Uncle Joe and 'Authoritarianism'

[Cassius Clay]

In light of the recent threads/polls which have been posted I feel this post is necessary. I think there is a misunderstanding going on here, both from some self proclaimed 'Stalinists' and 'Anti-authoritarians'. That misunderstanding and subsequent threads is based on the belief that Stalin or the USSR under him was a 'Totalitarian' society. Some might accusse me of only adding to this mess/argument/dispute/flame war with this thread. That isn't my intention even the least. Rather that we cannot get anywhere with this debate if misconceptions held on both sides, that also goes for people following Stalin because they want to become a Saddam type dictator.

First I would like to ask the members here whether or not they can find a quote or speech which can be atributed to Stalin where he speaks of 'Authoritarianism'. This may sound ludicrous, why would he admit to it? Well Hitler spoke numerous times of 'his will being the will of the German people' aswell as numerous other similar type of remarks. Other dictators throughout history have proclaimed themselves to be Gods, Saddam for example went about seriesly claiming to be a descendant of Mohammad.

You cant find any of this from Stalin, and please dont come back with quotes like 'one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic' or 'it's who counts the votes that matters'. They come from a play backed by the Regean administration from Ukrainian Neo-Nazis.

According to Stalin's daughter who is used by the right-wing to criticise Stalin he lived a simple life in simple surroundings. When he could of easily built palaces for himself. The actions of a dictator? I dont think so, but that isn't really on topic. I'm just trying to give a accurate picture of Stalin as a person. Ofcourse this post really is two different discussions. One on Stalin himself and the second on the USSR as a society in that era.

General Zhukov said after Stalin had died 'Joseph Stalin was not a man with whom difficult problems could not be brought up, with whom one could not discuss and even energetically defend one's opinion. If some people mantain the contrary, I say their declarations are untrue.'

Stalin's son in law recently said that when he was eating with him that he would not only ridicule the 'cult' in the newspapers but that once he had phoned him at work saying that science (he was a scientist in Moscow) should not be interfered by politics.

Is that the description of a man who beleived in 'Authoritarinism' that was trying to spread it in all aspects of society (The Third Reich for example had science and maths classes which spent more time trying to prove how evil the Jews were, in effect Nazi Ideology.) and who thought he was a dictator type God figure? No it isn't, and their are countless more such examples.

But the above is only in close family or personal relationships, you may say that it still doesn't change the over all system working in the USSR under Stalin. Well that maybe true if it weren't for a few things. Once again a self proclaimed 'anti-Stalinist' is going to have to come up with a reliable backed quote from Stalin showing that he believed in 'Authoritarianism' and sources which refute the above.


First of all here are Stalin's thoughts on Beuracracy, since many people here and in the west hold the view that the Beuracracy was part of a 'Totilatarian inefficient beuracracy' I think this is of vital importance.


‘…there should not be left in the country a single official, no matter how highly placed, concerning whom the ordinary man might say: he is above the law’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p.212)



‘We must make a sharp turn towards combating the new chauvinist sentiments and pillory those bureaucrats in our institutions and those party comrades who forgetting what we gained in October, namely the confidence of the formerly oppressed people, a confidence that we must cherish’. (J. V. Stalin: Vol. 5; p. 252)



‘…a resolute struggle against bureaucracy in the direction of enlisting the broad masses of the working class in this struggle’. (J. V. Stalin: Works. 7; pp. 349-501)



‘Bureaucracy, is one of the worst enemies of our progress’. (J. V. Stalin: Speech Delivered at the Eighth Congress of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, May 16, 1927,)



The surest remedy for bureaucracy is raising the cultural level of the workers and peasants. One can curse and denounce bureaucracy in the state apparatus, one can stigmatise and pillory bureaucracy in our practical work, but unless the masses of the workers reach a certain level of culture, which will create the possibility, the desire, the ability to control the state apparatus from below, by the masses of the workers themselves, bureaucracy will continue to exist in spite of everything. Therefore, the cultural development of the working class and of the masses of the working peasantry, not only the development of literacy, although literacy is the basis of all culture, but primarily the cultivation of the ability to take part in the administration of the country, is the chief lever for improving the state and every other apparatus. This is the sense and significance of Lenin's slogan about the cultural revolution. (THE FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U. (B.), December 2-19, 1927.)[QUOTE]


These quotes also show Stalin's opinion on the workers and people of the USSR being able to criticise the government and that it should be the people running things. The words of a 'Authoritarian'? Note also that in 1935 a Constitution was introduced which was proclaimed to be 'the most democratic in the world'. Stalin spoke of 'the most democratic and free elections in the world' in reagrd to the elections in the late 1930's.

But it's all just words. You can say one thing and totally act the other. Or it's a mixture of lip-service and propaganda. Without a doubt these are genuine reasons to be sceptical of the truth. So what happened in reality? Did Stalin and the CPSU act on any of this.

Steps were taken to educate the people and the workers, bare in mind what the average mindset of a person in the Russian Empire was. They thought Germany was a person for example and there was between 70% and 80% of the population couldn't read. In the USSR

[QUOTE]''Between 1930 and 1933, the number of Party schools increased from 52,000 to more than 200,000 and the number of students from one million to 4,500,000. It was a remarkable effort to give a minimum of political coherence to hundreds of thousands who had just entered the Party" (figures from J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p.5.)[QUOTE]

The Webbs study of the Soviet society includes the below.

[QUOTE]"As regards the cultural development of the country, we have the following to record for the period under review:

a) The introduction of universal compulsory elementary education throughout the U.S.S.R., and an increase in literacy among the population from 67 per cent at the end of 1930 to 90 per cent at the end of 1933.

b) An increase in the number of pupils and students at schools of all grades from 14,358,000 in 1929 to 26,419,000 in 1933, including an increase from 11,697,000 to 19,163,000 in the number receiving elementary education, from 2,453,000 to 6,674,000 in the number receiving secondary education, and from 207,000 to 491,000 in the number receiving higher education.

c) An increase in the number of children receiving pre-school education from 838,000 in 1929 to 5,917,000 in 1933.

d) An increase in the number of higher educational institutions, general and special, from 91 in 1914 to 600 in 1933.

e) An increase in the number of scientific research institutes from 400 in 1929 to 840 in 1933.

f) An increase in the number of clubs and similar institutions from 32,000 in 1929 to 54,000 in 1933.

g) An increase in the number of cinemas, cinema installations in clubs, and mobile cinemas, from 9,800 in 1929 to 29,200 in 1933.

h) An increase in the circulation of newspapers from 12,500,000 in 1929 to 36,500,000 in 1933.

Perhaps it will not be amiss to point out that the proportion of workers among the students in our higher educational institutions is 51.4 per cent of the total, and that of labouring peasants 16.5 per cent; whereas in Germany, for instance, the proportion of workers among the students in higher educational institutions in 1932-33 was only 3.2 per cent of the total, and that of small peasants only 2.4 per cent."[QUOTE]


So those were the steps taken firstly to make sure the average Soviet who a generation before believed in witchcraft not only were educated, but the workers and peasants more so in one of the most advanced Capitalist nations in Europe, Germany. But this still doesn't prove that the USSR and Stalin were NOT 'Authoritarian' or a 'Totatlitarian' society. What it does show however that Stalin not only wanted to and spoke of educating the workers, peasants and people to take part in being critical of the government and taking part in running what was afterall their society. The same can be said of numerous bourgesie politicians, hell even Arnold speaks of being the 'People's Governor' and such. The difference is Stalin actually acted and carried out the rhectoric.

So how did the democracy work in the USSR? How far did what Stalin said go into practice.

The bourgesie historian Thurston gives a example.

