question for Trots

[ComradeAV]

Not be offensive or anything towards trotskyists? But have any trots on this forum, ever read anything that argues for Stalin? What "sources" do trots use , that is different from the reactionary capitalists , to demonize Stalin? Have any trots on this forum read, Another view of stalin, fraud,famine, and facism, or any works of grover furr? Have they ever bothered to read anything that contradicts the propaganda put out by anti-communists at all? Again, Im not trying to be offensive, just asking some questions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grover Furr's work was rubbished here several months ago.

And, yes, we do read the material you Stals (no offence meant, but if you can call us Trots, you lot are Stals) etc., put out, and we remain unimpressed by their attempts to justify 'socialism from above'.

Check out these threads, just for starters:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-state-archive-t141122/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-so-t144158/index13.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-stalin-really-t145370/index.html?p=1933632

I'll locate the Grover Furr threads, and post a link.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, here they are:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-article-shows-t132429/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/evidence-leon-trotsky-t132632/index.html?p=1714051

[Tower of Bebel]

Im not trying to be offensive, just asking some questions.That's a fallacy. It's the kind of sectarian discourse that sours revolutionary left forums. Frustrated? Hit something. If you're on Revleft: don't punch your keyboard.

[Jose Gracchus]

Not be offensive or anything towards trotskyists? But have any trots on this forum, ever read anything that argues for Stalin? What "sources" do trots use , that is different from the reactionary capitalists , to demonize Stalin? Have any trots on this forum read, Another view of stalin, fraud,famine, and facism, or any works of grover furr? Have they ever bothered to read anything that contradicts the propaganda put out by anti-communists at all? Again, Im not trying to be offensive, just asking some questions.

Why can't a historian be correct regardless of their politics? Or is it just because you disagree with his politics, or undesirables also cite their text that it become inadmissible?

[ComradeAV]

No, its not about historians being correct. Its just that most of the "sources" they use come from, people like robert conquest(radical rightist) or William Randolph hearst(hitler supporter/facist sympathizer). Which historians are you referring to?

[Fabrizio]

I would guess most Trots have read Eric Hobsbawm.

[graymouser]

I read Ken Cameron's biography of Stalin, which was pretty sympathetic to its subject. And I've read some of the writings of Grover Furr, who is aiming to bring back the iceaxe brigade. I've also read some of Stalin's own writings. None of it is impressive; Stalinism was mainly based on historic falsification, and Furr is really perhaps the worst in that regard. Furr's work tries to prove that minor side points in the Stalinist narrative were true - placing Trotsky at such-and-such hotel - without actually proving the really tremendous, monstrous claims of the Moscow Trials. Everyone involved relies upon the "confessions," which were clearly not true and could never be admitted in any court, bourgeois or proletarian, that had a shred of honesty.

[Kléber]

1937 by Vadim Z. Rogovin (http://books.google.com/books?id=PZ92ueBx7MQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) is a Marxist historical analysis of the Stalinist repressions.

Lectures on the subject: 1 (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture1.htm), 2 (http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture2.htm), 3 (http://books.google.com/books?id=PZ92ueBx7MQC)

[blake 3:17]

Wowzers! Even the Stalinists I know don't think like this.

From Furr:


that there is NO evidence – zero, none at all – that the defendants in the famous three Moscow Trials of 1936, 1937 and 1938 were innocent, despite the fact that EVERY anti-communist scholar states they were innocent, as though it were something proven, or just “obvious;”


Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=27273

[William Howe]

For me, Stalin's death toll that he enacted in the Soviet Union is reason enough for me to demonize him.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ComradeAV:


Its just that most of the "sources" they use come from, people like robert conquest(radical rightist) or William Randolph hearst(hitler supporter/facist sympathizer). Which historians are you referring to?

Not only do you Stals falsify history, you falsity the historians Trotskyists use!

If you check out the links I posted earlier you will see how wrong you are.

Here they are again:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-state-archive-t141122/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-so-t144158/index13.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-stalin-really-t145370/index.html?p=1933632

And here are the threads that rubbish Grover Furr's 'work':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-article-shows-t132429/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/evidence-leon-trotsky-t132632/index.html?p=1714051

In fact, as it turns out, you lot only quote those historians who agree with the line you already take -- everyone else is 'ideological' or in the pay of the CIA, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I get most of my information from cold-war era comedians: In U.S. of America, capitalism runs the state, in Stalinist Russia, state runs capitalism!

I mean seriously, William Randolph Hearst?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A question for "Stalinists:" Is what happened to Gavril Myasnikov reactionary capitalist propaganda?

[pranabjyoti]

I read Ken Cameron's biography of Stalin, which was pretty sympathetic to its subject. And I've read some of the writings of Grover Furr, who is aiming to bring back the iceaxe brigade. I've also read some of Stalin's own writings. None of it is impressive; Stalinism was mainly based on historic falsification, and Furr is really perhaps the worst in that regard. Furr's work tries to prove that minor side points in the Stalinist narrative were true - placing Trotsky at such-and-such hotel - without actually proving the really tremendous, monstrous claims of the Moscow Trials. Everyone involved relies upon the "confessions," which were clearly not true and could never be admitted in any court, bourgeois or proletarian, that had a shred of honesty.
Well, I want to ask you whether you read John D Littlepage's book In Search of Soviet Gold. Littlepage was an engineer who worked in USSR in the 30's. He clearly described how trotskite like Piatakov used corruption to collect money for internal sabotaging and other counter revolutionary activities.
Moscow trial was held on open court before the eyes of international personalities almost none of whom are "Stalinist" in any sense. Joseph E Davis was the US ambassador to USSR during that time and he witnessed the whole trial. There are other witnesses even journalists of US and British newspapers.
I have repeatedly produced the list, but just accused of producing "bourgeoisie" sources. And can anybody say why Furr is the WORST? Because he spoke in favor of Stalin?
The description of the eyewitnesses was enough to prove the validity of the Moscow trials.

[pranabjyoti]

I get most of my information from cold-war era comedians: In U.S. of America, capitalism runs the state, in Stalinist Russia, state runs capitalism!

I mean seriously, William Randolph Hearst?
I want to ask the Comedian gobbet that who will get the "surplus value" then and if that goes to (state)capitalists, then why those (state)capitalists were hated so much by imperialist leaders worldwide.

[pranabjyoti]

For me, Stalin's death toll that he enacted in the Soviet Union is reason enough for me to demonize him.
Can you describe "Stalin's death toll" a little more. If that was so huge, then how many people still left after that to fight the continuous counterrevolution, internal sabotages and ultimately the WWII? Is it some kind of magic?

