'True' Communists and 'False' Communists?

[William Howe]

In history, I see a distinction from people like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, and people like Mao and Stalin. Mao and Stalin really disregarded any basic Marxist ideas, and turned their respective countries into beaurocratic empires. Lenin however did make attempts to follow Marx, and strove for a global revolution, or workers' liberation.

Plus, in my opinion, Stalinist and Maoist mass-murders for their own selfish reasons really makes them 'psychopaths' rather than 'leaders'.



Is it wrong then to see people like Marx and Lenin as 'true communists', and people like Stalin and Mao as not? (no offense to you if you actually are Stalinist or Maoist)

[Obs]

Sure, if Stalin and Mao did commit mass murders for selfish reasons and disregarded Marxist theory, you could call them fake communists. They didn't, but, y'know, whatever boats your float.

[Volcanicity]

Another day another let's shit on Stalin and Mao thread.I suggest you read some of Stalin and Mao's writing's and stop listening to whoever is feeding you this nonesense.

[People's War]

Um, Stalin and Mao simply upheld Leninist theory. It's Trotsky that began to change things around.

[Aurora]

I personally wouldn't use those words, as marxists we recognise that every political struggle is an economic one, its not that Stalin or Mao were bad people or pretending to be communists, but their actions and ideology were a product of the material forces around them. Its not great men that make history but social forces.
In the soviet union i believe that the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin was a struggle between the radicalised working class and the bureaucracy respectively. But even if Trotsky had won, without the revolution spreading to the rest of the world the it would have ended the same way just with a diferent figurehead.
With Mao its a bit diferent, the chinese communists were pressured into an alliance with the KMT and slaughtered and as a result had to flee into the countryside and away from the workers. Once again it was the situation they were thrust into that made their ideology.

[William Howe]

Sure, if Stalin and Mao did commit mass murders for selfish reasons and disregarded Marxist theory, you could call them fake communists. They didn't, but, y'know, whatever boats your float.

Stalin's purges for fear of losing power don't count? :confused:

[Obs]

Stalin's purges for fear of losing power don't count? :confused:
Notice how you presuppose the intent behind the purges. Quit doing that.

[William Howe]

Notice how you presuppose the intent behind the purges. Quit doing that.

I wouldn't call slaughtering off officers and innocent farmers as good-natured intentions.

Death toll for the purges is around 50+ million.

[Obs]

I wouldn't call slaughtering off officers and innocent farmers as good-natured intentions.

Death toll for the purges is around 50+ million.
http://aznbanhbao.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/head-desk.jpg

[Garret]

I wouldn't call slaughtering off officers and innocent farmers as good-natured intentions.

Death toll for the purges is around 50+ million.
Almost a third of the USSRs entire population of Jan 1939?

Yeah, Soviets didn't even notice...:laugh:

[Volcanicity]

I wouldn't call slaughtering off officers and innocent farmers as good-natured intentions.

Death toll for the purges is around 50+ million.
Yeah you keep reading those right-wing,anti Communist Books.Or should I say Trotskyist book's.

[Kais]

I might be wrong, but from what I've heard, Mao's death toll seems to be more down to his personal incompetence rather than any malicious reason or Maoism as a theory.

[William Howe]

Yeah you keep reading those right-wing,anti Communist Books.Or should I say Trotskyist book's.

I don't read Right-Wing anti-Communist books. Last time I checked, official records listed Stalin's purges' death toll at anywhere from 10-50 million people.

[Volcanicity]

I don't read Right-Wing anti-Communist books. Last time I checked, official records listed Stalin's purges' death toll at anywhere from 10-50 million people.
Official according to who exactly?I think you'll find 50 million pushing it a bit even by the most rabid Trotskyist.

[Lee Van Cleef]

I don't read Right-Wing anti-Communist books. Last time I checked, official records listed Stalin's purges' death toll at anywhere from 10-50 million people.
According to Keeran & Kenny, who cite Michael Parenti, research of the Soviet archives reveal under 800,000 deaths. Numbers like ten million are clear right-wing propaganda meant to make communists out to be worse than the Nazis. Fifty million is an absurd statistic that becomes unbelievable by anyone once they look at the population statistics of the time.