[QUOTE]In September 1936 the worker M. A. Panov wrote an angry letter to I. P. Rumiantsev, then first secretary of Smolensk oblast. Panov had been "without a party card" for two years and had lately been out of work, too. After complaining to the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, he had learned that his case had been referred to by Rumiantsev. Ten days had gone by, but "you are still fooling around," Panov wrote to this local chieftain; "it’s time to end this red tape and get down to work." Declaring, "You speak beautifully, but in fact it must be said that that’s hot air", the worker announced that he would give Rumiantsev three days to act or he would complain to the party Central Committee. He was sure to add that he was not an "opportunist, Trotskyite or Zinovievite, but one of our own". Panov, like many other workers, thought that he had a right to criticise a high party official, then a member of the Central Committee, and to demand attention from him. Stalin had said, "Listen to the voice of the people," and his regime favoured such positive elements in the system, for they encouraged productivity, satisfaction, and commitment to the state

The elections held in 1937 were very democratic, and neither the type of elections held in a 'Totalitarian' society ran by a 'Authoritarian' dictator. As was democracy in the work place where workers were certainly not under the controll of a 'beuracracy'.


When the German fascists occupied the Soviet Union, they discovered all the archives of the Party Committee for the Western Region of Smolensk. All the meetings, all the discussions, all the Regional Committee and Central Committee directives, everything was there. The archive contains the proceedings of the electoral meetings that followed the Central Committee meeting of February 1937. It is therefore possible to know how things actually took place, at the local level.

Arch Getty described a number of typical examples of the 1937 elections in the Western Region. For the positions of district committee, thirty-four candidates were first presented for seven positions. There was a discussion of each candidate. Should a candidate wish to withdraw, a vote was made to see if the members accepted. All votes were secret.

Finally, during the May 1937 electoral campaign, for the 54,000 Party base organizations for which we have data, 55 per cent of the directing committees were replaced. In the Leningrad region, 48 per cent of the members of the local committees were replaced.

Examples at the average Soviet factory are clear of workers who were not working in any sought of 'Totaltarian' system.


The factory directors had power to assign workers to different roles in the
internal division of labor, to punish lateness and absenteeism with fines, but
they did not have the power as their capitalist counterparts do, to fire a worker.

The importance of this distinction was noted by Martin Nicholas in his
"Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR". This was a concrete meaning of the
phrase that labor power in the USSR was no longer a commodity bought and sold
like any other: its price (wages) was no longer depressed by the existence of a
relative surplus army of unemployed and the inalienable right of commodity
buyers to refuse to buy -- the right to not hire and to lay off -- was no longer recognized. Except during wartime, workers were free to quit; but managers could not fire them except by proving some criminal offense against them. Thus, lacking the whip hand, the managers were weak.

Also the workers had power to counter act a director who abused his
authority. As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour
Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to
hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss.

One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois
scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":

"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical
handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . .
. implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question
as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who
suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be
removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)

Walter Reuther, later the anti-Communist president of the United Auto Workers, who worked in a Soviet auto factory in the 1930s said, "Here are no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups. Here the workers are in control. Even the shop superintendent had no more right in these meetings than any other worker. I have witnessed many times already when the superintendent spoke too long. The workers in the hall decided he had already consumed enough time and the floor was given to a lathe hand who told of his problems and offered suggestions. Imagine this at Ford or Briggs. This is what the outside world calls the 'ruthless dictatorship in Russia'. I tell you ... in all countries we have thus far been in we have never found such genuine proletarian democracy"... (quoted from Phillip Bonosky, Brother Bill McKie: Building the Union at Ford [New York: International Publishers, 1953]).


Finally it is often said that a most common aspect of 'Totatiltarian' nations is that they have a controlled censorship in the press. Stalin said that criticism from the press was not only valuable but also right if it was only '8 or 10% right'. Given that Maxim Gorky actually wrote a letter to Stalin saying 'that you should not allow so much criticism in our press since it will only play into the hands of our enemies' it's clear that this princeple was kept to.

This is why comrades that I object to the label 'Authoritarian Stalinist' so strongly and will have nothing to do with polls that have no chance of expressing a opinion or for that matter anything resembling the truth.



.

[Sabocat]

My thinking on all of this is what's the rush to declare yourself either a Stalinist, a Maoist, a Leninist, a Trotskyist, a Marxist etc. ?

I can read, understand and appreciate pieces of each ideology and understand the contributions made by each, but refuse to label myself as one particular ideology. Marx/Engels were the great thinkers of the Communist ideal. Everyone following represented an interpretation of Marx. Why can't we take from all, learn from all?

Why is it so important to declare one or the other ideologies? Most of us here agree that we wish for a Communist society. Let's take what we can from history, evolve and move on. All this bickering and labelling is devisive.

Let's make the Great Society.

[Cassius Clay]

I share your hope for unity and am against Dogmatism and refusal to listen to others idea's and if there right there right. I also take what is good from groups and what is bad.

If you see a debate I had with a member of MIM I think you will see the above.

But to be honest comrade I think you've missed the point of the above.

[elijahcraig]

That was a masterful piece of work Comrade Cassius, wonder what the liberals will reply with?

[Cassius Clay]

And if anything my post points out I dont like 'Labels'. You will notice I use the word 'Stalinist' in quote form all the time. And I did read Issac Deutcher and Alan Woods before I read Ludo Martens. I'm in no hurry, to quote a old icon 'We have all the time in the world'.

[Sabocat]

No, I did not miss the point of the post. You are providing yet another post cannonizing Stalin.

I agree that Stalin was demonized by the western press, however, how many threads do we need demonstrating this?

[Cassius Clay]

Comrade if you understood the point of the thread then you wouldn't of replied with the above.

My intention as I have allready said was not to add to all the posts/flame wars regarding Stalin, if I've done that then I apologise. But I dont see anywhere where I've launched into praising Stalin or demonizing his opponents. Throughout the above post I have tried to question how much some of my sources really mean and tried to see it from a 'sceptics' posistion. The reason why I started this thread was to show why I object to these polls and constant label as somesought of ideology akin to Fascism. I do that because that Ideology doesn't exist in reality.

It's up to the people who respond to this to make sure it doesn't turn into the same old thread of stereotypes and ignorance. I've been as guilty as others before with that, that's why I've stayed clear of the threads with Stalin in recently.

[Sabocat]

No I wouldn't call it praising or demonizing, I would call it philibustering. ;)

No, your post did not praise or demonize but the underlying tone of your thread was to demonstrate that Stalin was considered an authoritarian, and here is some text that demonstrates that he wasn't.


My point is who cares? Whatever Stalin was, has no relevance to anything today. How does any of this contribute to the hopes and dreams for a Communist Society in the future?

Unless you're the curator for the Stalin museum, what's the significance to 2003?

[YKTMX]

I had a chuckle at the headline Cassius. You're assertion that YOU can put to bed thousands of pages of books and records and eye witness accounts with a 200 word post on a message board is outstanding self belief. Stalin was an authoratarian and a murdering pyschopath, and none of your propaganda or dubious quotes can change it. Stop trying to mould your beliefs into a man. If you feel it is neccessary to proclaim the gulag, the purges, the famine, the police state, the repression then fucking proclaim it. Don't mince your words like a bloody New Labour politician. Have some integrity, if you know the meaning of the word.

[elijahcraig]

eye witness accounts

Let's see some poor peasent and working class denouncements of Stalin, the thousands and thousands. I would love to see that.

[Som]

How about non-leninist press?

Or was this vibrant democracy not for them?

Was a single volume of Bakunin, or even Luxembourg or Deleon printed in this free and democratic society?

Did the anarchist movement, many of whom went and joined the communist party, aiding the bolshevik revolution, just fizzle out completely? How about what was left of the left communists? Did they have their own newspapers that they circulated freely?

How about just some criticism of stalin that wasn't in ultra polite terms? Theres factions in every society that have reasons to call their leader a murderous dictator, even if only as an opinionated rant.