[RED DAVE]

The description of the eyewitnesses was enough to prove the validity of the Moscow trials.You've got to be kidding!

I guess what we're witnessing here is the rise of a new school of comedy: The Joseph Stalin School of Standup. This school will teach us how to laugh at the murder of virtually the entire Old Bolshevik leadership by a man who Lenin himself wanted removed from his position of influence in the party

I mean, what's funnier than Bukharin being tortured except maybe an ice axe in the brain? What a hoot!

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Wowzers! Even the Stalinists I know don't think like this.

From Furr:



Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=27273
But eyewitness non-Stalinists can not only thought that but wrote books on them. I have repeatedly given a list. Even the journalists, Moscow representatives of US and British newspapers also thought the same way as Furr.

[RED DAVE]

But eyewitness non-Stalinists can not only thought that but wrote books on them. I have repeatedly given a list. Even the journalists, Moscow representatives of US and British newspapers also thought the same way as Furr.Do you really believe that virtually the entire leadership of the Bolshevvik Party prior to Stalin's accession to power turned traitor?

Do you really believe this?

And, of course, you neglect the entire testimony of the Dewey Commission, but I hate Dewey too, so let's forget about that.

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

In Revleft, I was engaged in debate with an anti-Stalinist ComradeOm:
CO: It's due to the purges and Stalin's wrong tactics, so much death toll occurred in USSR to defeat Nazi Germany.
Me: Well, then why France just broke before the Blitzkrieg like a house of cards?
CO: France had made the same mistake as USSR by gathering so much army near the border unprepared.
Me: Well, agreed temporarily. But, why UK had to suffer from so much German bombing and do you think, if 1/2 of the effort Hitler put against USSR were put against UK, it will stand up? Do you think Roosevelt also made the same mistakes by putting so huge part of US navy gathered in Pearl Harbor as sitting ducks for Japanese bombers?
CO: (silent)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-so-t144158/index.html
You can view the debate in the above thread. The main debate is too long, I have just put a zest here.
I even haven't got a proper answer to one question. As per Trots and Anarchos, not Stalin but the brave Soviet people i.e. Stalin is bad but soviet people are good. But, how can people under one tyrant fight so furiously against another tyrant, if both are basically same? This is some kind of unique thing "observed(!)" only in USSR. If that phenomenon is true, then the colonial people under different European power will also rise against Nazi Germany. But, so far with my little knowledge of history, that hasn't happened almost anywhere. Instead, somewhere they are ready to welcome to the new rulers to get rid of the old colonial masters.
In Egypt, no local Egyptian army spontaneously formed to fight against German army and that's true for other part of North Africa. Can any anti-Stalinist explain this magic?

[pranabjyoti]

Do you really believe that virtually the entire leadership of the Bolshevvik Party prior to Stalin's accession to power turned traitor?

Do you really believe this?

And, of course, you neglect the entire testimony of the Dewey Commission, but I hate Dewey too, so let's forget about that.

RED DAVE
Why not? Just see the present acts of former Labor i.e. Communist Party of Albania and just see the acts of leaders of the central committee made by Hoxha with his own hand. Just remember the role of Khrushchev and the role of a huge part of CPC who worked and fought with Mao against the QuoMinTung and brought the revolution in 1949.
The Mensheviks were also part of RSDLP and worked with Lenin and fought against Tsar, but what was their role during the WWI? Is it so much surprising?

[pranabjyoti]

You've got to be kidding!

I guess what we're witnessing here is the rise of a new school of comedy: The Joseph Stalin School of Standup. This school will teach us how to laugh at the murder of virtually the entire Old Bolshevik leadership by a man who Lenin himself wanted removed from his position of influence in the party

I mean, what's funnier than Bukharin being tortured except maybe an ice axe in the brain? What a hoot!

RED DAVE
Most of them are lawyers, journalists, writers, ambassadors, engineers and other professional. The just didn't give statements, but rather elaborately gave description of the trial. Perhaps you look like a comedian before them (and others like you).

[graymouser]

Well, I want to ask you whether you read John D Littlepage's book In Search of Soviet Gold. Littlepage was an engineer who worked in USSR in the 30's. He clearly described how trotskite like Piatakov used corruption to collect money for internal sabotaging and other counter revolutionary activities.
Moscow trial was held on open court before the eyes of international personalities almost none of whom are "Stalinist" in any sense. Joseph E Davis was the US ambassador to USSR during that time and he witnessed the whole trial. There are other witnesses even journalists of US and British newspapers.
I have repeatedly produced the list, but just accused of producing "bourgeoisie" sources. And can anybody say why Furr is the WORST? Because he spoke in favor of Stalin?
The description of the eyewitnesses was enough to prove the validity of the Moscow trials.
I haven't read every Stalinist slur ever printed, but Joseph Hansen (one of Trotsky's secretaries in Mexico) wrote a review of Littlepage:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1938/12/goldigger.htm

Why the hell should I read it, when the accusations of wrecking are - as Hansen says - totally based upon these fraudulent confessions? Every Stalinist piece of "evidence" against the supposed saboteurs is tied back into the murderous lies of the Moscow Trials. As a general rule, talking up what the Stalinists were saying in the late '30s is not a strategy that is going to convince anybody of anything.

[RED DAVE]

Most of them are lawyers, journalists, writers, ambassadors, engineers and other professional. The just didn't give statements, but rather elaborately gave description of the trial. Perhaps you look like a comedian before them (and others like you).What you are talking about is Stalinist stooges. How do apologists for mass murder deal with say, the Dewey Commission (and I hate Dewey)?

Or maybe you just think an ice pick in the brain and torture are cool politics.

RED DAVE

[28350]

This shit really does not matter at all. The only thing we need to consider about Stalin and Trotsky are their theoretical contributions, which are independent of their actions.

[RED DAVE]

This shit really does not matter at all. The only thing we need to consider about Stalin and Trotsky are their theoretical contributions, which are independent of their actions.Uhh, Comrade, are you trying to say that their theoretical contribution and their actions are separate? Well, then, Trotsky's theoretical contributions to Marxism are massive; Stalin's are nonexistent. Stalin was the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky gave his life fighting for the liberation of the working class. Stalin had him killed.

RED DAVE

[ComradeAV]

Uhh, Comrade, are you trying to say that their theoretical contribution and their actions are separate? Well, then, Trotsky's theoretical contributions to Marxism are massive; Stalin's are nonexistent. Stalin was the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky gave his life fighting for the liberation of the working class. Stalin had him killed.

