Stalin

[Rafiq]

Because most logic is to Appreciate many things Stalin did but condemn the horrible atrocities he committed. What needs to be criticized about Stalin, should b criticized, but that doesn't mean you should hate him and spit Imperialist propaganda toward him.

[Muzk]

He yelled at Lenin's wife.

One must only think of his bad manners...

[DaComm]

Different opinions; many include the piecework payment within the Soviet Union, the economy not being directed by the workers, Purrrrges, Socialism in One Country, the Treaty with Hitler, The Spanish Civil War, the lack of existence of a workers' democracy, the Marxist-Leninist support of National Liberation, the reviving of Religion in the USSR, assasination of Trotsky, to name a few.

[Catillina]

Well he was a terrible dictator, and his national-bolchevik ideas are simply wrong.

but after all, i'm a trotskist, and so, don't only listen me, but get also other sources.

PS. and he backstabbed some revolutions(like the one in spain).
all in all he made counter-revolutionnary politics

[Muzk]

Well he was a terrible dictator, and his national-bolchevik ideas are simply wrong.

but after all, i'm a trotskist, and so, don't only listen me, but get also other sources.



http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/99/Ithinknot.gif







http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/70/Givemehead_smiley.gif

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

The way that I see it is that while Stalin is responsible for a lot of shit, his worse atrocity is that of throwing the worker and the individuality (the beliefs, thoughts and opinions) of the worker to the control of others and to himself. From what I know, this is the core reason as to why the USSR failed: Because he warped his parties form of Socialism into a feudalistic nightmare.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I know Stalin yelled or said something bad to Nadezhda Krupskaya on the phone and Lenin "ended comradely relations" with him because of this but does anyone know exactly what Stalin said to her? I've heard different versions, none of which I can mention on a family oriented communist forum such as this, but...

[Catillina]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/99/Ithinknot.gif







http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/70/Givemehead_smiley.gif

(used the term, we used in history class). even if its not national-bolchevism itself, it has similaritys.

then call it so, his ideas were wrong (socialism in one country, totaliterian regime etc)

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Either way, people who embrace and romanticize Stalin are either power hungry or retarded... seriously! Can't you people embrace Che or someone a little more respectable? :p

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I won't deny what Stalin did in World War II, because he was instrumental in the success against fascism. And Che could have done more, but the methodology behind each revolution was different, and it had to be for each one to be successful. I just wish that better people got power after the revolutions so that their success would have been long lived...:(

[Q]

Too bad Gorbachev wasn't around when Stalin purged the reactionaries.

Yeah, the USSR should have worked on a small army of Stalinators, just to be on the safe side.

[Queercommie Girl]

Too bad Gorbachev wasn't around when Stalin purged the reactionaries.

It's not the purges themselves that are intrinsically wrong, it's that he largely purged the wrong people.

[Zanthorus]

I won't deny what Stalin did in World War II, because he was instrumental in the success against fascism.

And once again, the old dictum is confirmed that the worst product of fascism was 'anti-fascism'.

[Q]

It's not the purges themselves that are intrinsically wrong, it's that he largely purged the wrong people.

Pardon me, but the whole notion of purging points that there is something fundamentally flawed with the way the party (or society as it so happened) was organised. The need for purging arose to cut off the worst excesses of corruption, etc., but how did these problems arise in the first place? That is the question one should really ask and purging is not an answer to this.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Thing is though, is that every group is going to have corruption running around with it. But I will agree that the idea of purging fails every time and often causes the leaders of the party to become freakishly paranoid.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Pardon me, but the whole notion of purging points that there is something fundamentally flawed with the way the party (or society as it so happened) was organised. The need for purging arose to cut off the worst excesses of corruption, etc., but how did these problems arise in the first place? That is the question one should really ask and purging is not an answer to this.
Out of curiosity, how did they according to you?

[Q]

Out of curiosity, how did they according to you?

How do bureaucracies get born? There are many libraries written to answer that one. In my view in Russian society problems started to arise pretty much directly after the revolution. Within a context of civil war and extreme poverty, measures were put in place that took away workers ability to control the state: banning other parties, banning factions inside the communist party, dissolving soviets as soon as the Bolsheviks lost a majority, etc. Many skilled workers died by the end of the war and so the old tsarist functionaries were let back into the state machinery to administer the state. From these factors a bureaucracy developed, shrouded in the colors of the revolution, but actually representing the counter-revolution.