I'd think I'd like to see some evidence of genuine opposition other than a few spattered statements for anything remotely convincing.

[dancingoutlaw]

Cassius Clay, with respect, I think that your characterization of Stalin is a little off the mark.

You first ask whether there is a speech where Stalin speaks of 'Authoritarianism.' You are right such a quote is hard to find. I think that Stalin was smarter than that. He wanted to build another cult unlike Hitler's that was exclusive. There is a strong difference between deeds and words.


Stalin's son in law recently said that when he was eating with him that he would not only ridicule the 'cult' in the newspapers but that once he had phoned him at work saying that science (he was a scientist in Moscow) should not be interfered by politics.

Yuri Zhdanov son of A.A. Zhdanov divorced five years after Stalin's death. If this story is true it cannot hold up to reality. Under Stalin a certain T.D. Lysenko was in control of the Soviet Agricultural Sciences. yuri had a run in critisizing Lysenko and saved his reputation (though not his father's) by writing an open apology in Pravda. In it he apologizes to Lysenko and praises him for defending the "attack of bourgeois geneticists." The problem is that most of the science community knew that Lysenko was a fraud. They could not however freely express themselves for fear of retribution.



Note also that in 1935 a Constitution was introduced which was proclaimed to be 'the most democratic in the world'.

Yes you can write whatever you want in a Constitution but it is in upholding it no matter what the reason that seperates the men from the totalitarians.

The Soviet Constitution guarantees
-Freedom to profess or not profess religion
-Freedom of association (in that people have the right to assembly for political activity)
-Freedon of expression(Freedom of the press, speech and the like)
-Freedom of arrest without a warrent
-Freedom to privacy

All good stuff. I was rather surprsed by the Freedom of religion. But then there is a spoiler for all this good time.
Article 62"(1) Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of the Soviet state, and to enhance its power and prestige.
(2) Defence of the Socialist Motherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.
(3) Betrayal of the Motherland is the gravest of crimes against the people."

This is a blank check to revoke all rights. There are no freedoms unless they are for the purpose to enhance the State. Any activity not safeguarding the interest of the State is bourgeoisie and can be punished. And it was.

This is that same Constitution that is at once Anti-war yet somehow allowed for the joint invasion of Poland a few years after.


Finally it is often said that a most common aspect of 'Totatiltarian' nations is that they have a controlled censorship in the press.

Find for me any real criticism of Stalin from Pravda that Gorky ws talking about.
Sorry I am hopping around a bit. Please Bear with me.

Your comments on Stalin's Bureaucracy. Once again Deeds not Words.

The bureaucratic class or the nomeklatura were almost legion. This class created under Stalin's watch monopolized a significant portion of the civil service sector. The State arose to serve itself, to justify its own exsisitence. This "free rider" problem is inherent in such a large scale social undertaking.

I don't even want to get into the police. It is late and I have to go to bed. But I will leave until tommorrow with two quotes and a thought. First is from Ryumin who clawed his way over a trail of bodies to become deputy minister of the MGB. Was shot in 1954 " The fact of your arrest is proof of your guilt"
Stalin in 1937 criticizes opposition. "Anyone who, by his deeds or his thoughts-yes, his thoughts- threatens the unity of the socialist state."

My thought now. Do not candy coat Stalin. It does you no good. Trying to "proove" that he wasn't all bad does not help your cause of Communism. You should look at the failings of the Soviet state instead and maybe learn something. As always this advice freely given can be ignored. Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon.

[Vinny Rafarino]

My point is who cares? Whatever Stalin was, has no relevance to anything today. How does any of this contribute to the hopes and dreams for a Communist Society in the future?

Unless you're the curator for the Stalin museum, what's the significance to 2003?


To do deny history is to deny logic. History's mistakes and successes will guide us in our future endeavors. I do not understand how you do not see the significance of an individual that helped create the best model of perfect socialism hitherto.



I had a chuckle at the headline Cassius. You're assertion that YOU can put to bed thousands of pages of books and records and eye witness accounts with a 200 word post on a message board is outstanding self belief. Stalin was an authoratarian and a murdering pyschopath, and none of your propaganda or dubious quotes can change it. Stop trying to mould your beliefs into a man. If you feel it is neccessary to proclaim the gulag, the purges, the famine, the police state, the repression then fucking proclaim it. Don't mince your words like a bloody New Labour politician. Have some integrity, if you know the meaning of the word.

Once again Mr X. has outdone himself with this one. Is there not a law against having this much utter bullshit cointained in one post? There should be if there isn't. Religious scripture is thousands of pages of books also. Does that make "god" real? You should get a little prize or something for this post.

By the way, what does it have to do with comrade Stalin being authoritarian or not? Oh right, never mind, you simply saw the name "uncle joe" and came in with both guns blasting. Pretty much what CHILDREN do when they don't get their way eh?


How about non-leninist press?

Or was this vibrant democracy not for them?


When nursing a newborn, would you suddenly take away the nipple and introduce solid food without warning? Of course not.



He wanted to build another cult unlike Hitler's that was exclusive. There is a strong difference between deeds and words.


This is the standard line from the neo-left when confronted with material they cannot refute "I'm talking about action versus words..." Typical.



Yuri Zhdanov son of A.A. Zhdanov divorced five years after Stalin's death. If this story is true it cannot hold up to reality. Under Stalin a certain T.D. Lysenko was in control of the Soviet Agricultural Sciences. yuri had a run in critisizing Lysenko and saved his reputation (though not his father's) by writing an open apology in Pravda. In it he apologizes to Lysenko and praises him for defending the "attack of bourgeois geneticists." The problem is that most of the science community knew that Lysenko was a fraud. They could not however freely express themselves for fear of retribution

Good grief. You simply used this as an excuse to rant again about how you don't like Lysenco. The connection between any of this and a simple telephone call from Stalin is so thin it's anorexic.



This is a blank check to revoke all rights. There are no freedoms unless they are for the purpose to enhance the State.

Please show me how people's "freedoms" were limited only to actions that enhance the State. Remember, you did say NO freedoms....



Any activity not safeguarding the interest of the State is bourgeoisie and can be punished. And it was.

And?

[Cassius Clay]

First of all YouKnowTheyMurderedX I couldn't care less if there are thousands of books with Anti-Stalin material in them.. In Nazi Germany there were thousands of books dedicated to proving how evil the Jews were and how the subhuman Slavs were a threat to the Aryrian race. It proves nothing other than the fact that the Capitalists clearly hate Stalin.

Regarding whether Anarchist material was available in the USSR. I reccomend you go to Google and search the net for one Alexander Zinoviev. He was by his own confession a 'Neo Anarchist' and I quote 'passionately read Bakunin and Kropotkin's works, then those of Zheliabov and the populists.' He also testifies to the fact that he formed a group with the intention of killing Stalin and others on may-day and their group had equired rifles and grenades. He was given a year in prison, that's some 'Authoritarian' society you got there. BTW Zinoviev later became a dissident during the Cold War, but after seeing what Capitalism has done to his country 'opened his eyes' and has pointed out that all these 'dissidents' are 'well paid' and not right in the head.


There were disagreements and criticisms of Stalin and they were published in the Soviet press.