RED DAVE
Im glad you think that trotsky trying to rat out communist parties to mexican authorities, is giving his life to liberation. I also see that you have never read anything that stalin has written, how can you say stalin made no contributions to marxism? have you read his works? Also, the person that assasinated trotsky wanted to kill him even before he was hired to do so. Trotsky also had plans to testify for the HUAC.

[pranabjyoti]

I haven't read every Stalinist slur ever printed, but Joseph Hansen (one of Trotsky's secretaries in Mexico) wrote a review of Littlepage:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1938/12/goldigger.htm

Why the hell should I read it, when the accusations of wrecking are - as Hansen says - totally based upon these fraudulent confessions? Every Stalinist piece of "evidence" against the supposed saboteurs is tied back into the murderous lies of the Moscow Trials. As a general rule, talking up what the Stalinists were saying in the late '30s is not a strategy that is going to convince anybody of anything.
Not only on "confessions", but also the proves and the witnesses that ultimately lead to the confessions. But, that's like beating drums to deaf ears of trots and I don't want to waste my time.
If someone just deny anything that goes against his/her "belief", he/she rather be in some kind of religious sect instead of anything political.
Actually, the nature of Trotsky can be understood by nature of trots today. Just look at their post and see how similar their words are with imperialists. The only attempt so far to "rescue" the victims of Moscow trials was during Gorbachev that is proof enough what the true nature of the "victims". Surprisingly, trots for some unknown reason, just shut their lips about their "friend" Gorbachev.

[blake 3:17]

The only plausible explanation for the Moscow Show trials is the one that Isaac Deutscher proposes: Stalin felt the need to eliminate all possible contenders capable of challenging his leadership and role in the party/state.


Trotsky also had plans to testify for the HUAC. I hadn't known that before.

In terms of US politics I think it worthy to note that Trotskyists were the first charged and jailed under the Smith Act, much to the delight of many Stalinists, which later became one of the primary legal means of attacking the Communist Party and its members.

[pranabjyoti]

What you are talking about is Stalinist stooges. How do apologists for mass murder deal with say, the Dewey Commission (and I hate Dewey)?

Or maybe you just think an ice pick in the brain and torture are cool politics.

RED DAVE
Why do you trots stop use of the same phrases and words like the imperialists use against Stalin.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranajbyoti:


Just look at their post and see how similar their words are with imperialists.

We are going to need more than your say so to accept this latest slur.

And your summary of Comrade Om's posts above is a joke; at every turn he was able to show your allegations and pathetic excuses for Stalin were baseless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


I hadn't known that before.

Here is the background:


Why Leon Trotsky agreed to testify before the Dies commission in 1939
2 April 1999
To the WSWS editor:

Shannon Jones, in a review of Ellen Schrecker's Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, correctly points out that Schrecker "levels a serious and utterly false charge against Trotsky." Jones refutes Schrecker's implication that when Trotsky, in October 1939, accepted an invitation to testify before the US House Un-American Activities Committee, he acted "out of a desire to aid the red-baiters." But Jones lets another insidious element of Schrecker's falsification stand unrefuted.

Schrecker falsely claims that (1) Trotsky "had to postpone his appearance because of the State Department's refusal to give him a visa," and (2) Trotsky "was about to give a deposition to a member of the HUAC staff when he was assassinated." She then "wonders" what Trotsky "would have said" in his deposition and finds it "even more interesting to speculate what would have been done [by the US government] with his statement." Her insinuation is that Trotsky could, and would, have provided the House Committee with secret information on the names and activities of Stalinist operatives in the United States and other countries, and that, therefore, the assassination of Trotsky by some of these operatives amounted to an act of self-defense.

Schrecker lifts her version of Trotsky's relations with the House Un-American Activities Committee almost verbatim from the one source she cites in her notes, Constance Aston Myers' The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941. Myers speculates on the motivations of the Stalinists behind the assassination of Trotsky in these words:


"Trotsky simply knew too much. For one thing, the Dies Committee [HUAC] in October 1939 had invited him to testify before it, and he had accepted. True, before the scheduled date of appearance, November 12, because the state department refused Trotsky a visa the committee first postponed, then rescinded, the invitation. Nonetheless J. B. Matthews, chief investigator, planned a trip to Mexico to take a deposition from him, and of course Trotsky intended to disclose what he knew of the Soviet secret police's control of world Communist parties. For another thing, Trotsky was putting together his defense against libel charges brought by the communist party of Mexico, a further opportunity to bring to light the collection of affidavits and other records he had collected for years on the secret police's operations."

The one and only source that Myers cites in her notes in support of her version of these events is the 1969 edition of the Writings of Leon Trotsky: 1939-40. But Trotsky, in these writings, completely refutes her misrepresentations. He explained in a statement issued in December 1939 that the Dies Committee had invited him to present testimony on the "history of Stalinism" and on the accusations against him presented to the Committee by Stalinist witnesses. American newspapers had published the false information that Trotsky would provide the Committee with documentary evidence on the activities of Mexican and Latin American Stalinists. Trotsky replied that he "never had ... a single document concerning the activities of the Latin-American Communists" and would limit his testimony before the Committee to the topics stated in the invitation.

Myers', and Schrecker's, assertion that the House Committee retracted its invitation to Trotsky because the US State Department had refused him a visa is a complete fabrication. HUAC Chairman Martin Dies concocted a similarly fictitious story at the time when, on December 12, he cancelled the invitation because, he said, he could obtain no "assurances from Mexico that Trotsky would be permitted to return." The fact is, such assurances were provided to the US consul in Mexico by the Mexican government. Trotsky concluded that Mr. Dies had cancelled his testimony because of political not technical considerations. He had informed the Committee's Chief Investigator, Mr. Matthews, that his "political aims of course had nothing in common with the reactionary political aims of Mr. Dies, [and] that the only thing [he] could promise was to speak the truth." He planned to oppose any repressive laws against the US Communist Party. This, Trotsky believed, "was the reason why Mr. Dies dropped his plan."

When HUAC Chairman Dies decided not to have Trotsky come to the United States, he announced that he might send an investigator to Mexico to "take Trotsky's statement." Trotsky replied that he had "never invited" such an investigator but had "agreed only to make a public deposition" before the House Committee. Less than a week later, he published a statement in which he denied that he was "now answering questions put to me by Mr. Matthews" from the Dies Committee. He repeated his readiness to be a witness before the Committee "in order to give the American public correct information" about Stalinism and his opposition to it. But, he insisted, "I never accepted and I don't accept any invitation to discuss these questions with Mr. Dies or Mr. Matthews behind closed doors." In his statement Why I Consented to Appear Before the Dies Committee, which he planned to release when he arrived in the United States, he declared that "the open truth is the sharpest weapon against" the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union and the Communist International.