But this bureaucracy, while having no intrinsic value for a socialised economy, did hold on to this model for a long period, as it proved to be relatively successful, despite the zigzag policies and non-realistic target-economy. This "planned" economy stopped being very effective and indeed stagnated the economic growth in the 1960's and 70's though, which in turn resulted in the 1980's in a political crisis leading up to glasnost, perestrojka and eventual liquidation of the soviet union.

A simplified picture and specific for the USSR, but it answers your question.

[Queercommie Girl]

How do bureaucracies get born? There are many libraries written to answer that one. In my view in Russian society problems started to arise pretty much directly after the revolution. Within a context of civil war and extreme poverty, measures were put in place that took away workers ability to control the state: banning other parties, banning factions inside the communist party, dissolving soviets as soon as the Bolsheviks lost a majority, etc. Many skilled workers died by the end of the war and so the old tsarist functionaries were let back into the state machinery to administer the state. From these factors a bureaucracy developed, shrouded in the colors of the revolution, but actually representing the counter-revolution.

But this bureaucracy, while having no intrinsic value for a socialised economy, did hold on to this model for a long period, as it proved to be relatively successful, despite the zigzag policies and non-realistic target-economy. This "planned" economy stopped being very effective and indeed stagnated the economic growth in the 1960's and 70's though, which in turn resulted in the 1980's in a political crisis leading up to glasnost, perestrojka and eventual liquidation of the soviet union.

A simplified picture and specific for the USSR, but it answers your question.

In my view there was a major change in USSR history between the Stalinist period and the post-Stalinist period (what Maoists call the revisionist period). Both periods lack direct worker's democracy, but I would still call the Stalinist period bureaucratic socialism while the post-Stalinist period gradually transformed into bureaucratic capitalism.

In bureaucratic socialism, the bureaucratic caste of the working class holds all real power, nominally representing "all the people", but the bureaucrats were still relatively frugal, and the control of the economy was not directed for private ends, but still used for the country as a whole, albeit in a distorted fashion. This is why despite the lack of worker's democracy, productivity still raced ahead under Stalin. (Of course in a somewhat distorted way and with high human cost)

In the transition to bureaucratic capitalism after Stalin, the bureaucrats were becoming increasingly corrupt in the private sense, and economic inequality began to grow. The bureaucratic caste's monopoly on economic and political power was more and more used to satisfy personal needs, so productivity fell dramatically and favourtism etc. in the party became a serious problem.

See my "analysis" (very short so far :D) here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/degeneration-ussr-t141258/index.html

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Stalin has his own big thread here;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-thread-all-t100814/index.html

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why do so many people hate Stalin?

Because he was a dickhead.

[Magón]

Why do so many people hate Stalin?

Because he has a lot more Cons, than Pros against him in life. People on here, have already named just a little few.

[Kléber]

In bureaucratic socialism, the bureaucratic caste of the working class holds all real power, nominally representing "all the people", but the bureaucrats were still relatively frugal, and the control of the economy was not directed for private ends, but still used for the country as a whole, albeit in a distorted fashion. This is why despite the lack of worker's democracy, productivity still raced ahead under Stalin. (Of course in a somewhat distorted way and with high human cost)

In the transition to bureaucratic capitalism after Stalin, the bureaucrats were becoming increasingly corrupt in the private sense, and economic inequality began to grow.
I'm afraid that is completely false. Social differentiation took off in the 1930's, after the abolition of partmaximum. The end of salary limits, the appearance of bureaucrat rouble millionaires, the explosion of a Soviet luxury economy, all took place under Stalin - not after he died.

As for Khrushchev, no restoration of capitalism took place. The USSR had aspects of "state capitalism" from the very beginning, Khrushchev did not create them, because Stalin had never got rid of them. I mean, can you point to the "capitalists" who appeared in 1956? There were none. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were overpaid, salaried public officials, just like Stalin, they were not bourgeois.

In fact, unlike Stalin and Brezhnev who presided over the growth of social inequality and increases in bureaucrats' wages, Khrushchev's administration actually reduced social inequality by cutting bureaucrats' wages and building vast housing projects for Soviet workers.

As for the "rewards and bonuses for managers started under Khrushchev" line, it's total rubbish. Bureaucrats were already pocketing industrial surpluses and taking home huge bonuses under Stalin. I have the proof here: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=140732 (see my first and second posts). The same was true under Lenin but they had been kept out of the Party in those days to prevent its pollution by bourgeois specialist elements..

The profit motive was already present in the Soviet economy under Stalin, in fact it had been there since Lenin's administration, but there were not private capitalists until 1991. The Stalin clique had even experimented with economic "liberalization" during Neo-NEP, 1934-36, which was ended to focus on war production, so Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev may have been just doing things that Stalin might have done if he had been around in that time period - let's not forget that all these men served the same bureaucratic social interests merely at different times.