[EvilRedGuy]

This thread is hilarious. Stalinists whining about Trotsky. :laugh:

[Dimentio]

In history, I see a distinction from people like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, and people like Mao and Stalin. Mao and Stalin really disregarded any basic Marxist ideas, and turned their respective countries into beaurocratic empires. Lenin however did make attempts to follow Marx, and strove for a global revolution, or workers' liberation.

Plus, in my opinion, Stalinist and Maoist mass-murders for their own selfish reasons really makes them 'psychopaths' rather than 'leaders'.



Is it wrong then to see people like Marx and Lenin as 'true communists', and people like Stalin and Mao as not? (no offense to you if you actually are Stalinist or Maoist)

Notice that Lenin was in executive power for six years, and only four years efficiently. Trotsky was never in power.

Not that Stalin and Mao were believers in worker's control, but in general, as Aaron Eckhart said, "if you don't die a hero's death, you live long enough to become the villain".

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Death toll for the purges is around 50+ million.
Says who?

Polls aren't infallible and those who make them often times aren't unbiased.

It's not always the "Stalinists" who distort things.

[Obs]

I don't read Right-Wing anti-Communist books. Last time I checked, official records listed Stalin's purges' death toll at anywhere from 10-50 million people.
You've never checked official records of Stalin's purges. Lying does you a disservice.

[William Howe]

This thread is hilarious. Stalinists whining about Trotsky. :laugh:

We're all leftists here, let's just get along and have some friendly debate. :)

[Nolan]

Gee, a newcomer with all kinds of preconceived notions of Stalin "betraying" Lenin planted by non-communists. We haven't seen this before.

[WeAreReborn]

Notice how you presuppose the intent behind the purges. Quit doing that.
But you admit there were purges? Since when did any good come out of purges? Sometimes I question if most of the left actually cares about people...

[Lee Van Cleef]

But you admit there were purges? Since when did any good come out of purges? Sometimes I question if most of the left actually cares about people...
There were violent purges, and I, as a Marxist-Leninist, disagree with them. I believe that expelling Bukharin, Trotsky, and their supporters from the party would have been sufficient.

Unfortunately, the purge's didn't even accomplish that. While many innocents were killed, Khrushchev and co. remained in the CPSU and pushed through many of Bukharin's dangerous ideas shortly after Stalin died.

Just because I don't condemn all the positive things Stalin did to advance socialism and save the USSR does not mean that I condone the negative things he did.

[Obs]

But you admit there were purges? Since when did any good come out of purges?
Seriously?

[Noinu]

Sometimes I question if most of the left actually cares about people...

You're not the only one.

[4 Leaf Clover]

william howe , its good that you asked a question , but it's bad that you didn't keep asking , but started debating with really bald claims. Those death tolls are not facts , or statistics , but pure numbers that someone vomited long time ago and that were never
backed ever since.

You , then , need to clear for yourself what is more important and what describes those people more : who and how many they killed , or what was their revolutionary role. We do not support killing innocent people , but there you bump into another question. Who is
innocent and who is not?

And there comes another question . Who decides who is innocent and who is not ? Bourgheoisie , Us , God ?

Keep asking those questions to yourself , and you will be a step closer to putting historical events into revolutionary context

[4 Leaf Clover]

Purges did happen and many of them we do not support . That has been said millions of times. I have a feeling that you condemn us for not being able to change history. Purges do not describe our ideology , period

[mikelepore]

'psychopaths' rather than 'leaders'.

As usual, the people in this thread omit the only relevant issue, which is whether planning or management is carried out by the democratic participation of the workers. It is the concept of having a LEADER that is anti-communist. Never mind the count of how many people died in the purge -- the question is: did that purge occur because all of the workers throughout society discussed whether to have a purge and voted on the suggestion? It is the fact that any decision whatsoever was the policy of some sort of leadership, and not the expressed desire of the general population of workers, that immediately exposes the society as being class-ruled and anti-communist.