"It is just this task which I have taken upon myself--to tell the truth about the activities of the Kremlin and the Comintern. I do not promise any sensational revelations. But they are not necessary. What new revelations could surpass the proceedings of the Moscow trials, the liquidations of the Old Bolshevik Guard, the liquidation of the Red Generals, the sudden alliance with Hitler, and the scandalous zigzags of the Comintern under the whip of the Kremlin? I can help to assemble all the different parts of this picture into one whole and to disclose its internal meaning."

Trotsky planned to set forth a Marxist analysis of the publicly available history of the counterrevolutionary Stalinist regime in both the Soviet Union and the Third International in his presentation before the House Committee. This testimony would have educated workers in the "reactionary historical role of Stalinism" and helped them to liberate themselves from any confidence in its politics. "In order to help the workers in this," Trotsky concluded, "I agreed to appear before the Dies Committee." One does wonder what the Committee would have done with such a statement.

Trotsky did adduce evidence on the "Soviet secret police's control of world Communist parties" in an article (on The Comintern and the GPU: The Attempted Assassination of May 24 and the Communist Party) that he completed on August 17, 1940, three days before his assassination. This article, not published until November 1940, is evidently the basis of Myers' claim that Trotsky had started to prepare his "defense against libel charges brought by the communist party of Mexico" (actually against a "defamation" complaint filed by the Stalinist newspaper La Voz de Mexico) with the use of "affidavits and other records he had collected for years on the secret police's operations." Trotsky had affirmed in a Mexican court that the editors of La Voz de Mexico were in the pay of the Soviet secret police (GPU). His article set out his proof of this claim. But the records and affidavits that he cited consisted entirely of published articles from this same newspaper and other pro-Stalinist publications, widely available books published by ex-Stalinists (former members of various Communist parties and ex-agents of the Comintern and/or the GPU), and letters sent to his attorney by a few of these authors that largely repeated, in the form of testimony, some of the facts already available in these books. He had no covert intelligence. Trotsky kept no secrets from the international working class. He always published, as a matter of revolutionary principle, any information he had on the role of the Stalinists in the labor movement as soon as it became available. In any case, if the GPU had really feared what Trotsky might "bring to light" about its activities and operations, in a public trial, it need only have ordered its employees, who had filed the charges with the court, to withdraw them.

Myers and Schrecker revive the Stalinist slanders of the time that Trotsky, from his place of exile in Mexico, was engaged in "espionage in the service of all the counterrevolutionary forces," and specifically that he was "an agent of the Dies Committee." These slanders, Trotsky pointed out, were the "moral" preparation of public opinion in the Stalinist newspapers that started at the same time as the political and technical preparation of his assassination. Myers and Schrecker evidently believe, and would have us believe, that these absurd lies tell us the true motivations of the Stalinists behind Trotsky's murder. Stalin, and his cohorts, feared not Trotsky's "affidavits and records" but his Marxism, his revolutionary leadership, his party, his criticism, his authority. This is how Trotsky explained why Stalin had ordered his murder:


"In the capacity of a former revolutionist Stalin remembers that the Third International was incomparably weaker at the beginning of the last war than the Fourth International is today. The course of the war may provide a mighty impulsion to the development of the Fourth International, also within the USSR itself. That is why Stalin could not have failed to issue orders to his agents--to finish me as quickly as possible."

Stalin dreaded what Trotsky would tell the international proletariat in the course of a new world war, not what he would tell a bourgeois parliamentary committee or a bourgeois court.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/corr-a02.shtml

[pranabjyoti]

Pranajbyoti:



We are going to need more than your say so to accept this latest slur.

And your summary of Comrade Om's posts above is a joke; at every turn he was able to show your allegations and pathetic excuses for Stalin were baseless.
More? How much? I am pretty sure that I can not satisfy you ever. Can you describe the reason of silence when ComradeOm was asked that whether Roosevelt made the same mistakes as Stalin by putting so much of US navy in Pearl Harbor as sitting ducks for Japanese invaders.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


More? How much?

You haven't provided any yet!


I am pretty sure that I can not satisfy you ever.

Unlike you, I respond to evidence, not lies and slurs.


Can you describe the reason of silence when ComradeOm was asked that whether Roosevelt made the same mistakes as Stalin by putting so much of US navy in Pearl Harbor as sitting ducks for Japanese invaders.

I can think of several, prime among which is that he plainly grew tired of banging his head against a brick wall.

[graymouser]

Not only on "confessions", but also the proves and the witnesses that ultimately lead to the confessions. But, that's like beating drums to deaf ears of trots and I don't want to waste my time.
Actually given your politics I'd prefer that you waste as much of your time as is humanly possible. But seriously: there are no "proves" and the only witness you cited was debunked long before the Soviet archives were ever opened or even before Khrushchev gave his secret speech. All the cases of sabotage were false. This may have worked if you were a flak for the Stalinists in 1938 but in 2011 you just come off as a lunatic.


If someone just deny anything that goes against his/her "belief", he/she rather be in some kind of religious sect instead of anything political.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your citation of 1930s false witness is irrelevant to truth.


Actually, the nature of Trotsky can be understood by nature of trots today. Just look at their post and see how similar their words are with imperialists. The only attempt so far to "rescue" the victims of Moscow trials was during Gorbachev that is proof enough what the true nature of the "victims". Surprisingly, trots for some unknown reason, just shut their lips about their "friend" Gorbachev.
What does that even mean? We were against Stalinism and named it as such when imperialists are far too happy to equate it with Leninism, Bolshevism and Communism, just as the Stalinists themselves did. As for Gorbachev, he never rehabilitated Trotsky or any of the Trotskyists murdered in the 1930s, and we never had any illusions about him.