Stalin himself was not "frugal," at least not "relatively" any more than Khrushchev or Brezhnev. He had an official salary 5 times that of an average workers' salary, and on top of that were all the state privileges of a high-ranking bureaucrat - mansions, servants, limousine, chauffeur, special access to elite-only stores and restaurants (another "socialist" development of the Stalin era), etc.

[RED DAVE]

Different opinions; many include the piecework payment within the Soviet Union, the economy not being directed by the workers, Purrrrges, Socialism in One Country, the Treaty with Hitler, The Spanish Civil War, the lack of existence of a workers' democracy, the Marxist-Leninist support of National Liberation, the reviving of Religion in the USSR, assasination of Trotsky, to name a few.All of the above, plus a few more, such as antisemitism, destruction of the 3rd International, failure ot combat the rise of fascism.

What it really comes down to is: he was the gravedigger of the workers state.

RED DAVE

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

lol, unfortunately for you, and in a sense, for us... we don't need "capitalist propaganda" to condemn Stalin. The reason is simple. He betrayed us all and his atrocities are common knowledge just as his successes are. There is no point in glorifying a man who is responsible for so much evil and for so many misconceptions that we are still fighting to this very day. Hell, every time I debate with someone about Socialism or Communism, their last statement is, "I like the theory, but I don't think it is possible and even if it were, I would rather live under the shit system that we're under now than to risk living under a dictator like Stalin."

[Magón]

Hey, what happened to the guys last post? I was just about to say how in Cuba and Venezuela, they even have books that show Stalin for what he was, which obviously isn't anything to be happy about.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

lol, I think he was just purged by the admin XD

[thriller]

Different opinions; many include the piecework payment within the Soviet Union, the economy not being directed by the workers, Purrrrges, Socialism in One Country, the Treaty with Hitler, The Spanish Civil War, the lack of existence of a workers' democracy, the Marxist-Leninist support of National Liberation, the reviving of Religion in the USSR, assasination of Trotsky, to name a few.

Revival of religion was bad? Someone has some Russian history to study :P

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

The way Stalin did it was bad... he did it to boost moral during WWII, but afterward, the party members began torching churches and persecuting people for the purpose of humor and power.

[Adil3tr]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/70/Givemehead_smiley.gif
We need more of this

[Manic Impressive]

No-one has mentioned the promotion of the leadership cult, obviously Lenin did it first. Giant statues everywhere and a picture of him on every wall. It's meant to be the workers revolution not one man's.

I do think that much of the blame for the inadequacies of the Soviet Union cannot all be put on Stalin but should be shared with Lenin. However at least Lenin contributed some theoretical work of note to the movement, although I do not mean to undermine Stalin's contribution to the revolution without his bank robberies and extortion to fund it who knows.

[Adil3tr]

No-one has mentioned the promotion of the leadership cult, obviously Lenin did it first. Giant statues everywhere and a picture of him on every wall. It's meant to be the workers revolution not one man's.

I do think that much of the blame for the inadequacies of the Soviet Union cannot all be put on Stalin but should be shared with Lenin. However at least Lenin contributed some theoretical work of note to the movement, although I do not mean to undermine Stalin's contribution to the revolution without his bank robberies and extortion to fund it who knows.

Are you stupid? Lenin's wife was livid when they tried to preserve his body like a fucking mummy. It didn't start with him. It was used by Stalin to turn communism into a kind pf state religion.

[Manic Impressive]

Are you stupid? Lenin's wife was livid when they tried to preserve his body like a fucking mummy. It didn't start with him. It was used by Stalin to turn communism into a kind pf state religion.

Asking if I'm stupid is a very productive way to debate don't ya think.

Where did I say anything about mummified Lenin I was talking about the statues of him that were strewn across the USSR, many were erected in Lenin's time to communicate the new leaders dominance. So yeah Lenin started it Stalin continued it to assert his political dominance. Which to me is not particularly socialist.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Wait, wait, wait... THEY FRICKEN TRIED TO MUMMIFY LENIN? lmfao :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D wow....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/bodies/images/pop2.jpg
On a serious note, I can see why his wife would have been livid... seriously... who would want their loved one semi-mummified and put in a public monument?

But back to laughing my ass off: Can I poke the corpse with a stick? :D

[fa2991]

I'm surprised no M-Ls have wandered in here yet to give a long, winded defense of Mr. Mustache.