Andrei Zhdanov wrote in June 1939 in Pravda

''The Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations on the conclusion of an effective pact of mutual assistance against agression have reahced a deadlock... I permit myself to express my personal opinion in this matter, although my friends do not share it. They still think that when begginning negotiations with the USSR, the English and French governments had serious intentions of creating a powerful barrier against agression in Europe. I believe, and shall try to prove it by the facts, that the English and French governments have no wish for a treaty... which any self-respecting state can agree...
The Soviet Government took 16 days in preparing answers to the various English projects and proposals, while the remaining 59 days have been consumed by delays and procrastinations on the part of the English and French..
Not long ago ... The Polish minister of Foriegn Affairs, Beck, delcared unequivocally that Poland neither demanded or requested from the USSR anything in the sense of granting her any guarentee whatever... However, this does not prevent England France from demanding from the USSR guarentees... for Poland...
It seems to me that the English and French desire not a real treaty acceptable to the USSR, but only talks about a treaty in order to speculate before the public opinions on the alledgedly unyeilding attidude of the USSR, and thus make easier for themselves the road to a deal with the agressors. The next few days must show whether this is so or not''


Given that at the time Zhadnov wrote this the official Soviet policy was to deal with the British and French it would seem that if Joe Stalin were a dictator he would of had Zhadnov lined up and shot. Something which incidently he didn't have the power to do.

The scientist I.P Pavlov who was a christian and who had described the October Revolution was a 'historical anomaly' was both criticised by Pravda and he criticised back, yet nothing happened to him and he worked in the Communist Academy with no troubles. Regarding the Lysenko bussiness, first what do you mean it doesn't stand up to reality? Here are his words from a phone call from Stalin.

'He told me ''I have heard you are doing alot of political work in the university. Politics is a dirty bussiness.'' he said, 'We need Chemists''.

And Lyesnko was not contray to western propaganda, a tool of Stalin. See the above, Stalin wanted scientists to have little to do with politics. He was drawn into debates sometimes, but he was critical of Lysenko.
Bakhurin was editor of Ivesta and he criticised everything Stalin was doing, from collectivisation to industrialisation. Oh yes and he was not executed because of this. And actually note that Stalin was against his execution.

And there was a play in the cities of the USSR which ridiculed the purges, the British Right-wing newspaper The Times testifies to this.

''The purge is really ended at last, as has allready been indicated by the replacement of Yezhov by Beria at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, by the execution of Five GPU officials at Kiev for gross abuse of power...., by the present trial in a mid Siberian town of four GPU officials for arresting over 150 children, some under 12, as terriorists, etc., under Article 58, by a play now on in Moscow exposing the abuses of the purge to enthusastic audiences, and finally, by the return of political prisoners in hundreds, if not thousands''

The so called 'Left opposition' criticised Stalin, and according to western observers

''An astonishing measure of freedom of debate, criticism and assembly was granted to the Trotskyist oppositionists by the Soviet government… The social and economic policies of the Stalin administration were subjected to continuous criticism… No attempt was made to suppress Trotsky's agitation until it had openly exposed itself as, in fact, anti-Soviet and connected with other anti-Soviet forces." (Great Conspiracy, p. 204)


Oh yes and Stalin fought against the 'cult'.

June 1926: "I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet, the leader of the Communist International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the rest of it. This is absurd, comrades, and quite unnecessary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But I have no intention of dying yet. I really was, and still am, one of the pupils of the advanced workers of the Tiflis railway workshops". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works’, Volume 8; Moscow; 1954; p. 182).

August 1930: "You speak of your devotion' to me. . . I would advise you to discard the ‘principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works', Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 20).

February 1933: "I have received your letter ceding me your second Order as a reward for my work. I thank you very much for your warm words and comradely present. I know what you are depriving yourself of in my favour and appreciate your sentiments. Nevertheless, I cannot accept your second Order. I cannot and must not accept it, not only because it can only belong to you, as you alone have earned it, but also because I have been amply rewarded as it is by the attention and respect of comrades and, consequently, have no right to rob you. Orders were instituted not for those who are well known as it is, but mainly for heroic people who are little known and who need to be made known to all. Besides, I must tell you that I already have two Orders. 'That is more than one needs, I assure you." (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 241).

February 1938: "I am absolutely against the publication of 'Stories of the Childhood of Stalin'. The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. But . . the important thing resides in the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental. The theory of 'heroes' and the 'crowd' is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary (i.e. Anarchist) theory. I suggest we burn this book". (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 327).


Now finally I do look at the failings of the USSR, and I note it collapsed fourty years after Stalin died. You say they are just 'words', well that is true but I've also provided evidence of them being more than just words. If you chose to ignore that there's nothing I can do.

[Sabocat]

To do deny history is to deny logic. History's mistakes and successes will guide us in our future endeavors. I do not understand how you do not see the significance of an individual that helped create the best model of perfect socialism hitherto.

I'm not denying history. I absolutely agree that we all need to understand and read history (and yes, I would say it's important that that history is as accurate as possible) so as not to make the same mistakes in the future. In fact, I would suggest that one of the biggest problems with current society is that most people have a frightening short memory with regards to history and are poorly read. I do not consider myself a Stalinist, yet I most definitely appreciate his ability to industrialize Russia.

My point here, is that CC's post is probably a bit like preaching to the choir. Most of us here understand that Stalin was demonized. I've never bought into all the "bad press" on Stalin, and I would wager most here haven't as well. There are a lot of people that have drawn these lines regarding personalities. I'm saying we should learn from all, and evolve. There's too many people here hung up on labels. I suppose it's a brand conscious society though eh? Coke or Pepsi, McDonalds or Burger King, Stalin or Lenin, Trotsky or Lenin....blah, blah, blah.

At some point the subject becomes a bit like beating a dead horse. I say, let's move on. Let's concentrate on making tomorrows history.

[elijahcraig]

Your attempt at being somewhat witty and comparing Lenin or Stalin to Coek or Pepsi or whatnot failed miserably. RAF has caught you, and you backpeddled. Two men who fought their whole lives have meaning, have inspired millions to rise up against the capitalist system, pepsi has merely destroyed hopes and dreams, and enslaved nations. Please address the issue, or cease posting, this Warholian comparison has absolutely no merit to it at all.

[YKTMX]

Once again Mr X. has outdone himself with this one. Is there not a law against having this much utter bullshit cointained in one post? There should be if there isn't. Religious scripture is thousands of pages of books also. Does that make "god" real? You should get a little prize or something for this post.

By the way, what does it have to do with comrade Stalin being authoritarian or not? Oh right, never mind, you simply saw the name "uncle joe" and came in with both guns blasting. Pretty much what CHILDREN do when they don't get their way eh?




I wouldn't really like to have got into a "debate" about whether Stalin was authoritarian or not, so that wasn't what I was really replying to. What I was annoyed by was Cassius's claim that he could disprove all the evidence against Stalin with one post. Both you and Cassius have made "the quite brilliant" point about their being books to prove other things than might not neccessarily be true but I fail to see how that affects Stalin. The fact is, whether you LIKE it or not, that Stalin is widely despised throughout the entire world. And none of your petty insults or glib remarks can change it, so why don't you just accept that your bullshit is worthless and move on?

[elijahcraig]

Every major party in the world outside of the west is supportive of Stalin. Most every movement is Maoist, meaning to support Stalin through Mao. Only the west despises Stalin. IN fact, in a poll in Russia a few years ago, maybe 2000, Stalin was voted second greatest leader ever second to Lenin.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:15 PM
Every major party in the world outside of the west is supportive of Stalin. Most every movement is Maoist, meaning to support Stalin through Mao. Only the west despises Stalin. IN fact, in a poll in Russia a few years ago, maybe 2000, Stalin was voted second greatest leader ever second to Lenin.
Yes, I've seen that poll quoted many times. I find it odd how Stalin was behind Lenin yet he "ruled" for decades and Lenin only for a few years. Marxist ideology is still most prevalent in the West. Guerilla warfare is favoured in less developed countries out of neccessity rather than choice. Since Mao is the most well known theorist of that particular brand of revolution then he is obviously popular in those countries, if you want to use that to prove the popularity of Stalin then fine by me.