[WeAreReborn]

Seriously?
Why wouldn't I be serious? I think most people would ask you that.. But please if you wish to speak your side do so. In fact I am curious to hear how you can justify it.

[WeAreReborn]

Purges did happen and many of them we do not support . That has been said millions of times. I have a feeling that you condemn us for not being able to change history. Purges do not describe our ideology , period
I understand that but at least how I see it is that if a system is set up into place that can allow such things to happen you need to review it. I do see the benefits to Marxism and possibly Marxism-Leninism if you don't directly follow what Lenin laid out. I can see how it can achieve Communism. The problem that I see is that power corrupts. If you let a leader have too much power or even a group of people, it can turn out bad. Stalin is an example.

[Rafiq]

This is a good example of Trolling. :closedeyes:

Do you really need our opinion on this matter?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

You can still hate Stalin and not exaggerate numbers, ya know ;)
Past purges have no relevance to our current situation, unless someone is planning one and wants tips :rolleyes:
PS: Lenin sucks, Trotsky sucks, Stalin sucks, Mao sucks, Jets suck, Knicks suck, Yankees suck, Krypton sucks

[Revolution starts with U]

Everyone's a fake communist but I and I.
Stalin aint got nothin on me! :cursing:

[Revolution starts with U]

That's ^ poetry, if you can figure it out.

[Obs]

Why wouldn't I be serious? I think most people would ask you that.. But please if you wish to speak your side do so. In fact I am curious to hear how you can justify it.
If you don't have purges, and you make being in a position of power favourable, you have career makers and opportunists rising in party ranks, betraying the revolution. My respect for human life quite frankly goes out the window when it comes to protecting socialism.

[Noinu]

My respect for human life quite frankly goes out the window when it comes to protecting socialism.

No kidding *rolls eyes*

[Thirsty Crow]

Sure, if Stalin and Mao did commit mass murders for selfish reasons and disregarded Marxist theory, you could call them fake communists. They didn't, but, y'know, whatever boats your float.

1) Non-antagonistic classes within a society which has achieved socialism

2) Socialism in one country - it is possible to achieve such a thing

3) Exploiting Marxist theories on bourgeois decadence (with regard to lifestyle) in order to justify a legislation which outlaws homosexuality

Fake communists? I think so.
But only if we agree on the following thing: communists, their political goals, strategies, proclamations and concrete policies have to be judged along the lines of their adherence to the most broadly conceived Marxist theory.

[NecroCommie]

"Because Stalin killed X number of people vanguard party is not worth the effort."
"Vanguard party leads you to want to kill people!"
"Saying that the five-year plans increased heavy industries and the allover welfare means you want to eat my baby, just like Stalin did."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My respect for human life quite frankly goes out the window when it comes to protecting socialism.

And that is why your ideas will never bring about Socialism.

I'm not coming at this from some wishy-washy liberal point of view, but you cannot explain away state-sanctioned murder, be it in the form of capital punishment, extra-judicial murder or whatever. It was wrong in the USSR and it is wrong in the US. That is the end of the matter.

Stalin proclaimed Socialism in the USSR in 1936. Thus, it is really difficult to defend the purges in the name of 'revolution'. If Socialism had been achieved by 1936, then there should have been a far better way of dealing with supposed counter-revolutionaries (in reality, those who disagreed with Stalin's policy and rule) than making corpses of them.

[Obs]

1) Non-antagonistic classes within a society which has achieved socialism

2) Socialism in one country - it is possible to achieve such a thing

3) Exploiting Marxist theories on bourgeois decadence (with regard to lifestyle) in order to justify a legislation which outlaws homosexuality
Oh right, I forgot, communism must never evolve, we must always follow the exact word of Marx and his prophet, Friedrich Engels.


Fake communists? I think so.
But only if we agree on the following thing: communists, their political goals, strategies, proclamations and concrete policies have to be judged along the lines of their adherence to the most broadly conceived Marxist theory.

