A question for those who uphold Stalin

[ed miliband]

What do you think of people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw, who uncritically supported Stalin despite being right-wing social democrats with added nuttiness (supporting eugenics, for example). Does it say anything about Stalin's rule, positive or negative, or is it just a moot point to be forgotten about?

[Savior]

Stalin had a few good ideas. His craving for power overrode that and now he will only be remebered as a Tyrant.

Does anyone listen to these people?

[Black Sheep]

Many times ultra right wing fuckheads side with the USSR, seeing in it the model for a strong nationalist self-sufficient stronghold.That's why you have national bolshevism.
It does say either that there were nationalist hints in Stalin's regime, or that these fuckheads mistake (maybe intentionally) "proletarian patriotism" (='love' for the socialist accomplishments) with nationalism.

as you can see my post is flamewar-proof.

[ed miliband]

Well...?

[graymouser]

Hal Draper wrote an entire essay where this and similar ideas are a main theme:

The Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm)

Draper used the enthusiasm of the Webbs for the society that Stalin created to draw a connection between social democracy and Stalinism as varieties of "socialism-from-above." I would argue that the lapsing of former Stalinists into open social democracy (Eurocommunism as well as the post-USSR drift of most "Communist" parties) further reinforces Draper's thesis today.

[4 Leaf Clover]

What do you think of people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw, who uncritically supported Stalin despite being right-wing social democrats with added nuttiness (supporting eugenics, for example). Does it say anything about Stalin's rule, positive or negative, or is it just a moot point to be forgotten about?

no

[hatzel]

no

yes

[4 Leaf Clover]

no , you

[hatzel]

Haha, okay, I'll rephrase:

What was the 'no' aimed at? 'Does it say anything about Stalin's rule, positive or negative? No!' or 'is it just a moot point to be forgotten about? No!' or maybe even 'what do you think of people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw, who uncritically supported Stalin despite being right-wing social democrats with added nuttiness (supporting eugenics, for example)? No!' Though I guess that one's not a yes-or-no question, so...

[ComradeOm]

What do you think of people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw, who uncritically supported Stalin despite being right-wing social democrats with added nuttiness (supporting eugenics, for example). Does it say anything about Stalin's rule, positive or negative, or is it just a moot point to be forgotten about?The latter. There are a hundred and one arguments to be levelled against Stalin and the system that developed under him but using the likes of Shaw to suggest 'guilt by association' is an exceptionally weak one. Any criticism of the Stalinist regime should start with the regime itself, its characteristics and its policies, rather than a few irrelevant Western intellectuals

[ed miliband]

The latter. There are a hundred and one arguments to be levelled against Stalin and the system that developed under him but using the likes of Shaw to suggest 'guilt by association' is an exceptionally weak one. Any criticism of the Stalinist regime should start with the regime itself, its characteristics and its policies, rather than a few irrelevant Western intellectuals

But the question does concern the characteristics and policies of the Stalinist regime, only from a slightly different angle: what made the characteristics and policies of Stalin's Russia so palatable to people like GB Shaw and Beatrice Webb, who viewed socialism as a bureaucratic excercise to be reached very slowly without any involvement from "the mob"?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Have you read Soviet Communism - A New Civilisation by the Webbs? It's not actually as uncritical as some people like to believe, same as Mission to Moscow. I'd recommend reading it as I really think it is the best book available on the subject because it was written by two intelligent critical thinkers who both had a stake in the capitalist system.

[ed miliband]

Admittedly I haven't, but I've read a bit about the Webbs, Shaw and Fabianism in general (finding it absolutely abhorrent but quite interesting) and some stuff about 'Soviet Communism...' and 'Mission to Moscow'.

[graymouser]

But the question does concern the characteristics and policies of the Stalinist regime, only from a slightly different angle: what made the characteristics and policies of Stalin's Russia so palatable to people like GB Shaw and Beatrice Webb, who viewed socialism as a bureaucratic excercise to be reached very slowly without any involvement from "the mob"?
Right, this was the thrust of Draper's "Two Souls": through entirely different methods, a common "socialism-from-above" was pictured as the goal of both the Stalinists and the Fabian social democrats. This commonality was rooted in the fact that socialism was something done for workers by enlightened leaders rather than something done by the workers themselves; Draper's essay looks at how different schemata of socialism have contained this principle, openly or in a hidden form, over the years.

Any of the societies that "went communist" after World War II for one reason or another, also embodied this same "socialism-from-above" in a more chemically pure form. There was no messy involvement with soviets and a workers' revolution; it was right to what they called socialism, whether the workers liked it or not.