He did do some right, after all.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Where did I say anything about mummified Lenin I was talking about the statues of him that were strewn across the USSR, many were erected in Lenin's time to communicate the new leaders dominance. So yeah Lenin started it Stalin continued it to assert his political dominance. Which to me is not particularly socialist.

This is the internet, and I have never encountered any such claims elsewhere about Lenin.

He certainly wasn't into personality cults.

Please source it -- or it's all bullshit.

[∞]

Stalin single-handily applied Marxism into a degenerate economic system.
Even if he hadn't purged someone if they looked at him funny, he has virtually nothing to do with communist theory. In no scripture does it say to rapidly industrialize existing farms into giant factories and silos. Nowhere in communist theory has the idea of overthrowing unions and replacing them with a bourgeoisie government.
Yet you shitbrains admire him, I say ban Stalinists. There is many tendencies here that deserve to be represented, but not Stalinists.

[DaComm]

Revival of religion was bad? Someone has some Russian history to study :P

Firstly, I did not say that, the OP was asking what were common criticisms of Stalin, I listed them as neutrally as possible.

And secondly, a TRUE worker-run, socialist society wouldn't need BS religion as a morale boost.

[fa2991]

Stalin single-handily applied Marxism into a degenerate economic system.
Even if he hadn't purged someone if they looked at him funny, he has virtually nothing to do with communist theory. In no scripture does it say to rapidly industrialize existing farms into giant factories and silos. Nowhere in communist theory has the idea of overthrowing unions and replacing them with a bourgeoisie government.
Yet you shitbrains admire him, I say ban Stalinists. There is many tendencies here that deserve to be represented, but not Stalinists.

I agree, we should purge from our membership all people who support that one Russian guy who purged people from CP membership.

[∞]

I agree, we should purge from our membership all people who support that one Russian guy who purged people from CP membership.

Banning and purging are very different. Purging implies people from a government are removed due to whatever. I'm saying we shouldn't allow such degenerate duechebags who fetish a man who did nothing but harm to the left.

[Ocean Seal]

The good: Defeated fascism, large economic growth, USSR became the world's second largest manufacturer, bastion against U.S. imperialism.
The bad: Absolutely no dissent which is what led to massive failure because if everyone is afraid to criticize then nothing improves. Growth of bureaucracy. Greece and Turkey became NATO nations. Unnecessary purges (goes with the no dissent part).
I think that from an unbiased socialist perspective this is a reasonable assessment.

[∞]

The good: Defeated fascism, large economic growth, USSR became the world's second largest manufacturer, bastion against U.S. imperialism.
The bad: Absolutely no dissent which is what led to massive failure because if everyone is afraid to criticize then nothing improves. Growth of bureaucracy. Greece and Turkey became NATO nations. Unnecessary purges (goes with the no dissent part).
I think that from an unbiased socialist perspective this is a reasonable assessment.

Still not good: lost many troops in shock after pact. Antonov's tactics, eventual victory in Stalingrad, and the seizure of Berlin defeated fascism. Economic growth for the lucky folks of Moscow, slave-labor for rural Russians. Largest manufacturer of unnecessary goods. Against US imperialism, beginning SU imperialism.

[Manic Impressive]

This is the internet, and I have never encountered any such claims elsewhere about Lenin.

He certainly wasn't into personality cults.

Please source it -- or it's all bullshit.

You'd think something like this would be easy to source but no.

Shadr constructed the Lenin monument in 1923 along with 15 others. I can't post links so look it up yourself.

I did find a book which I was going to quote from but to see the next page I had to pay a subscription :mad:

I wasn't saying he commissioned all of the statues of himself and most were built after his death.

but the search for evidence will continue..................

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Hmm... from various thing that I read, Lenin, while a monster in his own right, did have some good qualities about him, espeically his strong opposition to Stalin... and his wife is far more interesting... tis sad what Stalin did to her after her husbands death... including the poisoned birthday cake... From the source I was looking at, it makes the claim that Lenin opposed such memorials according to his wife.

My sources: http://links.org.au/node/1544 and the other source is on wikipedia which cites the NKVD archives...

[Aesop]

Against US imperialism, beginning SU imperialism.

The soviet union has been given many labels, however imperialist is not a credible one

[thälmann]

good: industrialisation, collectivizing agrarian economics, building up socialism by planned economics, smashing german fascism( for that it was imortant for example the agreement with nazi germany), improving the situation for the majority, theoretical achievments.

bad: too big social differences emerge, reactionary sexual laws( homophobic),killing trotsky too late

[Urko]

I was born in Slovenia thanks to Stalin.