[elijahcraig]

Trotskyism is most favored in the West, Marxism is most favored in the other parts of the world. This can be expected, they are truly oppressed compared to the labor aristocracy of the first world workers. The Indian Communist Party has over 1,000,000 members alone. NOt to mention the millions more fighting in Marxist revolutions around the third world etc. Mao is a Marxist, anyone who is a Maoist has to read Marx, or he is not a Maoist. Because...Mao was a Marxist. I don't see thousands dying for the revolution here, in Nazi Germany itself, but where the people are truly repressed, they use the weapon of marxism, not idealism.

[YKTMX]

Trotskyism is most favored in the West, Marxism is most favored in the other parts of the world.

They are the same thing.


This can be expected, they are truly oppressed compared to the labor aristocracy of the first world workers.

No, that's Maoism, not Marxism. They're diffirent things.


. The Indian Communist Party has over 1,000,000 members alone. NOt to mention the millions more fighting in Marxist revolutions around the third world etc. Mao is a Marxist, anyone who is a Maoist has to read Marx, or he is not a Maoist. Because...Mao was a Marxist

Rifondazione in Italy is "Trostkyist" and it has 400,000 members. I disagree, I don't believe Mao was Marxist.


. I don't see thousands dying for the revolution here, in Nazi Germany itself, but where the people are truly repressed, they use the weapon of marxism, not idealism.

You judge repression by how poor people are? Or whether they have a car? Tell me, how much does someone have to earn to become a member of the labor aristocracy? Is repression measured against income. The weapons of Marxism IS idealism, we struggle for an ideal? Get it?

[elijahcraig]

QUOTE
Trotskyism is most favored in the West, Marxism is most favored in the other parts of the world.


They are the same thing.

Really? The part where he shot dissidents in the face or the part where ihe wanted to militarize labor and have military discipline for workers? The part where he factionalized the party and went against the working class, or the part where he cooperated with Japanese and American Imperialists? The part where he planned a civil war in the middle of a nazi invasion or the part where he wrote a essay trashing Lenin, then joined the Bolsheviks as the revolution was about to begin? He is not only an idealist, but an opportunist, and a factionalist. If that is Marxism, Marxism is a horrible ideoplogy.



QUOTE
This can be expected, they are truly oppressed compared to the labor aristocracy of the first world workers.


No, that's Maoism, not Marxism. They're diffirent things.

The labor aristocracy is Maoist? What are you talking about? It is a fact that the First World has exported the worst labor conditions to the Third World, because of Labor unions, and basic Imperialism, not being able to support all of its profit in the country in which they originate. This causes better conditions for the First world workers, and worst for the third world workers. That is a labor aristocracy, if you don't accept that you are dellusional.

Marx knew that you could not analyze the whole world in the same way, but that different countries were in different stages of economic development. This is the reality, your "Marxism" ignores this fact and wants to lump everyone in one large "workers" class despite evidence to say otherwise.



QUOTE
. The Indian Communist Party has over 1,000,000 members alone. NOt to mention the millions more fighting in Marxist revolutions around the third world etc. Mao is a Marxist, anyone who is a Maoist has to read Marx, or he is not a Maoist. Because...Mao was a Marxist


Rifondazione in Italy is "Trostkyist" and it has 400,000 members. I disagree, I don't believe Mao was Marxist.

You're going to have to explain why you don't think he was a Marxist, instead of stating the "I disagree" cop-out.



QUOTE
. I don't see thousands dying for the revolution here, in Nazi Germany itself, but where the people are truly repressed, they use the weapon of marxism, not idealism.


You judge repression by how poor people are? Or whether they have a car? Tell me, how much does someone have to earn to become a member of the labor aristocracy? Is repression measured against income. The weapons of Marxism IS idealism, we struggle for an ideal? Get it?

Do I judge people by how poor they are? Yes. How would you like to measure it?

Marxism is materialism, if you don't know that simple term vs. idealism, you have no place in a communist message forum.

[dancingoutlaw]

Please show me how people's "freedoms" were limited only to actions that enhance the State. Remember, you did say NO freedoms....

Comrade RAF I think that you refuse to see my point. In the Soviet Constitution the enhancement of the power and prestige of the Soviet state is obligatory. To shirk this obligation is a betrayal of the Motherland and is a crime against the people. This blanket statement in the Constitution is not a right to the people. It is a right to the State to revoke freedoms of people percieved as betraying the Motherland. This Article counteracts any real freedoms in the Soviet state. Take for instance freedom of association.

Article 51
(1) In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organizations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests.
(2) Public organizations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.

Does this apply to any group deemed counter-revolutionary. When does a group morph from useful to the state to criminal. The Jewish Anti-fascist Committee was set up by the State in 1942 to bring pressure on the U.S. to enter into a war with Germany. Later seen as Zionist most leading members were arrested in 1947 and the committee was broken up in 1948.

I could again say this with any freedom listed. When does Religion, Speech, Art, Music, Theater, the Press,Work,Science, Privacy, etc. become counter-revoltionary and washed of bourgois thought?


Good grief. You simply used this as an excuse to rant again about how you don't like Lysenco. The connection between any of this and a simple telephone call from Stalin is so thin it's anorexic.

Yes I do have a problem with Lysenko as I would have a problem with any man who spits in the face of fact and science. This man ruined poeples' lives for his own political gain. His theories were absent of any thought that is equivalent to his peers. He falsified his findings, ignored conclusions, and embellished figures. His ideaology of science could only rise with the grace of Stalin who had pinned on Lysenko the miracle of food abundance in the Ukraine with his weird tomato-potato hybrid.

Respectfully Yours

[Ian]

Rifandazione is 100 000 member approx., 400 000 is way off, and I wouldn't call them Trotskyist as well.

[dancingoutlaw]

Cassius Clay, I did look up Alexander Zinoviev. I found some conflicting info. Some accounts he was imprisoned in his own he escaped the KGB and joined the army. Some accounts he was expelled form the Soviet Union in his own he states he wasn't allowed to leave even though he attended international conferences. In 1987 he came in 2nd in a milk race, whatever that is. So I am not sure what to believe. What I did see is that yes he was a Soviet dissedent and then on the Fall of the Soviet Union he changed his mind. But from his writings (other than some quote about the Soviet not being so bad and that they like tea) it seems that his idealogy is rooted in balance in the world. That there is no longer a choice or duality of Communism and Capitalism. His later writings seemed rooted in the fear of a supra- society whose only goal is to make a buck. I can't say that I do not see any reason to his argument. As far as his failure to die by having a bullet in the head? One cannot say. Zinoviev claims to have escaped.
[URL=http://www.zinoviev.ru/eng/biography.html]

Now onto Andrei Zhdanov. I find it interesting that you give the date of the letter to Pravda as June 1939 and then remark on the Soviet policy towards the French and English. I believe that since the cooporative invasion of Poland was to happen 3 months from the letter I doubt that Stalin gave a hoot about what the West thought. Troop buildups even today but especially in the earlier part of the 20th century takes time and I doubt that any country then could launch a successful and overwhelming invasion of any country given 16 days notice which is the time between Germany's and Russia's invasion. The pact signed by the two countries divided Poland in half which well seems odd for two countries not in collusion. But the upside of it is that France and England declared war on Germany two days after the invasion but not Russia. The talks must have been not all bad. A.A. Zhdanov was eventually in 1948 pushed out of Stalin's inner circle. Maybe it was his son's critiicism of Lysenko that caused it. We will probably never know. Nonetheless in Zhadanov's last months he was alienated from the Central Committee until his death which sparked the infamous"Doctor's Plot."

As far as Lysenko. Do yourself a favor and do not defend this guy. You make yourself look bad. Mark it up as a blight on science that was allowed by the circumstances in which ideaology can invade science successfully without any real dissent. It is not simply western propaganda that his ideas were wrong and his conclusions faked. It is not propaganda that any opposition to him was taken care of in one way or another. It is not propaganda that anything that occured to the scientific communittee under his watch happened. As far as Pavlov is concerned Lysenko. Lysenko did not rise to prominence until 1948 well after Pavlov's death in 1936. Why was Pavlov allowed to continue his criticism and work unobstructed? Stalin was not by any means a stupid man. Why would he kill a man who had won the 1910 Nobel peace prize when he was still busy establishing a political base and eliminating his own competition.