[ComradeOm]

No, its not about historians being correct. Its just that most of the "sources" they use come from, people like robert conquest(radical rightist) or William Randolph hearst(hitler supporter/facist sympathizer). Which historians are you referring to?You've got it the wrong way around - historians are not sources, historians employ sources. The sources that they employ, relevant to the question anyway, include the literary (ie, eyewitnesses, memoirs, etc), archival (official Soviet records, internal memos, etc), other documentation (newpapers, public statements, etc) and statistical (all manner of demographic and economic data). Some historians will favour one type more than other. Conquest, for example, employs literary references but these have been sharply contradicted by archival and statistical arguments presented by Wheatcroft, Getty, Davis, etc. I tend to agree with the latter

What is important to note is that there is a vast body of evidence, which has in turn been assembled into a vast body of literature, that charts the crimes of Stalin. The idea that we are relying on Nazi or Hearst facts/figures is entirely false. Indeed most of the most damning information that has emerged in the past two decades has come directly from Soviet archives


In Revleft, I was engaged in debate with an anti-Stalinist ComradeOm:
CO: It's due to the purges and Stalin's wrong tactics, so much death toll occurred in USSR to defeat Nazi Germany.
Me: Well, then why France just broke before the Blitzkrieg like a house of cards?
CO: France had made the same mistake as USSR by gathering so much army near the border unprepared.
Me: Well, agreed temporarily. But, why UK had to suffer from so much German bombing and do you think, if 1/2 of the effort Hitler put against USSR were put against UK, it will stand up? Do you think Roosevelt also made the same mistakes by putting so huge part of US navy gathered in Pearl Harbor as sitting ducks for Japanese bombers?
CO: (silent)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-so-t144158/index.html
You can view the debate in the above thread. The main debate is too long, I have just put a zest hereIndeed. Anyone interested in the above 'discourse' on WWII can check out my responses in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1980557&postcount=212) and this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-so-t144158/index11.html). Needless to say the reality is very different from the fantasy version that pranabjyoti has constructed in his head. I'll leave it up to the reader to see my how it really went. Please note though the complete avoidance of any of the points I raised, the laughable assertion that Belgium was a great power and the abrupt dropping of the subject until Pearl Harbour suddenly appeared over a dozen posts later in some bizarre rant (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1983978&postcount=259) by which time my patience with this idiot was well and truly exhausted

But then I'm in exalted company when it comes to pranabjyoti's misrepresentations. In that very same thread he presented 'evidence' for his claim (regarding executions in the USSR) in the form of a journal paper by Getty et al. Unfortunately for him, he had never actually read the paper in question. If he had then he would have realised that this directly contradicted his own position (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1984009&postcount=260). to be honest that whole thread was a pretty unpleasant experience in that the conversation was entirely one-sided. I was throwing arguments and figures in his direction and only getting slurs, bizarre rants (IIRC Spanish flue popped up at one stage) and evasion tactics in return. This post is simply to set the record straight

If I've come to expect this from pranabjyoti then I've got nothing but contempt for those who thanked his post above having followed the original 'discussion' and knowing how gross a misrepresentation this is. Birds of a feather, eh?

[28350]

Uhh, Comrade, are you trying to say that their theoretical contribution and their actions are separate?
Well, their theoretical contributions are not their actions, so yeah. A critique of theory that rests only on who got assassinated is useless.


Stalin was the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky gave his life fighting for the liberation of the working class. Stalin had him killed.

"And then the good and wise Trotsky was betrayed by his former comrade, the now-wicked Stalin, who banished him to the..."
I've heard this story before.
That's sad and all, but history is more than this kind of Shakespearean tragedy.

What I'm saying is that the morality of their actions (or who was the "TRUE HEIR OF THE DIVINE LENIN") has no impact on the struggle today and in the future. People will not organize around a (albeit major) conflict in a (again, albeit major) movement that happened almost a century ago.

What can affect a revolutionary movement is theory. The theories of Stalin and Trotsky should be examined and evaluated, instead of brushed to the side with ad hominems.



Well, then, Trotsky's theoretical contributions to Marxism are massive; Stalin's are nonexistent.
Admittedly, Trotsky wrote more theoretical works than Stalin did.

[black magick hustla]

A question for "Stalinists:" Is what happened to Gavril Myasnikov reactionary capitalist propaganda?

of course. as well as the end of the whole old bolshevik guard. andreis nin getting a bullet in the head by nvkd coackraches, togliattis murders of the lefts of the icp, etc etc etc furr can suck my dick

[TC]

Not be offensive or anything towards trotskyists? But have any trots on this forum, ever read anything that argues for Stalin? What "sources" do trots use , that is different from the reactionary capitalists , to demonize Stalin? Have any trots on this forum read, Another view of stalin, fraud,famine, and facism, or any works of grover furr? Have they ever bothered to read anything that contradicts the propaganda put out by anti-communists at all? Again, Im not trying to be offensive, just asking some questions.

The problem isn't specific to trotskyists: in general people accept what their political associates say, and history as told by political figures (including trotsky and stalin) who they identify with...

To really be able to evaluate what happened would take a deep historical research into primary sources, and if you're not a history grad student or faculty member you're unlikely to be equipped to attempt this at all, let alone do it well...

History is only incidentally told by the victors, generally it is told by the politically dominant and the politically dominant demonize Stalin. Are they right to do so? Well, I'm not a history student - I think Parenti's blackshirts and reds however gives a balanced look.

[RED DAVE]

Why do you trots stop use of the same phrases and words like the imperialists use against Stalin.Why do you keep apologizing for the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution.

And also, Comrade, do you deny that Stalin had Trotsky murdered? Do you think that was cool?

And, by the way, having had some heavy experience with American Stalinists in the labor movement, they were just as bureaucratic and heavy-handed as you'd expect them to be.

The conflicts between Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Anarchism, etc., will finally be fought out inside the working class. Rots of ruck.

RED DAVE

[LibertarianSocialist1]

What you are talking about is Stalinist stooges. How do apologists for mass murder deal with say, the Dewey Commission (and I hate Dewey)?

Or maybe you just think an ice pick in the brain and torture are cool politics.

RED DAVE
Troll

[Rooster]

A Stalinist acts not on behalf of real individuals, butt on account of the "people," this virtual big Other which believes even if no empirical individual believes. In this way, he can combine his individual cynicism with his "objective" sincerity: he does not have to believe in a Cause, he only believes in the "people" supposed to believe... This brings us to the underlying subjective position of the Stalinist Communist: the position of a pervert. A true Stalinist politician loves mankind, but nonetheless performs horrible purges and executions - his heart is breaking while he is doing it, but he cannot help it, it is his Duty towards the Progress of Humanity. This is the perverse attitude of adopting the position of the pure instrument of the big Other's Will: it is not my responsibility, it is not me who is effectively doing it, I am merely an instrument of the higher Historical Necessity. This is assuming, of course, that Stalinism is correct.

[RED DAVE]

TrollTrolls lurk under bridges and murder people. Or they support them.

RED DAVE

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Or, like 'Orthodox' here, they just post one-liners all the time.

[TC]

^^^Or, like 'Orthodox' here, they just post one-liners all the time.