[DWI]

I was born in Slovenia thanks to Stalin.
I've read this a few times and I can't work out if this is meant to be a good or bad thing.




Anyway, Stalin was an absolute monarch. Off with his head!

[∞]

The soviet union has been given many labels, however imperialist is not a credible one

Seizing political control of east europe is imperialism just to let ya know

[Urko]

I've read this a few times and I can't work out if this is meant to be a good or bad thing.
It's a good thing... otherwise I'd be born in somekinda italy or germany

[thriller]

Firstly, I did not say that, the OP was asking what were common criticisms of Stalin, I listed them as neutrally as possible.

And secondly, a TRUE worker-run, socialist society wouldn't need BS religion as a morale boost.

Okay, gotcha that it was neutral. I just think it's very important to understand the the Orthodox Church could be considered the epicenter of Russian culture. I think Stalin's way of going about reviving the church, as pointed out by The People's Penguin, and yourself was bullshit. However the fact that people could once again worship publicly is very important.

And by the way religion isn't BS, it's the people who claim to be of certain religions that can be BS. That's like saying communism is BS because Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha were asshats. Let's be honest here, Jesus was a communist.

[Aesop]

Seizing political control of east europe is imperialism just to let ya know

Maybe you should read around and about what imperialism is rather then spewing out that word.
Yes, stalin did want to maintain a sphere of influence in eastern europe,
however to say that SU wanted to be a greater imperialist enity than the USA is ahistoric.

[Manic Impressive]

Hmm... from various thing that I read, Lenin, while a monster in his own right, did have some good qualities about him, espeically his strong opposition to Stalin... and his wife is far more interesting... tis sad what Stalin did to her after her husbands death... including the poisoned birthday cake... From the source I was looking at, it makes the claim that Lenin opposed such memorials according to his wife.

maybe I was slightly confused, while some monuments to Lenin were erected during his lifetime. The "Republic's monuments" idea was an idea introduced by Lenin but the amount of statues to past contributors built between 1917 and 1924 greatly outnumber statues of himself.

"On Republic's monuments" was sanctioned April 12th, 1918 by the Council of People's Commissars.

[RED DAVE]

The good: Defeated fascism, large economic growth, USSR became the world's second largest manufacturer, bastion against U.S. imperialism.USA:

The good: Defeated fascism, large economic growth, USA became the largest manufacturer, bastion against Russian, British and French imperialism.

:D

RED DAVE

[∞]

Maybe you should read around and about what imperialism is rather then spewing out that word.
Yes, stalin did want to maintain a sphere of influence in eastern europe,
however to say that SU wanted to be a greater imperialist enity than the USA is ahistoric.

Did I say that that Stalinist imperialism is more brutal than US imperialism? That is deplorable and I'm not going into it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalin himself was not "frugal," at least not "relatively" any more than Khrushchev or Brezhnev. He had an official salary 5 times that of an average workers' salary, and on top of that were all the state privileges of a high-ranking bureaucrat - mansions, servants, limousine, chauffeur, special access to elite-only stores and restaurants (another "socialist" development of the Stalin era), etc.


5 times salary difference isn't a lot though to be frank. Didn't Lenin specify a maximum 4 times salary difference in a socialist economy?

I don't think an absolutely egalitarian economy is realistic. Even during primitive tribal times humanity didn't have that.

As for the other "privileges", well my grandparents in the PRC are members of the CCP, and they belong to the lowest end of the bureaucratic caste. My grandfather before he retired was a lecturer in the subject of scientific socialism in the Political College of Xi'an. I remember growing up in mainland China during which time our family was slightly more privileged than the average ordinary worker's family. There were special cars with assigned drivers for party cadres like my grandfather to use while most workers only had bicycles. (However, the cars never belonged to any particular cadre, but served all the cadres beyond a certain rank on a "rotational" basis) We lived in a two-floor mid-terraced house which was definitely not luxurious by any means (it would look perfectly "working-class" in a Western European or American context), but in the Chinese context the majority of workers at that time still lived in flats that didn't have their own bathrooms and toilets but had shared ones for multiple households. (When I was little a lot of the ordinary workers' children like to come to our house to play because our house was bigger than theirs and I had more toys than them :D) I've never heard of "special elite-only stores" though, or maybe that's reserved for higher-ranking bureaucrats, not for petit-bureaucrats like my grandfather.

I confess that one subjective reason why I cannot completely reject Stalinism and Maoism is due to my own slightly privileged background...:blushing:

(I don't come from a purely working class background, but a semi-working class semi-petit-bureaucrat background. This class basis is reflected objectively in my political stance)

[Vendetta]

In no scripture does it say to rapidly industrialize existing farms into giant factories and silos.

