgian Stalin a great Russian and not to express my cynicism or my diabolical joy about my awesome appology for "Stalin's racism"...). Once again, that's a fact. In no way it implies that there could have never been racism in Russia or that racism would be alright or whatever. And it also doesn't deny that Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great were glorified nor that Stalin was glorified.

I could now question the objectivity and thus validity of bourgeois historians and their works as well as the idea that Stalin personally and alone was responsible for movies like Ivan the Terrible and saw them as a glorification of his own rule but that's not even remotely what I was talking about in the first instance.
You want to see a connection between "Stalin condemned Great Russian chauvinism" and "Stalin wasn't Russian but Georgian". But there is none. Neither statement has anything to do with the other at all. Both were separate replies to separate statements.

[Kléber]

That's part one. My reply to this was "I've never heard about Stalin hailing the 'civilisation bringing role of Russia'... where did you get this from? Stalin actually condemned Great Russian chauvinism repeatedly."
In their 1934 "Observations" on the textbook History of the USSR, Stalin, Zhdanov and Kirov indeed upheld Peter the Great's struggle against "Asiatic barbarism."

Although, it appears that Stalin did criticize Peter the Great - for being insufficiently xenophobic.

Stalin compared Ivan's attitude to foreigners favourably with Peter the Great's. Peter ‘was too liberal in relation to foreigners, opened the gates too wide and let foreign influence into the country, having allowed Russia to become Germanized’. Ivan, by contrast, ‘was a more national, more prudent tsar’: ‘Ivan the Terrible's wisdom was that he championed the national point of view and did not let foreigners into his country, safeguarding it against penetration by foreign influences.’ Stalin's personal views on the reign of Ivan IV were first made public only in condensed form in Cherkasov's memoirs (1953), but the reference to the oprichnina as a ‘progressive force’, and to Ivan Groznyi himself as a man ‘with a strong will and character’ in the Central Committee resolution of 4 September 1946 made the official line clear.


This is the point where we disagree, we could discuss if he just payed lip-service to the struggle against Russian chauvinism but in reality fueled and used it for his aims or if he really did his best to fight it under varying and difficult circumstances.Sure, like Obama is doing his best for the immigrants' and Iraqis' rights under difficult political circumstances where he must cater to the backwardness of the ruling elite..


I said (for the sake of historical accuracy and the history test) Stalin didn't glorify himself as a great Russian and could have hardly done so because he isn't Russian but Georgian (note the winking smiley which was placed there to emphasize that it's a funny contradiction to call the Georgian Stalin a great Russian and not to express my cynicism or my diabolical joy about my awesome appology for "Stalin's racism"...). So a Georgian can not be a vulgar Great-Russian bully even when he engages in chauvinist activities against other Georgians?

The Georgian who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm

Once again, a few of Stalin's statements and his ethnic background are irrelevant. Analyzing a politician based on their public speeches and nationality is a petty-bourgeois, not Marxist, approach. Like any politician it's his political actions and base of social support that are important. Racism is not so simple as a matter of personal prejudices, it's a system of social oppression; the example of Obama shows that you can be a target of chauvinist prejudice, and regularly denounce it, while presiding over a social system that exploits and brutalizes people based on skin color and national heritage. The forced migrations and NKVD "ethnic operations" are just that: racist brutality against oppressed peoples. Stalin can "denounce chauvinism" all he wants, it doesn't make forcible migrations of peoples or the butchering of national intelligentsias any less chauvinist. Likewise, it is worse than irrelevant that the United States bourgeois leaders apologize for the Trail of Tears, because the exploitation and oppression of Native Americans is still happening.


In no way it implies that there could have never been racism in Russia or that racism would be alright or whatever. And it also doesn't deny that Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great were glorified nor that Stalin was glorified. Thank you for the clarification. But you seem to be saying Stalin was stupid or powerless, he either didn't realize or was too weak to change what was going on. The opposite was true, he was a smart politician who knew how to have subordinates do his dirty work and knew when to keep his mouth shut. The importance of the turn to glorification of feudal monarchs in the 1930's was important because this represented a sea change from previous Soviet historiography and school history textbooks which categorically denounced their autocratic regimes and oppression of colonized peoples. Even as the history books were being rewritten, Stalin's clique made their critical muddled "Observations" in favor of proletarian internationalism.. but this doesn't change the fact that the bureaucratic regime rehabilitated national-chauvinist propaganda about great Russian feudal heroes with notable statements of support by Stalin.