I don't know how to tell you this, but, ehh... Marxist-Leninists and Maoists outweigh all other Marxist tendencies in terms of adherents quite colossally. I guess you could weasel your way out of that by claiming that these two don't qualify as Marxist theories, but then you crazy, brutha.


And that is why your ideas will never bring about Socialism.
They got closer than anyone else's.


I'm not coming at this from some wishy-washy liberal point of view, but you cannot explain away state-sanctioned murder, be it in the form of capital punishment, extra-judicial murder or whatever. It was wrong in the USSR and it is wrong in the US. That is the end of the matter.
This is absolutely correct if you assume that there's such a thing as human rights and that these exist independently of class struggle. However, this is not the case.


Stalin proclaimed Socialism in the USSR in 1936.
Stalin was wrong.


Thus, it is really difficult to defend the purges in the name of 'revolution'. If Socialism had been achieved by 1936, then there should have been a far better way of dealing with supposed counter-revolutionaries (in reality, those who disagreed with Stalin's policy and rule) than making corpses of them.
You're right, they should have made fuel or furniture out of them. Much more productive.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh right, I forgot, communism must never evolve, we must always follow the exact word of Marx and his prophet, Friedrich Engels.Nice try. Anti-dogmatism of the last resort. There is no argument here except "communism evolves", which amounts to a vague statement lacking in any meaning whatsoever. What is it that evolves? The conceived future socio-economic formation? Or the movement and its theory? Or maybe the meaning of the term itself? And here we also have the paradoxical position which rhetorically insists on historical development of theory, but once it most clearly proves that it deviates from the core methodological positions of Marxism as a theory of class society and revolution, it does not out of a sudden proclaim that it is so - but rather maintains the term "Marxist" as a factor of legitimation.

We're talking about theory here, and more specifically, about class analysis (most pronounced in point one).
The basis of Marxist class analysis is the groups' relation to the means of production. The question is: who owns these and who appropriates the surplus. The biggest problem with "non-antagonistic classes" line is that it clearly is not a Marxist line. However, it may be justified if the reality of USSR necessitates a different approach - but, remember, in 1936 USSR achieved socialism, and there weren't any exploiting classes left! So, what can then justify the use of the term "class" alongside rhetorical emphasis on its Marxist roots and Marxism in general? What did separate workers from the peasants in collectivised agriculture sector?

The second point refers to basic position in relation to the notion of "socialism" - it is a society in which there are no exploiting classes nor there is production for profit (that is, commodity production). But the Soviet economy, that is - its products - were produced in the form of commodities. And that is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism.
However, I do not advocate the theory of state capitalism. Just to make that clear.

And point three, well, if it was the creative advancement of communism that enabled the Soviet state to pronounce that homosexuality should be banned since it represents a bourgeois deviation - then to hell with communism or its "creative additions". Quite frankly, it is incredible that you can brush aside this issue so easily.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention that great piece of dialectical thinking which asserts that in order to reach communism - a stateless society - the State should take up even more initiative and act in relative independence. Great one.


I don't know how to tell you this, but, ehh... Marxist-Leninists and Maoists outweigh all other Marxist tendencies in terms of adherents quite colossally. I guess you could weasel your way out of that by claiming that these two don't qualify as Marxist theories, but then you crazy, brutha.
Sure, if it soothes you, I'll play along. Marxists-Leninists and Maoists outnumber members of other Marxist tendencies 10 000:1.
And I did not generalize to the whole of these tendencies. But the fact remains: anyone who supports the positions which I outlined above has no right whatsoever to call himself/herself a Marxist. Much like revolutionaries shouldn't toss around the term "Fascist" and apply it to anyone upholding an authoritarian, reactionary position, so too should self proclaimed revolutionaries investigate their own position and those of others. Self proclaimed Marxists needn't be Marxists at all.
But I guess that I'm being dogmatic. Oh no, the horror of clear demarcation.