Scripture?

[∞]

Scripture?

You know what I mean...Marxist doctrine etc, etc.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Stalin single-handily applied Marxism into a degenerate economic system.
Even if he hadn't purged someone if they looked at him funny, he has virtually nothing to do with communist theory. In no scripture does it say to rapidly industrialize existing farms into giant factories and silos. Nowhere in communist theory has the idea of overthrowing unions and replacing them with a bourgeoisie government.
Yet you shitbrains admire him, I say ban Stalinists. There is many tendencies here that deserve to be represented, but not Stalinists.
So because no 'scripture' said anything about industrialization it means they shouldn't have applied industrialization even though the rational material circumstances required such a move?
But lets look what the holy bib... manifesto has to say about this, rather then making a stupid thing such as a scientific analyses. Amirite?

[Manic Impressive]

Didn't Marx say that for a revolution to lead to a successful socialist society it should occur in an already industrialized nation?

[thriller]

He did say that! And he also said self-emancipation of the working class. But try to get lenninist and trots to admit to that :P

[∞]

So because no 'scripture' said anything about industrialization it means they shouldn't have applied industrialization even though the rational material circumstances required such a move?
But lets look what the holy bib... manifesto has to say about this, rather then making a stupid thing such as a scientific analyses. Amirite?

Wow you're definitely not trying to drape the stupidity of your argument with words like "scientific" "rational" "analyses" to prove a ludicrous point (sarcasm). There is a reason why not one scholar would think about promoting degenerate year plans to meet a false quota. Instead of stressing economic freedoms, and then promoting growth via demand, lets zerg-rush industry, rape peasants, and institute a system of slavery and brutality! It is a sadist system run under rhetorical opiates such as "destroy the upper class" "We are the strongest" etc. But this is revleft right? So of course you'll use worthless words to describe your beloved SU.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Wow you're definitely not trying to drape the stupidity of your argument with words like "scientific" "rational" "analyses" to prove a ludicrous point (sarcasm). There is a reason why not one scholar would think about promoting degenerate year plans to meet a false quota. Instead of stressing economic freedoms, and then promoting growth via demand, lets zerg-rush industry, rape peasants, and institute a system of slavery and brutality! It is a sadist system run under rhetorical opiates such as "destroy the upper class" "We are the strongest" etc. But this is revleft right? So of course you'll use worthless words to describe your beloved SU.
Why would you stress economic freedom? Economically it makes no sense to just let things go in favor of 'economic freedom', it is the exact economic 'anarchy' that Communists should oppose. Neither is there any indication that the five year plan was anything close to 'slavery and brutality'.

[RedTrackWorker]

The soviet union has been given many labels, however imperialist is not a credible one

See Section 3 of Chapter 6 of The Life and Death of Stalinism, available in pdf at http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/contents.html.
Or just look at the Yalta conference where FDR, Churchill and Stalin divide the world up between themselves!

[∞]

Why would you stress economic freedom? Economically it makes no sense to just let things go in favor of 'economic freedom', it is the exact economic 'anarchy' that Communists should oppose. Neither is there any indication that the five year plan was anything close to 'slavery and brutality'.

Wow, just type two sentences of whatever you want.
Do not use any empirical evidence to justify your claims.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Wow, just type two sentences of whatever you want.
Do not use any empirical evidence to justify your claims.
It's not like your statements really said much. Except economic freedom, something i tackled in the same light as you tackled the topic. Barely.
I do not really feel compelled to respond with well-build sourced statements in response to the opposite.

[∞]

It's not like your statements really said much. Except economic freedom, something i tackled in the same light as you tackled the topic. Barely.
I do not really feel compelled to respond with well-build sourced statements in response to the opposite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvqNztRYpRc

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stalin.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/STALIN.html

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/secr.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

http://www.leftake.com/diary/2528/central-planning-versus-market-socialism

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/index.htm

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/index.htm

http://www.jstor.org/pss/189210

http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.firstwave/index.htm

THERE WAS NO COMMUNISM IN RUSSIA (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html)


Pop a glock in your mouth and make a brain slushee

[Manic Impressive]

That youtube video is utter shit. It's obviously just propaganda. Comparing his school photo with Hitler's and insinuating they were the same because they were standing in the same position [sigh]

I think Stalin was an arse hole who committed crimes against the proletariat and socialism, but seriously posting shit like that will only make the Stalinist's more sure that it is all propaganda. :(

[∞]

That youtube video is utter shit. It's obviously just propaganda. Comparing his school photo with Hitler's and insinuating they were the same because they were standing in the same position [sigh]

I think Stalin was an arse hole who committed crimes against the proletariat and socialism, but seriously posting shit like that will only make the Stalinist's more sure that it is all propaganda. :(

Yes eyewitnesses make it all fabricated...