Pot. Kettle. Black. :rolleyes:

[pranabjyoti]

A Stalinist acts not on behalf of real individuals, butt on account of the "people," this virtual big Other which believes even if no empirical individual believes. In this way, he can combine his individual cynicism with his "objective" sincerity: he does not have to believe in a Cause, he only believes in the "people" supposed to believe... This brings us to the underlying subjective position of the Stalinist Communist: the position of a pervert. A true Stalinist politician loves mankind, but nonetheless performs horrible purges and executions - his heart is breaking while he is doing it, but he cannot help it, it is his Duty towards the Progress of Humanity. This is the perverse attitude of adopting the position of the pure instrument of the big Other's Will: it is not my responsibility, it is not me who is effectively doing it, I am merely an instrument of the higher Historical Necessity. This is assuming, of course, that Stalinism is correct.
Basically a true "anti-Stalinist" just don't have the idea that there is nothing ever existed that can be called Stalinist, but rather Marxist-Leninist and they want to represent "working class", not people. He never take or even want to take the duty of changing the world, HE IS JUST INCAPABLE even to think about that. But rather like to gobble the cattlefeed supplied by imperialists and still like to howl "I'm a leftist".
He is also just unable to understand that the task of class struggle isn't like debating in a library or picnic party, but rather harsh, bloody, ruthless reality.

[pranabjyoti]

Why do you keep apologizing for the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution.

And also, Comrade, do you deny that Stalin had Trotsky murdered? Do you think that was cool?

And, by the way, having had some heavy experience with American Stalinists in the labor movement, they were just as bureaucratic and heavy-handed as you'd expect them to be.

The conflicts between Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Anarchism, etc., will finally be fought out inside the working class. Rots of ruck.

RED DAVE
NO, never inside the working class. Actually, trotskism (as per its followers) and anarchism are basically petty-bourgeoisie ideology and it's basically a class struggle.
The murder of Trotsky by Stalin seems like the "Katyn Massacre" and murder of millions like BS to me. Anybody proved it so far?

[pranabjyoti]

You've got it the wrong way around - historians are not sources, historians employ sources. The sources that they employ, relevant to the question anyway, include the literary (ie, eyewitnesses, memoirs, etc), archival (official Soviet records, internal memos, etc), other documentation (newpapers, public statements, etc) and statistical (all manner of demographic and economic data). Some historians will favour one type more than other. Conquest, for example, employs literary references but these have been sharply contradicted by archival and statistical arguments presented by Wheatcroft, Getty, Davis, etc. I tend to agree with the latter

What is important to note is that there is a vast body of evidence, which has in turn been assembled into a vast body of literature, that charts the crimes of Stalin. The idea that we are relying on Nazi or Hearst facts/figures is entirely false. Indeed most of the most damning information that has emerged in the past two decades has come directly from Soviet archives.
Well, Russian (not Soviet) historians like V A N Zemskov, Dogzine, O V Olevzak had examined the Soviet Archival documents and surprisingly both Maria Sousa (writer of Lies Concerning The History of CPSU) and Om made their decisions from those archival evidences. But, their conclusions are radically different.
Getty, in association with Zemskov wrote a paper, but Om like to depend on personal remarks of Getty rather than archival data. The above mentioned historians and others made a 9000 page report based on Soviet archives, but the mention of that report can rarely be seen. Why? Because those reports kicks on ass of the bloody liars who repeatedly said about "crimes of Stalin". I want to specifically mention that the Russian historians were appointed by Yeltsin to uncover the "crimes of Stalin" and basically all are reactionary. But, they are just honest to their academic profession and that's why they are so much less mentioned. If anybody put some personal remarks of those historians, it can be easily understood that how much reactionary their personal views are. But, their research goes against their views.

Indeed. Anyone interested in the above 'discourse' on WWII can check out my responses in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1980557&postcount=212) and this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-so-t144158/index11.html). Needless to say the reality is very different from the fantasy version that pranabjyoti has constructed in his head. I'll leave it up to the reader to see my how it really went. Please note though the complete avoidance of any of the points I raised, the laughable assertion that Belgium was a great power and the abrupt dropping of the subject until Pearl Harbour suddenly appeared over a dozen posts later in some bizarre rant (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1983978&postcount=259) by which time my patience with this idiot was well and truly exhausted

But then I'm in exalted company when it comes to pranabjyoti's misrepresentations. In that very same thread he presented 'evidence' for his claim (regarding executions in the USSR) in the form of a journal paper by Getty et al. Unfortunately for him, he had never actually read the paper in question. If he had then he would have realised that this directly contradicted his own position (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1984009&postcount=260). to be honest that whole thread was a pretty unpleasant experience in that the conversation was entirely one-sided. I was throwing arguments and figures in his direction and only getting slurs, bizarre rants (IIRC Spanish flue popped up at one stage) and evasion tactics in return. This post is simply to set the record straight

If I've come to expect this from pranabjyoti then I've got nothing but contempt for those who thanked his post above having followed the original 'discussion' and knowing how gross a misrepresentation this is. Birds of a feather, eh?
A very good way of dodging the main question. In that thread, you (like many others) made remarks about the "terrible military mistakes of Stalin" and then I asked you the question above. But, no reply regarding that matter. Anybody by going through the "analysis" of Om can found that those are nothing but "anti-Stalin" vomitting.

[Geiseric]

I don't think it's worth debating, stalinists are more stubborn then tea partyers. They have a weird outlook on history, and it's just frustrating. The best way for somebody to grow up is to experience things for themselves, not to talk about theoreticals and history which they have an askew view of.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually given your politics I'd prefer that you waste as much of your time as is humanly possible. But seriously: there are no "proves" and the only witness you cited was debunked long before the Soviet archives were ever opened or even before Khrushchev gave his secret speech. All the cases of sabotage were false. This may have worked if you were a flak for the Stalinists in 1938 but in 2011 you just come off as a lunatic.
Debunked by whom? Anti-Stalinists or imperialists? Their books, specifically the book by Littlepage gave enough details that how Troskites in good position ordered low quality materials and machinery at high price and used the income to continue their internal sabotages. Do you think that the buying deals and quality of materials and machinery isn't proof enough?
Nothing can be proved false by just howling "it's false".

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your citation of 1930s false witness is irrelevant to truth.
What is relevant to truth? Imperialist/trot propaganda.