[Kléber]

I don't know how to tell you this, but, ehh... Marxist-Leninists and Maoists outweigh all other Marxist tendencies in terms of adherents quite colossally. I guess you could weasel your way out of that by claiming that these two don't qualify as Marxist theories, but then you crazy, brutha.
First of all this is a ridiculous point to try and make, every revolutionary perspective has only been held by a minority of people at some point in history. That said - have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? Stalinism is discredited, Stalinists are outnumbered in many countries, most mass "M-L" parties are now reformist junkyard organizations, so they don't outweigh and definitely not colossally - unless of course you are claiming the Communist Party of China.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Both Lenin and Trotsky where very authoritarian themselves and centralized power, crushed any oppossition they feelt needed to be crushed (kronstadt?) to belive that things would have been soooo much different frome Stalin getting the power, is naive.

The funny thing when you talk obout the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China (during Maos time) only the bad things are menthioned, without regarding the positive and if you dont compare them that just showes how ignorant modern history can bee.

And still 10-50 million?! cant people see how made up that sounds? No serious counting can end up to this if they didnt have a political motivation.

[NecroCommie]

And still 10-50 million?! cant people see how made up that sounds? No serious counting can end up to this if they didnt have a political motivation.
Also, the ~300% error margin does not increase the credibility of that estimate.

[Obs]

Nice try. Anti-dogmatism of the last resort. There is no argument here except "communism evolves", which amounts to a vague statement lacking in any meaning whatsoever. What is it that evolves? The conceived future socio-economic formation? Or the movement and its theory? Or maybe the meaning of the term itself? And here we also have the paradoxical position which rhetorically insists on historical development of theory, but once it most clearly proves that it deviates from the core methodological positions of Marxism as a theory of class society and revolution, it does not out of a sudden proclaim that it is so - but rather maintains the term "Marxist" as a factor of legitimation.
Communism, or rather, communist analysis of society must evolve as society evolve. To claim that the material conditions and factors are the same today (or were in 1917, for that matter) as they were when Marx lived is silly, and so is advocating exactly what Marx advocated, since his analysis was based on living in and studying 19th century Europe - not the world at large in 2010.


We're talking about theory here, and more specifically, about class analysis (most pronounced in point one).
The basis of Marxist class analysis is the groups' relation to the means of production. The question is: who owns these and who appropriates the surplus. The biggest problem with "non-antagonistic classes" line is that it clearly is not a Marxist line. However, it may be justified if the reality of USSR necessitates a different approach - but, remember, in 1936 USSR achieved socialism, and there weren't any exploiting classes left! So, what can then justify the use of the term "class" alongside rhetorical emphasis on its Marxist roots and Marxism in general? What did separate workers from the peasants in collectivised agriculture sector?

The second point refers to basic position in relation to the notion of "socialism" - it is a society in which there are no exploiting classes nor there is production for profit (that is, commodity production). But the Soviet economy, that is - its products - were produced in the form of commodities. And that is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism.
However, I do not advocate the theory of state capitalism. Just to make that clear.
1) I am not religious. Simply because Stalin claimed the USSR was socialist in 1936 doesn't mean it necessarily was.

2) If we accept, for a moment, the Marxist-Leninist line that is that socialism is a transitory stage, then the existence of classes does not necessitate the existence of a bourgeoisie. The difference between a worker and a kolkhoz peasant (if I'm not entirely mistaken, which I might be) is that while the worker's production is entirely collectivised with society as a whole, the kolkhoz peasant is a part of a co-operative venture, which means that he is a peasant in the same sense a peasant in a capitalist society would be. However, he is not necessarily antagonistic towards workers, in that he does not exploit the labour of workers.

3) While the USSR may or may not have been socialist by 1936, the world in general was not. Since a country generally can't just secede from the world and be entirely self-sufficient, the USSR had to continue to conform to the use of money and the production of value. Attempts to do otherwise (the Khmer Rouge, for instance) have had disastrous consequences.