[Manic Impressive]

I'm not saying all of it is untrue just that this video is nauseating rightist propaganda. I've read a lot of Solzhenitsyn who goes into great detail about the actual trials of people convicted. Although I still reserve judgement and do not completely right Stalin off as "an evil monster". I do however find the people who glorify him to be either mentally unstable, trying to piss off the world or maybe just trying to show that they're bad ass.

inb4StalinistsReadThisAndTryToHaveMePurged

[∞]

I'm not saying all of it is untrue just that this video is nauseating rightist propaganda. I've read a lot of Solzhenitsyn who goes into great detail about the actual trials of people convicted. Although I still reserve judgement and do not completely right Stalin off as "an evil monster". I do however find the people who glorify him to be either mentally unstable, trying to piss off the world or maybe just trying to show that they're bad ass.

inb4StalinistsReadThisAndTryToHaveMePurged

but there WAS truth in it

[Manic Impressive]

I'll say it again. I'm not saying all of it is untrue just that this video is nauseating rightist propaganda.

So using it as a source will only encourage the Stalinists. So the woman/little girls father was executed. There are no details of the trial no proof either way, he may have been a spy. I'm not saying he was or wasn't guilty just that anyone is going to be pissed off if their dad gets shot. The video claims 20,000,000 people killed another wild figure which implies they were all executed or died in a Gulag and that Stalin signed every death warrant don't make me laugh. If he did then I doubt many were executed because if they had died in those numbers he wouldn't have had time for sleep let alone single handedly dictating a whole country.

Seriously comrade zealously attacking him with right-wing propaganda as much as the Stalinist fanboys defend him is just silly.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Different opinions; many include the piecework payment within the Soviet Union, the economy not being directed by the workers, Purrrrges, Socialism in One Country, the Treaty with Hitler, The Spanish Civil War, the lack of existence of a workers' democracy, the Marxist-Leninist support of National Liberation, the reviving of Religion in the USSR, assasination of Trotsky, to name a few.
Plus the war against Finland.

[Volcanicity]

Didn't Marx say that for a revolution to lead to a successful socialist society it should occur in an already industrialized nation?
Yeah but Marx also stated in a letter to Vera Zasulich,that because of the unique circumstances in Russia due to the agrarian economy and the communal life of the peasantry,it could be possible to achieve socialism even though it was'nt industrialised.

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah but Marx also stated in a letter to Vera Zasulich,that because of the unique circumstances in Russia due to the agrarian economy and the communal life of the peasantry,it could be possible to achieve socialism even though it was'nt industrialised.

was he drunk at the time? (joking)

I had a look for the letter but couldn't find it could you point me in the right direction, thanks.

[Volcanicity]

was he drunk at the time? (joking)

I had a look for the letter but couldn't find it could you point me in the right direction, thanks.
I have'nt got the time to find the link,but look on the Marxist Internet Archive search for volume 24 in the Marx/Engels collected works,and it's about half-way down the list.

[ZeroNowhere]

was he drunk at the time? (joking)

I had a look for the letter but couldn't find it could you point me in the right direction, thanks.
The letter may be found here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm).

There's also this, from an 1882 preface to the Communist Manifesto:
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/b.htm#obshchina), though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Plus the war against Finland.

You mean the war against quasi-fascist pro-Nazi Finland to secure some ports so as to defend from Nazi invasion? Only after the Finnish refused to lease said ports on top of that?

[Tomhet]

^ Oh fucking come on.. "quasi facist" Finland? why is that? Finland desired independance, to defend the imperialism of the winter war is laughable..

[Bright Banana Beard]

^ Oh fucking come on.. "quasi facist" Finland? why is that? Finland desired independance, to defend the imperialism of the winter war is laughable..Finland would assist Nazis, that why Winter War happened.

[thriller]

lol, Stalin was a great general :P

[Apoi_Viitor]

Finland would assist Nazis, that why Winter War happened.

Proof?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Proof?

How about the fact that they did later participate in Operation Barbarossa?

[Reznov]

And once again, the old dictum is confirmed that the worst product of fascism was 'anti-fascism'.

I think this quote deserves to be re-read and thought about a little more.

[Apoi_Viitor]

How about the fact that they did later participate in Operation Barbarossa?