What does that even mean? We were against Stalinism and named it as such when imperialists are far too happy to equate it with Leninism, Bolshevism and Communism, just as the Stalinists themselves did. As for Gorbachev, he never rehabilitated Trotsky or any of the Trotskyists murdered in the 1930s, and we never had any illusions about him.
If you have some little knowledge of recent history, then you should know that the bustard Gorby had ordered retrial of Moscow trial and the "judgement" was that the accuseds were innocent and all confessions had been taken by threat, drug etc. If this isn't rehabilitation, I don't know what is. Though this kind of level of "knowledge" isn't unexpected from a trot.

[Rooster]

Basically a true "anti-Stalinist" just don't have the idea that there is nothing ever existed that can be called Stalinist, but rather Marxist-Leninist and they want to represent "working class", not people. He never take or even want to take the duty of changing the world, HE IS JUST INCAPABLE even to think about that. But rather like to gobble the cattlefeed supplied by imperialists and still like to howl "I'm a leftist".
He is also just unable to understand that the task of class struggle isn't like debating in a library or picnic party, but rather harsh, bloody, ruthless reality.

Ah, thanks for agreeing with what I said. Ladies and gentlemen, case closed!

[Q]

... I'm sorry to spoil a good old trolololol thread kids, but why is this exactly in Politics?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC:


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Tu Quoque...

[Geiseric]

By the way, what would trotskyists have to gain by continuing to spread anti stalin propaganda? Ii mean after Stalin died, any anti U.S.S.R. Info would discredit socialism as a whole, so we'd be losing as well.

[RED DAVE]

Actually, trotskism (as per its followers) and anarchism are basically petty-bourgeoisie ideology and it's basically a class struggle.Yeah, that's why, unlike the Stalinists, we engage in work inside the working class. The last time I met a Stalinist inside the working class was in 1984, and he was over 60 years old at the time.


The murder of Trotsky by Stalin seems like the "Katyn Massacre" and murder of millions like BS to me. Anybody proved it so far?
Jaime Ramón Mercader del Río Hernández (February 7, 1913 — October 18, 1978) was a Spanish-Catalan communist who became famous as the murderer of Russian Communist ideologist Leon Trotsky in 1940, in Mexico. Declassified archives have shown that he was a Soviet agent

...

It was not until September 1950 that fingerprint evidence conclusively proved the assassin's true identity. Nevertheless, Mercader, in 1940, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

...

Shortly after the assassination, Stalin presented Ramón's mother Caridad with the Order of Lenin for her part in the operation.

...

In 1961, he moved to the Soviet Union and was awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal from the then head of the KGB Alexander Shelepin. The order of Hero was the Soviet Union's highest decoration. He split his time between Cuba and the Soviet Union for the rest of his life and died in Havana in 1978.(FNs removed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader

And by the way, even your Stalinism is behind the times:


The Soviet Union continued to deny responsibility for the [Katyn] massacres until 1990, when it officially acknowledged and condemned the perpetration of the killings by the NKVD, as well as the subsequent cover-up.

An investigation conducted by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Soviet Union (1990–1991) and the Russian Federation (1991–2004), has confirmed Soviet responsibility for the [Katyn] massacres. It was able to confirm the deaths of 1,803 Polish citizens but refused to classify this action as a war crime or an act of genocide. The investigation was closed on grounds that the perpetrators of the massacre were already dead, and since the Russian government would not classify the dead as victims of Stalinist repression, formal posthumous rehabilitation was ruled out. The human rights society Memorial issued a statement which declared "this termination of investigation is inadmissible" and that their confirmation of only 1,803 people killed "requires explanation because it is common knowledge that more than 14,500 prisoners were killed."

In November 2010, the Russian State Duma approved a declaration blaming Stalin and other Soviet officials for having personally ordered the [Katyn] massacre.(FNs removed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Red Dave just forgot that this was happened during the time of Gorbachev. Any more comment necessary about the nature of the acknowledgment?

[Lucretia]

Red Dave just forgot that this was happened during the time of Gorbachev. Any more comment necessary about the nature of the acknowledgment?

I have been observing this thread in quiet amusement so far, and just had to jump in to note the presence of religious cult characteristic #1, seen clearly above: If facts are presented that disprove your understanding of the world, try to discredit the facts by raising doubts about who provided the facts (ad hominem). E.g., "You are trying to smear Jim Jones because you're jealous of the attention he gives me!"

People who are interested in reality look at evidence, and they understand that something isn't necessarily true or untrue solely because of the person who said it. Sometimes communists say things that are incorrect, while liberals and -- yes! -- even conservatives say things that are correct. As surprising as this must be to you, this means that you cannot prove something is false simply by pointing out that it was said by a non-communist or even an anti-communist.

All I have seen pranabjyoti do here continuously is slap labels on ideas and people so he can feel good about rejecting them. The problem is that there is no apparent rationale driving the labeling process besides the desire to protect preconceived notions.

[pranabjyoti]

I have been observing this thread in quiet amusement so far, and just had to jump in to note the presence of religious cult characteristic #1, seen clearly above: If facts are presented that disprove your understanding of the world, try to discredit the facts by raising doubts about who provided the facts (ad hominem). E.g., "You are trying to smear Jim Jones because you're jealous of the attention he gives me!"

People who are interested in reality look at evidence, and they understand that something isn't necessarily true or untrue solely because of the person who said it. Sometimes communists say things that are incorrect, while liberals and -- yes! -- even conservatives say things that are correct. As surprising as this must be to you, this means that you cannot prove something is false simply by pointing out that it was said by a non-communist or even an anti-communist.

All I have seen pranabjyoti do here continuously is slap labels on ideas and people so he can feel good about rejecting them. The problem is that there is no apparent rationale driving the labeling process besides the desire to protect preconceived notions.
But for that, knowledge of evidence and what is not is necessary. You criticized me for being some kind of "religious", but those people, who thanked you for your post, do they have any idea about what can be called as evidence and witness and what is not. There was a thread in the history section of revleft regarding the so-called Katyn Massacre and in that thread, the writer meticulously described and cut the evidence produce by the bustard Gorby.
I just want to ask you have gone through the literature that I refereed or those are just some kind of religious textbook to you. Kindly grow the habit of reading thoroughly before making remarks. You, like many other, have this bad habit.
One lesson for you, THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RELIGION AND AN IDEOLOGY IS THAT RELIGION NEVER CARED ABOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHILE A SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGY IS TOTALLY BASED ON FACTS ON EVIDENCES. IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, THAT'S YOUR INCAPABILITY.

[Geiseric]

See I have a solid grasp on things that have happened, and I have the basic common sense to question somebody who denies the Ukrainian Famine, and who thinks anybody anti-stalin is an imperialist puppet. He uses Imperialist like Glenn Beck uses Fascist and Communist.