And point three, well, if it was the creative advancement of communism that enabled the Soviet state to pronounce that homosexuality should be banned since it represents a bourgeois deviation - then to hell with communism or its "creative additions". Quite frankly, it is incredible that you can brush aside this issue so easily.
Well, that was a massive non-sequitur. Anyway, since socialism has to do with distribution of material goods, and not about who you can and cannot bang, this hardly has to do with communist theory. I'm bisexual, and I recognise that while the banning of sodomy was an incredibly stupid move, it was based on a faulty understanding of homosexual behaviour as a phenomenon, and has little to do with the workings of the Soviet state.


And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention that great piece of dialectical thinking which asserts that in order to reach communism - a stateless society - the State should take up even more initiative and act in relative independence. Great one.
Cool, whatever.




Sure, if it soothes you, I'll play along. Marxists-Leninists and Maoists outnumber members of other Marxist tendencies 10 000:1.
And I did not generalize to the whole of these tendencies. But the fact remains: anyone who supports the positions which I outlined above has no right whatsoever to call himself/herself a Marxist.
Sigh.


But only if we agree on the following thing: communists, their political goals, strategies, proclamations and concrete policies have to be judged along the lines of their adherence to the most broadly conceived Marxist theory.
I happen to agree with that point. That you secretly don't only does yourself a disservice, not me.


Much like revolutionaries shouldn't toss around the term "Fascist" and apply it to anyone upholding an authoritarian, reactionary position, so too should self proclaimed revolutionaries investigate their own position and those of others. Self proclaimed Marxists needn't be Marxists at all.
But I guess that I'm being dogmatic. Oh no, the horror of clear demarcation.
I think this is where you and I are simply not going to come to a consensus, ever - you are using 'Marxism' as an ideology set in stone, the writings of Marx to be followed nigh-religiously. In contrast, I see Marxism as a science, constantly evolving to fit the socio-economic trends and circumstances of society we live in.




First of all this is a ridiculous point to try and make, every revolutionary perspective has only been held by a minority of people at some point in history. That said - have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? Stalinism is discredited, Stalinists are outnumbered in many countries, most mass "M-L" parties are now reformist junkyard organizations, so they don't outweigh and definitely not colossally - unless of course you are claiming the Communist Party of China.
1) I was responding to the bolded part in my quote of his post and not making an independent point of my own. You're felling a mighty strawman here, but a strawman nonetheless.

2) There is no such thing as Stalinism. But let's pretend there is - define it (in detail), and then tell me a country where "Stalinists" are outnumbered by adherents to other communist tendencies.

3) Your critique of "most mass 'M-L' parties" is unsourced and largely untrue. I could stoop to saying that 'most' Trotskyist groups amount to nothing more than petty intellectuals meeting in cafés and selling t-shirts or that 'most' anarchist groups consist mainly of children with little to no ideological consciousness - but I won't make such a sweeping generalisation, and I won't lower myself so far as to resort to stupid stereotypes, because I have no sources for either of those claims, and frankly they're ridiculous ad homs just like the one in your post.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Stalin's purges for fear of losing power don't count? :confused:

Ultimately, I think there's a degree of validity in this statement. I've always felt that advances in Maoist Theory (such as his ideas on Permanent Revolution) where based more-so on Mao's will to empowerment, rather than substantial 'reinterpretations' of Marxist theory.

There was some objective criteria underlying Mao's idea - I mean sure there were Bourgeios elements in the Communist Party, but that was because of the lack of reciprocity and accountability the Communist Party had to its citizens - no amount of purging was going to fix that solution - only structural changes to the way in which the Party functioned would.

Anyways, I think to analyze the merits of any ideology, you need to look at the material (worldly) effects of it (which is an idea that I believe occurred frequently in Mao's Philosophical Writings), and the results of the implementation of his Theory on Permanent Revolution wasn't the purging of Bourgeios elements within the Communist Party (or even a greater degree of political power within the hands of the proletariat), rather, it was the empowering of Mao at the expense of the proletariat - and arguably, it led to the advancement in which the 'socialist' policies of China were reversed.