Which brings me back to your earlier post about Bukharin which also relates to Stalin's cult in a weird way. Yes Bukharin was not executed for being critical in the paper Ivestia. His was a twofold crime. Being freinds with Trotsky since 1916 and opposing Stalin on the pace of collectivization of the farmland in 1928. Bukharin believed that a slower pace should be taken. Basically he was against the rapid and forced liquidation of the Kulaks. In 1934 after a brief editorialship at Ivestia he was dismissed. During his tenure there he had offered jobs to freinds who had fallen out of favor with Stalin. Among these were Radek and Kemenev. Kemenev turned down the job. He was executed though along with Zinovievin 1936, who were by most accounts spuriously executed for the murder of Kirov. Kamenev's family was later shot. In 1938 he was tried and shot. At his last plea before the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R on march 12, 1938 after admiting to counter-revolutionary activity, treason, being a Trotskyite and an attempted coup d'etat. He did deny the complicity in the assasination of Kirov. After invoking Dostoevsky's Idiot and Raskolnikov he declared himself not to be a slave and those were characters of the past. Bukharin admits to reexamining his life in prison of what to be repentatent about. Oddly at the end... perhaps the very last recorded words form his mouth came:

"For in reality the whole country stands behind Stalin; he is the hope of the world; he is a creator. Napoleon once said that fate is politics. The fate of Trotsky is counter-revolutionary politics."

Was this a plea? Was this admission of Soviet reality? Either point to some sort of Cult of Stalin.

Cassius you presume to present evidence of Stalin's lack of cult and total control of government. Even in some instances lack of power as in the death of Bukharin. If this is true how could the NKVD have such a high turnover rate. You point to Yezhov being replace by Beria as an end to the purges but fail to mention that Yezhov was shot in Feb 1940. Or that Beria himself was arrested months after Stalin died and was shot in Dec of the same year. The scientific community suffered under Lysenko because Stalin wouldn't involve politics and science? I find this ludicrous. The people "eliminated" from political, civil, and military positions are at even the best estimates horriffic.

Yet in spite of all of this you will claim that Stalin accelerated industry, increased democracy (under a true one party rule), collectivized agriculture and brought about the general well being of the Soviet people all without having the power to stop ANY of the bureucratic and murdurous nightmare taking place under his nose without either his full knowledge or with his full comdemnation. You can't have it both ways. Either Stalin could control the government or he couldn't. Which do you decide?

Respectfully

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 09:46 PM
Your attempt at being somewhat witty and comparing Lenin or Stalin to Coek or Pepsi or whatnot failed miserably. RAF has caught you, and you backpeddled. Two men who fought their whole lives have meaning, have inspired millions to rise up against the capitalist system, pepsi has merely destroyed hopes and dreams, and enslaved nations. Please address the issue, or cease posting, this Warholian comparison has absolutely no merit to it at all.
Relax comrade Elijah. Comrade Disgustapated is a friend of mine. I was not attempting to "catch" him at anything. I was merely making a comment on his post.

The comparison to "coke" and "pepsi" was merely an analogy that it is not productive to be dogmatic towards anyones specific ideology and continue to fight among ourselves about it.

He has a valid point, we do need to move on. I have no problem with uniting all communists as long as they understand that I will not do this by sacrificing my ideals. I will always defend and support the actions of the USSR under Stalin and comrade Stalin himself. However I am pretty much sick to death of having the same battles over the same issues. There will always be individuals that simply do not follow logic and reason and will therefore buy into all the lies surrounding Stalin. (obviously comrade disgustapated is not one of these individuals) There is nothing I can do to change this fact. This is one thing comrade Malte and I agree on full-heartily, in the street, no one gives a fuck all who was the better communist in the USSR.

Let us also remember that this is just an internet message board. It's not like it has any relevant meaning in the real world.



I wouldn't really like to have got into a "debate" about whether Stalin was authoritarian or not, so that wasn't what I was really replying to. What I was annoyed by was Cassius's claim that he could disprove all the evidence against Stalin with one post. Both you and Cassius have made "the quite brilliant" point about their being books to prove other things than might not neccessarily be true but I fail to see how that affects Stalin. The fact is, whether you LIKE it or not, that Stalin is widely despised throughout the entire world. And none of your petty insults or glib remarks can change it, so why don't you just accept that your bullshit is worthless and move on?

I will accept my "bullshit" is worthless once you accept that I am wiser, better looking, smarter, more educated and have a better ass than you.


dancingoutlaw,

Don't worry I see your point, I simply think you are making more out of it than it actually is. I'm sorry you do not feel that it is necessary to completely suppress the bourgeois after the revolution. Why does it matter anyway? These are our enemies and deserve no rights at all. The Soviet state was much to lenient with counter-revolutionaries as far as I am concerned.


I could again say this with any freedom listed. When does Religion, Speech, Art, Music, Theater, the Press,Work,Science, Privacy, etc. become counter-revoltionary and washed of bourgois thought?


Religion I can care less about as long as these simple people realise and accept their ideals will hold no weight in government policy and that state funds will not be at their disposal. I would prefer to simply abolish religion straigh away however time will cure this disease for me. Speech, art, music, theatre and the press only become counter-revolutionary when they attempt to gain popular favour for the purpose of subversive acts against the people and state. If this happens then they will be censored. Work, science and privacy have no relevance here in this scenario.


Yes I do have a problem with Lysenko as I would have a problem with any man who spits in the face of fact and science. This man ruined poeples' lives for his own political gain. His theories were absent of any thought that is equivalent to his peers. He falsified his findings, ignored conclusions, and embellished figures. His ideaology of science could only rise with the grace of Stalin who had pinned on Lysenko the miracle of food abundance in the Ukraine with his weird tomato-potato hybrid.


We have already had this debate friend Outlaw. I do not see where anyone's lives were "ruined" due to mistakes in bio-engineering. I think you are exaggerating.


Ian,


Rifandazione is 100 000 member approx., 400 000 is way off, and I wouldn't call them Trotskyist as well.

I have many comrades in this party. I would not call them Troskyist either.

[Ian]

Let me digress: What are Rifandazione? Do they support DoP or revolution? I have little idea of their activities

[Vinny Rafarino]

The Partito della Rifondazione Comunista are a marxist/leninist group that have heavy interests in national refoundation of communism in Italy. (more of a "stalinist" trait) I would imagine they support the BR-PCC, BR-NCC, NTA, GPS and the NIPR movements in Italy but I'm sure they would never publically admit it. They have a "reformist" label much like the CP-USA.

Tutto il potere al popolo armato. Onore a tutti i compagni e combattenti antimperialisti caduti.

[Sabocat]

Relax comrade Elijah. Comrade Disgustapated is a friend of mine. I was not attempting to "catch" him at anything. I was merely making a comment on his post.

Thanks comrade. I was afraid he had missed my point. I was not comparing people to products, merely trying to demonstrate "brand loyalty" among some. I really did not want to get into a pissing contest with him.

[Cassius Clay]

I didn't defend Lysenko. The scientific community was not 'victim' to Stalin or anyone else, the example of Pavlov aswell as Zhdanov who still maintains a pro-Stalin outlook today (he wrote a letter to Stalin, big deal Stalin also wrote letters) proves this.

I've never claimed it was Stalin who accelarated all the industrialisation and collectivisation. It was the Soviet people primarily who made it possible, where Stalin deserves credit is in fighting Trotsky who would of set up Labor Armies with 'military discipline', who told the Soviet people that they couldn't build Socialism that the Nazis would of defeated them. If the Rightists had come to power and had their way Capitalism would of been restored in the 1930's. Does this all make Stalin a dictator, a 'Authoritarian'?