Prove that it was Stalin's intention at the time, to declare war on Finland in order to prevent Finland from assisting the Nazis.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Prove that it was Stalin's intention at the time, to declare war on Finland in order to prevent Finland from assisting the Nazis.
Where did I say it was Stalin's intention?

[Khalid]

Finland was somewhat a quasi-fascist in 1930's. After the Civil War in 1918 communists were persecuted all the time, but in 1930 the Finnish government enacted the anti-communist laws with help of the fascist Lapua Movement. Communists were put in prison and the Communist Party was illegal until 1944. The fascist Lapua Movement also attempted a coup d'état in 1932.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Where did I say it was Stalin's intention?


Finland would assist Nazis, that why Winter War happened.

.

[Bright Banana Beard]

.
Stalin is doing all these works? News to me. (I was referring to the USSR, not Stalin. Geez...)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Stalin is doing all these works? News to me. (I was referring to the USSR, not Stalin. Geez...)

Well, I inferred you were talking about Stalin, since that's kind of the name of this thread.

[NGNM85]

What it really comes down to is: he was the gravedigger of the workers state.

RED DAVE

Lenin was the gravedigger of the workers' state.

More to the point; talking about the positive aspects of Stalin is like talking about the positive aspects of cancer. This is absurd.

[Kléber]

Stalin is doing all these works? News to me. (I was referring to the USSR, not Stalin. Geez...)
Remember kids, if something good happened during 1928-1953, it was thanks to glory of Stalin, if something bad happened in that time it was the fault of his peons.

[thriller]

Lenin was the gravedigger of the workers' state.

More to the point; talking about the positive aspects of Stalin is like talking about the positive aspects of cancer. This is absurd.

Pink stuff?

[4 Leaf Clover]

Well he was a terrible dictator, and his national-bolchevik ideas are simply wrong.

but after all, i'm a trotskist, and so, don't only listen me, but get also other sources.

PS. and he backstabbed some revolutions(like the one in spain).
all in all he made counter-revolutionnary politics
backstabed revolution in spain ? you commrade have some big problem with disinformation

i don't think stalin is that bad , after all he is a sex symbol

http://www.claudiocaprara.it/mediamanager/sys.user/38949/stalin%20sulla%20china%20porno%20sex%281%29.jpg

[Bright Banana Beard]

Remember kids, if something good happened during 1928-1953, it was thanks to glory of Stalin, if something bad happened in that time it was the fault of his peons.
But when it comes to Trotsky, he is irrefutable. He is simple correct in every way and can be use against Stalin as a holy weapon.

[Apoi_Viitor]

But when it comes to Trotsky, he is irrefutable. He is simple correct in every way and can be use against Stalin as a holy weapon.

I don't think one needs to blindly accept all of the ideas of Trotsky, in order to formulate an opinion on Stalin. In fact, there are many things Trotsky did that are refutable...but critiquing Stalin because his policies led to massive purges / detainments, starvation, etc. does not necessarily make one a 'Trotskyite' - although Stalinists who deny the objective evidence of the harsh / horrible nature of Stalin's rule, are blind dogmatics who will denounce any criticism of their glorious (and irrefutable) leader as 'bourgeois propaganda'.

[Kléber]

backstabed revolution in spain ? you commrade have some big problem with disinformation
You think Nin was killed by Nazi paratroopers or something? Even the ultra-Stalinists like Bill Bland admit that popular frontism was reactionary.

Actually the Stalinist lies about Spain have been disproven since the opening of the Soviet archives. The NKVD and their Spanish cronies of the PCE and SIM eagerly murdered proletarian revolutionaries to preserve a hopeless liberal bourgeois regime, then abandoned it in favor of an alliance with Hitler.


i don't think stalin is that bad , after all he is a sex symbolReally, did he seduce any French heiresses or Mexican artists? As a fat bureaucrat, Stalin could afford prostitutes, but without money and power he was a pedophile who abused his wife. Ought to have been taken out and shot for treason at Tsaritsyn in 1919.


But when it comes to Trotsky, he is irrefutable. He is simple correct in every way and can be use against Stalin as a holy weapon.
Trotsky was the real anti-revisionist. Hoxha and Mao were opportunist class-traitors.

[Vagelis Papatheodorou]

Don't you think you are going hard on the guy he killed a lot of people yes but if it wasn't for him the USSR wouldn't survive for 2 years.I like him i respect him and maybe like his politics but look on the bright side which is.........................................okay nothings coming up now but he was still good

[Vendetta]

but look on the bright side which is.........................................okay nothings coming up now but he was still good

That seems a little contradictory.