I could now question the objectivity and thus validity of bourgeois historians and their works as well as the idea that Stalin personally and alone was responsible for movies like Ivan the Terrible and saw them as a glorification of his own rule but that's not even remotely what I was talking about in the first instance. Alas, if I pull up a source by an anti-Stalinist Marxist author, it's "Biased Trot source!" if I use an objective academic one it's "Invalid bourgeois source!" And if I use no sources at all it's "Baseless Trot speculation!" You Stalinists really have all the bases covered. :P I suppose I have to rely exclusively on the writings of Ludo Martens and Enver Hoxha to make my point? Geez.

For what it's worth, Maureen Perrie, who gave Stalin the benefit of the doubt throughout her research, is not some agent of Satan. But it's funny how Stalin apologists love to say "look even the bourgeois historians agree with us" whenever they pull up some factoid, yet cry foul as soon as anybody else touches on the vast wealth of objective research which shows the Stalinist regime in its naked bureaucratic ugliness.

And of course Stalin wasn't solely responsible for Ivan the Terrible, his pet propagandist Zhdanov was more involved in artistic matters, but the Gensec did intervene in its production and made some pretty clear statements in favor of Ivan IV's historical reputation.

[Rjevan]

In their 1934 "Observations" on the textbook History of the USSR, Stalin, Zhdanov and Kirov indeed upheld Peter the Great's struggle against "Asiatic barbarism."
To avoid further misunderstanding and misinterpretations like the "Stalin was entitled to racism because he wasn't Russian"-one I state that I do not support the use of the phrase "Asiatic barbarism"! But it there is a reason why Peter’s "struggle against Asiatic barbarism" was suddenly praised: the increasing threat the USSR faced from the Empire of Japan. After the latter occupied Manchuria in 1932 it showed interest in the rich resources of Siberia and the USSR was right to suspect that Japan was planning a military invasion, as the steadly decreasing relations, the signing of the Comintern Pact in 1935 and finally the battles of Lake Khasan (1938) and Khalkhin Gol (1939) made clear.

(By the way, Trotsky also had no problems to attribute negative characteristics to "Asiatic" and then apply the term to Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/stalin/ch01.htm), refering to Krassin and Bukharin.)


Although, it appears that Stalin did criticize Peter the Great - for being insufficiently xenophobic.
Says who? Maureen Perrie again?


So a Georgian can not be a vulgar Great-Russian bully even when he engages in chauvinist activities against other Georgians?
Of course he can. Theoretically a Gerogian could be the most vulgar Great Russian bully on earth but for the last time: I didn't use Stalin's ethnicity as an argument or excuse for anything, I just stated that Stalin =/= heroic Russian because Stalin = Georgian.
You're desperately attacking a strawman and I'm not even sure if you do so on purpose. But I can't think of another way to make it clear. Now for the last time:

Catillina says: "He glorifies the great men of russia, where he also takes place." I reply (note the total absence of any reply to "glorifies the great man of Russia", I only speak about Stalin himself and only in regard to "glorifies great Russians like himself", not a single word about Peter or Ivan or Stalin not being glorified at all): he didn't glorify himself as heroic Russian simply because he was a Georgian."

By "chauvinist activities against other Georgians" I guess you mean the invasion of Georgia. I already said above that this was no act of Russian chauvinism and I'm afraid on this one even Trotsky would agree with Stalin's view of the situation (as well as Lenin did before he suddenly changed his mind: "The interests of Socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination"):


We do not only recognize, but we also give full support to the principle of self-determination, wherever it is directed against feudal, capitalist and imperialist states. But wherever the fiction of self-determination, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, becomes a weapon directed against the proletarian revolution, we have no occasion to treat this fiction differently from the other 'principles' of democracy perverted by capitalism.
So either Trotsky is advocating Great Russian chauvinism against nations which dare to declare their independence from Russia or he, as well as Stalin here, argues that it is not an imperialist or chauvinist act for a socialist state to invade bourgeois and nationalist nations like the Democratic Republic of Georgia when they represent a potential threat to the revolution. And this was the case, Georgia was on very good terms with the capitalist West, especially with the UK, and the Mensheviks who controlled Georgia weren't exactly on good terms with the Bolsheviks…


Once again... Stalin's... ethnic background are irrelevant.

Not when I answer to a very specific statement which says Stalin glorified himself as great Russian, especially when it's about a history test.