No it doesn't, I provided countless examples in this thread that neither Stalin or the USSR were such as they are described by the west. I wont have it both ways, Stalin was NOT a dictator, he fought against the 'cult'. The USSR did have a democratic system, far more democratic than in the west. Did not workers have the power to fire their managers and officials while the managers did not have that power over the workers? Did not elections take place where nearly 50% of officials were replaced by candidates nominated by the people?

Yes it did happen and this is why I reject the label of 'Authoritarian Stalinist'.

[YKTMX]

Really? The part where he shot dissidents in the face or the part where ihe wanted to militarize labor and have military discipline for workers? The part where he factionalized the party and went against the working class, or the part where he cooperated with Japanese and American Imperialists? The part where he planned a civil war in the middle of a nazi invasion or the part where he wrote a essay trashing Lenin, then joined the Bolsheviks as the revolution was about to begin? He is not only an idealist, but an opportunist, and a factionalist. If that is Marxism, Marxism is a horrible ideoplogy.

Hypocrite. You talk about Comrade Trotsky's violence yet accept none of Stalins crimes? Trotsky held the party together on many important issues, Brest-Litovsk and conciliation for example. Did the Bolsheviks create revolution in a time of war? Do you criticize Lenin for creating civil war in the mid of that German invasion? Lenin and Trotsky were brilliant comrades, and none of your Stalinist mythology will ever change that. Ofcourse they had disagreements, that is what happens when great minds meet. Not like Stalin, who was a fucking lapdog with the intellect of a boiled egg.


The labor aristocracy is Maoist? What are you talking about? It is a fact that the First World has exported the worst labor conditions to the Third World, because of Labor unions, and basic Imperialism, not being able to support all of its profit in the country in which they originate. This causes better conditions for the First world workers, and worst for the third world workers. That is a labor aristocracy, if you don't accept that you are dellusional.

Yes, labor aristocracy is a Maoist term is it not. First world workers have fought and died for improving conditions, it is CAPITALISMS fault that third world workers struggle, not the toiling masses of the west.


Do I judge people by how poor they are? Yes. How would you like to measure it?

Do you not understand Alienation or commodity fetishism. You judge people by wealth which is absolute nonsense. Being working class does not mean poverty, in means you do not have any say in distribution of things your labouring creates. That is the Marxist understanding of Class and Labour, I quite frankly am not suprised you don't understand. The Stalinist clique enjoy so much attacking comrade Trotsky that they forget Marxism, something Lev never did.

[elijahcraig]

Hypocrite. You talk about Comrade Trotsky's violence yet accept none of Stalins crimes? Trotsky held the party together on many important issues, Brest-Litovsk and conciliation for example. Did the Bolsheviks create revolution in a time of war? Do you criticize Lenin for creating civil war in the mid of that German invasion? Lenin and Trotsky were brilliant comrades, and none of your Stalinist mythology will ever change that. Ofcourse they had disagreements, that is what happens when great minds meet. Not like Stalin, who was a fucking lapdog with the intellect of a boiled egg.

1. I never attacked Trotsky’s violence, I attacked your hypocrisy at supporting Trotsky’s authoritarianism vs. Stalin’s authoritarianism. It is you who are the hypocrite.
2. Trotsky stormed out of the Brest-Litovsk signing, Lenin had to pull the party together to get that signed. Trotsky WOULD NOT sign the treaty. You obviously know nothing of this part of history.
3. WWI did not involve the Imperialist invasion of a Socialist state, WWII did. WWI involved the ritual killings of millions to further the land lines of the Tsar and other Capitalists. There is no comparison, anyone who makes one is a fool.
4. Trotsky wrote a whole book attacking, “On Our Political Tasks”, maybe you should read that, Stalin certainly didn’t create it. And Trotsky certainly joined the party at, let us say…an OPPORTUNE time.
5. You obviously have not read Stalin, who masterminded the economic successes of the USSR through the worst conditions imaginable.


Yes, labor aristocracy is a Maoist term is it not. First world workers have fought and died for improving conditions, it is CAPITALISMS fault that third world workers struggle, not the toiling masses of the west.

Maoists use the term, so do all real Leninists. Check MIM’s work on this, Lenin is quoted.

I never said it was the fault of the “masses of the west”. The Capitalists have been threatened to a point in the West by the workers, that they have shipped out their harsh conditions to the weak, and let the strong class consciousness die down here, instead of being destroyed. It’s not a hard concept to understand, the Capitalists use strategy of weak-strong very manipulatively.


Do you not understand Alienation or commodity fetishism. You judge people by wealth which is absolute nonsense. Being working class does not mean poverty, in means you do not have any say in distribution of things your labouring creates. That is the Marxist understanding of Class and Labour, I quite frankly am not suprised you don't understand. The Stalinist clique enjoy so much attacking comrade Trotsky that they forget Marxism, something Lev never did.

1. Yes, I do understand. Unfortunately, the “working class” in America has been significantly destroyed by the shipping of labor to Third World Countries.
2. I judge people, let us not say “wealth” as I did, but by what position you hold in the society; which puts the first world workers high above the rest of the world workers…we are judging this by Internationalism aren’t we trot? Not by national standards alone.
3. I highly doubt you’ve read Capital, so stop with the “Marxist understanding of Class and Labour” nonsense, you think everyone should be able to laze about when they like and get paid…you have NO understanding of which you speak.
4. Stalinists are the most magnificent of Marxists, Trotskyists are opportunist idealists.

[dancingoutlaw]

On the matter of Lysenko. In an earlier thread Comrade RAF kindly asked me to proove of lives ruined by his idealogy. I did. I am sorry to see that you believe I am exaggerating. I wish I was. Here it is again.

Alexander Yanata who in his youth took part in the Communist movement. 1933 dismissed from the Institute for Plant Protection for "promoting bourgeois ecological theories in the area of weed control." Incarcerated in 1936. Due to be released in 1938 his imprisonment was extended for five years. He died of tuberculosis while incarcerated.

Nikolai Vavilov who wrote over 350 treatises on genetics, biology, geography and selection. His work, unlike Lysenko's, actually did help food production in the North of Russia. He helped in the establishment of the Agricultural Acadamy. Also President of of same Lenin Acadamy of Agricultural Science. Officially elected to preside over the 7th International Congress of Geneticists held in Edinburgh in 1939, Nikolai Vavilov was not allowed to attend the conference. He was arrested on August 6 1940 on the charge of undermining the socialist reforms in agriculture. He died in prison on January 26 1943.

Nikolai Tulaikov, director of the Institute of Cereals, ousted. Died 1932

Professor Solomon Levit, director of the medical genetics institute. ousted.

Lysenko mixed politics and science. As the head of agriculture science,with theinfluence of Stalin, he had final say. Period. I am sure if President Bush were to appoint a creationist to the Dept of Ed. who would abolish the teaching of Darwin, all of us here would be equally outraged.

Comrade RAF.
As far as religion is concerned,( which was protected by the Soviet constitution) just personnally curious, I have to ask you what would you do with those who refused to give of the ceremony, beleifs and dress of any Religion? Freedom of expression as long as it is what you want to hear sounds Authoritarian to me. Please explain if I am wrong. Work and privacy do enter into the equation. If any act can be seen a bourgois and since work and privacy are a part of life then those concepts too will be invaded.

Cassius Clay.
In Soviet democracy please name the opposition party and those who campained against Stalin or anyone in the Central Committee.

Respectfully yours

[Vinny Rafarino]

Once again, mountains can easily br made out of mole-hills if you out enough effort into their creation;


Alexander Yanata who in his youth took part in the Communist movement. 1933 dismissed from the Institute for Plant Protection for "promoting bourgeois ecological theories in the area of weed control." Incarcerated in 1936. Due to be released in 1938 his imprisonment was extended for five years. He died of tuberculosis while incarcerated.