[ed miliband]

Right, this was the thrust of Draper's "Two Souls": through entirely different methods, a common "socialism-from-above" was pictured as the goal of both the Stalinists and the Fabian social democrats. This commonality was rooted in the fact that socialism was something done for workers by enlightened leaders rather than something done by the workers themselves; Draper's essay looks at how different schemata of socialism have contained this principle, openly or in a hidden form, over the years.

Any of the societies that "went communist" after World War II for one reason or another, also embodied this same "socialism-from-above" in a more chemically pure form. There was no messy involvement with soviets and a workers' revolution; it was right to what they called socialism, whether the workers liked it or not.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Draper and like 'Two Souls...', but Draper's perspective on the issue is clearly a world away from the perspective of somebody who upholds Stalin, and I'm interested as to how they view a possible kinship between Fabianism and 'Stalinism' (whatever that may entail).

[Palingenisis]

What do you think of people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw, who uncritically supported Stalin despite being right-wing social democrats with added nuttiness (supporting eugenics, for example). Does it say anything about Stalin's rule, positive or negative, or is it just a moot point to be forgotten about?

Yes mad technocrats admirred the USSR under Comrade Stalin for its amazing achievements in terms of productivity and modernizing generally the same way that Nazbols today admire Stalin's supposed strength. They admire aspects of the Communist project but that doesnt mean they buy into the whole.

[Comrade_Stalin]

What do you think of people like Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw, who uncritically supported Stalin despite being right-wing social democrats with added nuttiness (supporting eugenics, for example). Does it say anything about Stalin's rule, positive or negative, or is it just a moot point to be forgotten about?

Let's give a Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist view on the subject, which is missing from this post. There are a number of reasons the west allied with Stalin, during world war two. These reasons are also the same for why Beatrice and Sidney Webb or GB Shaw are "uncritically" of Stalin. Not that most if not all social democrats hate Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist just as much as they hate most other communist groups.

1. Free education: You can see this in Cuba today were people could get a turly free (and good) education. Most of these people then leave the country to take jobs in other country were there is no free education. They always get in said non-free country, because the supply of educated works are lower, and there for rasies the price of there wages. This is the reason we see so many people come form Cuba to the USA. The social democrats support Stalin, because in a seens, Stalin type country, give them a endless pool of "free" skilled labor.

2. Germany under the Nazis stilled owned the same debt to the west that lead to the Nazis coming to power. This is the real reason that the USA side with USSR. If USSR had failed to stop the Nazis, they would of had to big army which would of made it hard to forces Nazis Germany to pay back the debt form world war 1.

3. Better paid workers, make it easier to prove that capitalism works. Stalin payed workers well, and skilled ones even more to off set the problem of point 1. This lead to a lot of money in the hands of workers. Which means if they go to a capitalist nation, they can become capitalist themselves. If it had been a social democrats country the only way to get the money would to be already in said capitalist class. It funny that social democrats hate Stalin, while loving the result of his works.

[Comrade_Stalin]

technocrats admirred the USSR under Comrade Stalin for its amazing achievements in terms of productivity and modernizing.

technocrats admirre any group who gives free money for R and D with no-questions asked. If you have not noted, technocrats are against money gjust like the Left communist. Which last time I check did not happen in the USSR. Why do you think that the technocrats start in the USA. I will tell you in not because of the Soviet Union.



Nazbols today admire Stalin's supposed strength. They admire aspects of the Communist project but that doesnt mean they buy into the whole.

Nazbol is just another right wing group trying to lable it self as a "peoples party"

[bailey_187]

3. Better paid workers, make it easier to prove that capitalism works. Stalin payed workers well, and skilled ones even more to off set the problem of point 1. This lead to a lot of money in the hands of workers. Which means if they go to a capitalist nation, they can become capitalist themselves. If it had been a social democrats country the only way to get the money would to be already in said capitalist class. It funny that social democrats hate Stalin, while loving the result of his works.

This is nonsense.

[Widerstand]

2. Germany under the Nazis stilled owned the same debt to the west that lead to the Nazis coming to power. This is the real reason that the USA side with USSR. If USSR had failed to stop the Nazis, they would of had to big army which would of made it hard to forces Nazis Germany to pay back the debt form world war 1.

Right, so the USA sided with the USSR to force Germany pay it's WW1 debts, the majority of which went to European states, just to massively throw Money at Germany a few years later (Marshall Plan)?