[Reznov]

False = Anyone you don't like or just think its their fault for trying to implement Marxism and having it sabotaged and getting and accepting biased views from the American Propaganda Machine.

True = Anyone you like, but has not actually done anything at all except sell some papers at a college campus.

[Zanthorus]

tell me a country where "Stalinists" are outnumbered by adherents to other communist tendencies.

England. The Trotskyist movement here easily outnumbers the remnants of official Communism.

[WeAreReborn]

If you don't have purges, and you make being in a position of power favourable, you have career makers and opportunists rising in party ranks, betraying the revolution. My respect for human life quite frankly goes out the window when it comes to protecting socialism.
Well first off the revolution I want is Anarchist but just for argument sake let's say it is Marxist, which I definitely would support. I would oppose any purges made by the leaders scared of losing their power. Killing is hardly an excusable act, and after the initial killing of the revolution any more killing would be an injustice. Your last sentence is quite disturbing to be honest. It sounds like something that would come out of a right wing's mouth. The whole point of the revolution is for human rights and better human living conditions. It is for the good of the people and if you would throw all of what you are fighting for away for the hope of a leftist society, it would be irresponsible and counterproductive. Do not become what you hate.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Also, the ~300% error margin does not increase the credibility of that estimate.


Yeah i mean if they came to the conclusion that around 10 million died of un-natural causess, how what about the other 40 millions?
Did they count people that might have died? and if so, what did this people almoust died of? How can some one "might" have died?

This means that you should never belive such un-accurate numbers.

[William Howe]

The main reason I think that Stalin and the like shouldn't be considered 'true communists', is because true communists care only for the good of the people. How can you murder your own people, people loyal to you, with or without malicious intent, and still be considered a man or woman of the people?

Like it or not, Stalin did indeed murder a large number of people. Not 50,000,000 like the Right wingers say, but still, he caused a pretty big death toll, almost entirely composed of innocent people, many of whom SUPPORTED Stalin.

[4 Leaf Clover]

he caused a pretty big death toll
prove it , say what's the number , then prove number as well


almost entirely composed of innocent people

prove it

[Revolution starts with U]

Even USSR records put the purges at several hundred thousands, and millions in the famines. So, whether 50m innocents or 800k innocents, does that make it any better?

[Old Man Diogenes]

This is absolutely correct if you assume that there's such a thing as human rights and that these exist independently of class struggle. However, this is not the case.

Could you please explain this? I've heard other people say it here and don't really understand the statement. And in this case does it mean you think the State should be allowed to murder people they disagree with or not?

[Frank Zapatista]

I don't think it's possible to say who's a "true or "fake" Communist considering we've never actually acheived true Communism. If one of the revolutionaries theories worked and the others didn't that would be a whole other story, this however, is not the case.

[Paulappaul]

prove it , say what's the number , then prove number as well

Executed (1930-53): 786,098
Imprisoned: 3.5 Million
Death in prison and exile: 2 million

The Road to Terror, Getty and Naumov, Yale University Press, 1999. Pages 587-594.

So about 2 Million+ not to mention those gone undocumented. Some 2 million to many though, no matter what that's a big death toll and to much to ever be justified.


There is no such thing as Stalinism. But let's pretend there is - define it (in detail), and then tell me a country where "Stalinists" are outnumbered by adherents to other communist tendencies.

Stalinism does exist. It was the principles and tactics held by Stalin. Some would consider them deviations of Lenin or a furthering of his ideas.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562734/Stalinism

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Even USSR records put the purges at several hundred thousands, and millions in the famines. So, whether 50m innocents or 800k innocents, does that make it any better?

Yes it does matter, since it will show that the rightis are clearly lying in a attempt todemonize the USSR without thinking of how unlikly it is to exterminated one thirde of the countrys population.

[William Howe]

Yes it does matter, since it will show that the rightis are clearly lying in a attempt todemonize the USSR without thinking of how unlikly it is to exterminated one thirde of the countrys population.