Analyzing a politician based on their public speeches and nationality is a petty-bourgeois, not Marxist, approach.
I absolutely agree with you here. Analyzing somebody’s policies based on his/her nationality is possible only very limitedly (e.g. cultural background) and generally inappropriate and, contrary to what the Brezhnevists think, you also can’t define somebody’s policies by looking at the colour of the flag he/she waves and the rhetoric and slogans he/she uses. But I still wait for you to show me where I analysed Stalin's policy based on his nationality. Saying "Stalin didn't glorify himself as Russian because he's Georgian." and "Stalin didn't glorify himself because he's not Russian but Georgian." is something very very different.

I am also aware that the official stance on anti-Russian nationalism was softened during the 30s and especially the 40s but this doesn't automatically imply chauvinism and before this time, throughout the 20s and early 30s the nationalities enjoyed cultural autonomy and were encouraged to keep their cultural identity. To see the increase of Russian nationalism as a sudden outbreak of Stalin’s inherent racism is ridiculous and ignores the circumstances of this very hard time. This does not mean that I approve the revival of nationalism before and especially during WWII but to take the easy way out, to ignore all historical circumstances and portray it as inherent “Stalinist chauvinism” which either suddenly emerged out of nowhere or was the official policy since Stalin succeeded Lenin is simply wrong and spreading and embracing slander and lies.

The forced migrations are something different and were wrong.


Thank you for the clarification. But you seem to be saying Stalin was stupid or powerless, he either didn't realize or was too weak to change what was going on.
It's surprised that you say Stalin was smart, I thought the Trotskyist view on Stalin was still the old "outstanding mediocrity in grey" story.
But nevertheless, of course I don't say that Stalin was stupid or powerless but that he wasn't an all-powerful deity who personally controlled absolutely everything and anybody in the whole USSR. I reject both the fairly tale that Stalin was a totalitarian fascist Führer and the fairy tales about gods and omnipotence. So this leads me to believe that Stalin was not behind everything which ever happened in the USSR, solely responsible for everything and was not only surrounded by slavish and loyal lackeys but was the elected GenSec, worked together with the CC, local authorities, etc. and thus could have very well been misinformed and overruled on certain occassions.


but this doesn't change the fact that the bureaucratic regime rehabilitated national-chauvinist propaganda about great Russian feudal heroes

But they were not hailed for being feudal rulers. It was tried to present some of their actions as progressive but tsardom and feudal rule were never presented as favourable.


Alas, if I pull up a source by an anti-Stalinist Marxist author, it's "Biased Trot source!" if I use an objective academic one it's "Invalid bourgeois source!" And if I use no sources at all it's "Baseless Trot speculation!" You Stalinists really have all the bases covered. :P I suppose I have to rely exclusively on the writings of Ludo Martens and Enver Hoxha to make my point? Geez.
That would indeed be very much appreciated! ;P
But seriously, academic doesn't mean objective. I have a hard time to imagine a Trotskyist accepting anti-Trotskyism stuff presented by a bourgeois or "Stalinist" source, so I guess we're not alone on this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The term you're missing is obshchina (commune) which was the basic unit of peasant society pre-Stalin. All the land in a commune was owned collectively by the peasants; ie, kulaks did not formally own seperate plots of land. Stalin's reforms publically targetted these rich peasants but were designed to effectively break up the communes. Land was not redistributed to the poorer peasants - instead all peasants were expected to reject the commune and join the kolkhoz

Wouldn't that be more applicable to the sovkhozy?

[Besides, I prefer the sovkhoz model for vertical farming and such.]

[ComradeOm]

Wouldn't that be more applicable to the sovkhozy?I can't recall the percentage breakdown between sovkhozy and kolkhozy (although the latter were definitely the more common) but it should not detract from the point that the key objective of the Stalinist reforms was the destruction of the obshchina

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, what's the difference between the obshchina and an Association for Joint Cultivation of Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_crisis_of _1928)?

[ComradeOm]

Also, what's the difference between the obshchina and an Association for Joint Cultivation of Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_crisis_of _1928)?The latter was an early - ie, post-1917 and pre-1928 - form of collective farming (a proto-kolkhoz if you will) in which the land was owned and worked coooperatively; although I believe that machinery and other equipment/proprty remained in private hands. The obshchina/commune is a much older organic form of peasant organisation* in which the land was legally owned collectively, by the commune, but divided amongst the peasants and worked individually. In practice each family possessed their own plot/strip for which they, and they alone, could till. In some areas the land was regularly redistributed to ensure that every family had a roughly equal share – which, given that the communes still used the open field system, might mean that a peasant possessed half a dozen small strips scattered around the village lands

*Although this can be overstressed - the commune structure was effectively enshrined in law after the 1861 reforms and heavily supported by the Tsarist state until the early 20th C