Nikolai Vavilov who wrote over 350 treatises on genetics, biology, geography and selection. His work, unlike Lysenko's, actually did help food production in the North of Russia. He helped in the establishment of the Agricultural Acadamy. Also President of of same Lenin Acadamy of Agricultural Science. Officially elected to preside over the 7th International Congress of Geneticists held in Edinburgh in 1939, Nikolai Vavilov was not allowed to attend the conference. He was arrested on August 6 1940 on the charge of undermining the socialist reforms in agriculture. He died in prison on January 26 1943.

Of course you are certain they are not simply guilty of these crimes because you were there.


Nikolai Tulaikov, director of the Institute of Cereals, ousted. Died 1932

Professor Solomon Levit, director of the medical genetics institute. ousted.


Please show me how being having been sacked from your your job that "your life is ruined". If it was then you have no spine and simply chose to wallow in your own misery rather than do something about it. There is no relevance here.


As far as religion is concerned,( which was protected by the Soviet constitution) just personnally curious, I have to ask you what would you do with those who refused to give of the ceremony, beleifs and dress of any Religion? Freedom of expression as long as it is what you want to hear sounds Authoritarian to me. Please explain if I am wrong. Work and privacy do enter into the equation. If any act can be seen a bourgois and since work and privacy are a part of life then those concepts too will be invaded.



Be religios all you want, I can care less. They must simply understand their religious beliefs will not be supported, will have no bearing in state politics and will receive no state funding or public land to perform ceromonies.

Eventually time will cure this problem.

[Cassius Clay]

Your confusing Soviet or Socialist democracy with Capitalist style 'democracy'. Once again read my first post, what is not democratic there? And what part of Soviet society was 'Authoritarian'? The secret vote or the candidates nominated by the people? Most importantly the Soviet people had democracy where it mattered, the workplace. In the Capitalist west, you could have all the choices you want between parties. It means fuck all to a worker and his family in Liverpool who the bosses had power to starve to death if they wanted to.

The opposition of Trotsky and co was given three years to put their view across and they did so freely. When it came down to it Trotsky got less than 6000 votes out of over 725,000 cast.

Elijahcraig, you should not compare Stalin to Trotsky. Trotsky was very much a Authoritarian, infact both Lenin and Stalin (and nearly everyone else for that matter) fought vigourously against his policies. This battle reached a peak during the Trade Union dispute in 1921. Trotsky wanted to run the Unions through the threat of military force, he watned the State to appoint the officials and have no democracy for the workers. Stalin called for persuading the Unions, and as such the workers were able to elect their own officials. Lenin called Trotsky's ideas of Labor Armies and 'Military Discipline' 'Bonapartist' and said that they 'alienated the workers'. And he was right.

[elijahcraig]

I know Trotsky was much more authoritative, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trots for calling Stalin authoritative, while always thinking of Trotsky as a hero of peace and compromise...the guy wanted military discioline of workers, forced concentration camp labor, and those sorts of "peaceful" and "compromising" things. He wanted to continue WWI so he stormed out of the meace talks, Lenin had to go and do it for the idiot Trot.

[Lardlad95]

Everyone does of course realize that Capitalists can come up with just as many facts as anyone here?

THis arguement is irrelevant.

Either you like stalin or you don't. Because there is no winning of this arguement...

People will continueto believe Stalin was a genius..and others will continue to believe he was Satan incarnate.

It's irrelevant.

Every fact presented by everyperson on either side is biased.

You don't need to justify stalin to justify Stalinism....atleast you don't if you can prove it works.

Frankly I could give a Rats ass about stalin...he was a strong leader in a system I don't particularly care for.


People if you are going to bash Stalinism...bash the damn system not the man.

And Stalinists if u support Stalinism...defend teh system not the man...Stalin is dead and buried, it's your job to carry out his ideals..so do that instea d of debating Stalin's merits

[dancingoutlaw]

Cassius

If you do not see the dangers one party rule where dissent is suppressed as Totalitarian then I can't convince you. You can't claim as dissent Trotsky since he was a Party member. The Communist Party in Russia numbered 3.5.million in 1933. By 1938 the party had 1.92 million people. I do not see how these numbers make up a true representation in the government of all of the Soviet people. These few people able to control the country with no dissent, even nominated by the people it was all the same party. Like two flavors of vanilla. I also mean true dissent not the kind that argues over collectivizing tommorrow or collectivizing next week. I am also curious if those in labor camps got the right to vote themselves out like on survivor. Just a little brevity nothing to get upset about.

Comrade RAF

You do not see the danger of Lysenko-ism and say that since I did not witness events "promoting bourgeois ecological theories in the area of weed control" may well be a crime. Well it may be Round-Up I hear will enslave your dandilions to the yoke of capitalist bosses.

My freinds. You cannot convince me that Stalin was not Totalitarian. Any system that has such a laundry list of restrictions on the average person is heinous. Without free political speech, free press, right to congregrate, right to associate without reprisal there cannot be any human progress. An authority like that, given the power that it has, will never go away unless it is fought for, just like you are willing to fight for your worker's paradise. You will never get there if you believe equal rights means to lessen common rights not to strengthen them. But once again I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me.

Peace.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:04 PM
He wanted to continue WWI so he stormed out of the meace talks, Lenin had to go and do it for the idiot Trot.
Lie. He wanted to continue the war? No he wanted neither war nor peace. He realised the continuation of the war could fuel revolutionary flames in Germany, yet he also realised Russia was a defeated nation. He was as always, looking internationally.

[ernestolynch]

Looking up his own arse more like.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:35 AM
Looking up his own arse more like.
Oh dear.

[ernestolynch]

Waiting for the next issue of The Watchtower before you can respond, Cult-Boy? :lol:

What's your paper sale figures? C'mon! The revolution won't wait!

[YKTMX]

You really are awfully dull, comrade.

http://www.webcenter.ru/~posevru/nomer/ne01/ne106/stalin.jpg


I seen this and thought of you.

[ernestolynch]

Not half as dull as the papers they make students like you sell outside Tesco's of a Saturday morning...

[Vinny Rafarino]

You do not see the danger of Lysenko-ism and say that since I did not witness events "promoting bourgeois ecological theories in the area of weed control" may well be a crime. Well it may be Round-Up I hear will enslave your dandilions to the yoke of capitalist bosses.

My freinds. You cannot convince me that Stalin was not Totalitarian. Any system that has such a laundry list of restrictions on the average person is heinous. Without free political speech, free press, right to congregrate, right to associate without reprisal there cannot be any human progress. An authority like that, given the power that it has, will never go away unless it is fought for, just like you are willing to fight for your worker's paradise. You will never get there if you believe equal rights means to lessen common rights not to strengthen them. But once again I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me.



Lysenko-ISM. Good grief. What's the matter with you?


We have no desire to convince you of anything Mr. Outlaw. Feel free to believe what ever fantasies you like.

[ernestolynch]

Why these Liberals demand that we Communists convert them astounds me. As if we need class-enemies like them!

[dancingoutlaw]

Actually Comrade RAF, Lysenkoism is a word. It describes the theories put forth by Lysenko with the further connotation of mixing science and idealogy. I did make the typo of hyphenating the word though. Sorry.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Really....you don't say..........I suppose than your tirades would be considered "dancingoutlawism" then eh?

That ones got a nice ring to it don't you think?

I personally prefer RAFism....or maybe even cassiusclayism. I am definitely opposed to youknowtheymurderedXism.

I think it's probably best however if we stick to whydon'tyouunderstandthatknowonecaresism.

[dancingoutlaw]

Sorry Comrade RAF. You could take my word for it or just look it up.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I reckon you did not read the last "ism."