True, but it doesn't change the fact that the acts and purges commited were evil things. Kill 10 people or 10 million, it's just as evil.

[Volcanicity]

True, but it doesn't change the fact that the acts and purges commited were evil things. Kill 10 people or 10 million, it's just as evil.
The purges were necessary they were'nt evil,and to push the death toll up to a ridiculous amount is Anti-Communist propaganda which no matter how much a anti-Stalinist you are you should be against.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Kill 10 people or 10 million, it's just as evil.

thats so sad :crying:

[red cat]

True, but it doesn't change the fact that the acts and purges commited were evil things. Kill 10 people or 10 million, it's just as evil.

"People" can be capitalists as well. So when the numbers are low enough compared to the population, one possibility can be that former-capitalists and their agents trying to restore the old order are being attacked by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Zanthorus]

Stalinism does exist. It was the principles and tactics held by Stalin.

The problem is that there is no single set of cohesive tactics which were upheld consistently by Stalin throughout his career. In the late 20's and early 30's the Communist International was denouncing the social-democrats as "social fascists" and attempting to make a break from social-democracy in all spheres, by after 34/35 however they were taking up positions to the right of the social-democrats in order to join in 'people's anti-fascist' or 'popular' fronts with the liberal and democratic bourgeoisie. A much better substitute label for what most people call Stalinism would be 'Official Communism', which emphasises the continuity with the Communist International from it's foundation to it's dissolution in '43 without erroneously placing emphasis on the individual figure of Stalin.

[Paulappaul]

The problem is that there is no single set of cohesive tactics which were upheld consistently by Stalin throughout his career

Neither did Marx, or in fact any philosopher or politician. It's natural for us to change our views. Within the movement that adheres to political writings and actions of Stalin, it is there job to make sense of what he believed.

[DuracellBunny97]

there are lots of people on this site who have great sympathy for Stalin and Mao, I don't completely disregard their opinions, as they do have some valid points, and I do uphold Stalin and Mao in some respects, but overall they are just terrible leaders to me, and in the case of Stalin, an outright villain. But Stalin and Mao did do, and attempt to do great things, but not in ways I can support, murdering and locking up people who disagree with you, forcing propaganda down the throats of your own people, and focusing on your countries status rather than the good of your people just isn't acceptable to me. Perhaps I'm hypocritical, as I do have more sympathy for Fidel Castro, not because he is a good leader, but he runs a tight ship, and saved his country from Batista's regime, guess I just have a soft spot for revolutionaries. The people I most look to for my communist views, are the ilk of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Gramsci, Kropotkin, Proudhon, etc. etc. Some might look more to Stalin and Mao, true, but as long as they don't believe a country should be run coercively, with the government eliminating naysayers left and right, then I'm willing to talk to them, but I don't see a problem with not considering Mao and Stalin 'real' communists.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

None of this changes the fact that Stalin, on a social level, sent the USSR spiralling back towards the previous regime. Outlawing homosexuality? In what way is this 'necessary' to continue socialism?

[Dimentio]

In history, I see a distinction from people like Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, and people like Mao and Stalin. Mao and Stalin really disregarded any basic Marxist ideas, and turned their respective countries into beaurocratic empires. Lenin however did make attempts to follow Marx, and strove for a global revolution, or workers' liberation.

Plus, in my opinion, Stalinist and Maoist mass-murders for their own selfish reasons really makes them 'psychopaths' rather than 'leaders'.



Is it wrong then to see people like Marx and Lenin as 'true communists', and people like Stalin and Mao as not? (no offense to you if you actually are Stalinist or Maoist)

"You either die a hero's death or live long enough to become the villain" ~ Harvey Dent

If Lenin had lived until 1932 instead, or if Trotsky had became the general secretary, it would most likely still have developed in a similar manner.

If Trotsky had done what he blamed Stalin for not doing, "spreading the world revolution", the USSR would have been dead by 1940 (and understand that Trotsky supported the peace treaty with Poland in 1920).