[red cat]

By the way, what would trotskyists have to gain by continuing to spread anti stalin propaganda? Ii mean after Stalin died, any anti U.S.S.R. Info would discredit socialism as a whole, so we'd be losing as well.

What if the top leadership of most or all Trotskyite organizations actually want that ? I can provide some evidence which seem to indicate that certain Trotskyite organizations are focusing on very selective issues while ignoring the more important ones, and avoiding actual participation in class struggle.

[Geiseric]

I know that a few organisations who brand themselves trotskyist aren't very active, however most of them at least spread the word. My organisation is active in the immigration struggle, since that influences alot of people these days. Most organisations are pretty small though, and as we've seen a revolution can't be started by a party, it's started by the people. The parties are here to guide them once many people are radicalized, however I agree some should be more active in current struggles. I'd like some examples, but please keep that in mind.

Edit: Differentiating ourselves from the State capitalist U.S.S.R. Is also pretty important, many people connect Stalin with Communism because of misconceptions.

[Lucretia]

One lesson for you, THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RELIGION AND AN IDEOLOGY IS THAT RELIGION NEVER CARED ABOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHILE A SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGY IS TOTALLY BASED ON FACTS ON EVIDENCES. IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, THAT'S YOUR INCAPABILITY.

Whereas you've shown such a delicate sensitivity to the nuances of the historical evidence in this thread, right? Not really. All you've done is what I described earlier. You've labeled people who disagree with you as an illegitimate source of "evidence," and therefore have rejected offhand the information they've presented. You have not engaged the substance of your detractors' claims at all. This is the hallmark of religious behavior. Marx practiced what he called historical science. According to this method, he examined evidence and made abstractions (labels) on that basis. You have the order reversed, filtering out evidence on the basis of whether the person making it bears the correct ideological label.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I want to ask the Comedian gobbet that who will get the "surplus value" then and if that goes to (state)capitalists, then why those (state)capitalists were hated so much by imperialist leaders worldwide.Wow. Well the British really hated the French, then the Germans and Visa Versa - I guess the Kaiser was a socialist since they nationalized some things in WWI Germany and he was hated by the Brits, the biggest imperialist government at the time?

The Americans who got their independence from Britian in part due to help from the French were so scared of the French Revolution that they made restrictions on French immigration and outlawed anti-government speech. The Jacobins were likewise hated and denounced by the British and other governments. Now the US hates Iran and lies about that country in much the same way it did with the USSR.

So the French Revolution is socialist, the current President of Iran, Hugo Chavez, Saddam, Bin Lauden? It's easy to be hated by the US empire, it doesn't require worker control of production.

[red cat]

I know that a few organisations who brand themselves trotskyist aren't very active, however most of them at least spread the word. My organisation is active in the immigration struggle, since that influences alot of people these days. Most organisations are pretty small though, and as we've seen a revolution can't be started by a party, it's started by the people. The parties are here to guide them once many people are radicalized, however I agree some should be more active in current struggles. I'd like some examples, but please keep that in mind.

Edit: Differentiating ourselves from the State capitalist U.S.S.R. Is also pretty important, many people connect Stalin with Communism because of misconceptions.

The revolutionary nature of a CP as a whole is confirmed to those not engaging in practice with it by its declaration of the revolutionary war. While immigration struggle should indeed be a part of the programme of communists, a reactionary leadership might be using these low level struggles to liquidate the potential of its base-level revolutionary cadres. I am not saying that your group is reactionary; I merely want to point out that at present there is no Trotskyite organization which has risen beyond these struggles and implemented a programme for the working class to seize state power.

My example is the New Socialist Alternative, which is a branch of the CWI in India. They continuously whine about the Mao and Stalin era and the miseries of the Indian people, but so far they have not been able to do anything that has resulted in some visible gain for the Indian working class. They have eagerly concocted analyses of Russia or China of the last century, or the guerrilla warfare in Nepal, but they haven't spoken a word about the most advanced struggles that are happening in their own country. In their works I find no mention of the RPCs and Jantana Sirkars of Bastar, or the militias of Lalgarh which are all being organized by the Indian Maoist CP. Perhaps this is because it has now been proved by many news reports and some articles that these "Stalinists" have succeeded in establishing the embryonic forms of soviets and the peoples' army in which the working class and and lower peasantry visibly make decisions, as opposed to the only field appearances of the NSA being a few elite students, managers and engineers participating in conferences and show-strikes organized by the same parliamentary revisionists whom they themselves denounce as "Stalinists" all the time ?

You say that associating Stalin with communism is a misconception. I seriously doubt this. I think that this aspect of Trotskyism gains strength from the nationalist anti-Soviet mentality present in the western imperialist countries. The problem of whether to support or denounce Stalin can be addressed in a very practical manner. One method of slowing down a revolutionary movement is to engage it in some endless debate. That is why it is necessary for the debating parties to prove their credibility through their activities. In many countries of the world the masses have proved themselves to be ready for revolution by embracing the ongoing peoples' wars. Trotskyite organizations should implement their politics in these countries and start revolutionary wars of their own. Only with the validity of their politics thus proved, and their top-to-bottom revolutionary nature established will they be in a position to engage in historical debates with the major Stalinist CPs of today.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RC:


Only with the validity of their politics thus proved, and their top-to-bottom revolutionary nature established will they be in a position to engage in historical debates with the major Stalinist CPs of today.

Which have all been abject failures to date -- all they have achieved is the creation of yet more capitalists.

And, who are these 'Trotskyites'? They sound wierd...:confused:

[pranabjyoti]

Wow. Well the British really hated the French, then the Germans and Visa Versa - I guess the Kaiser was a socialist since they nationalized some things in WWI Germany and he was hated by the Brits, the biggest imperialist government at the time?

The Americans who got their independence from Britian in part due to help from the French were so scared of the French Revolution that they made restrictions on French immigration and outlawed anti-government speech. The Jacobins were likewise hated and denounced by the British and other governments. Now the US hates Iran and lies about that country in much the same way it did with the USSR.

So the French Revolution is socialist, the current President of Iran, Hugo Chavez, Saddam, Bin Lauden? It's easy to be hated by the US empire, it doesn't require worker control of production.
But the basic DIFFERENCE regarding the state-capitalists of USSR and bourgeoisie of other country is that, THE HATRED AGAINST STATE CAPITALISTS OF USSR IS UNIVERSAL, NO EXCEPTION.
The example you have given is interchanging, but all of them are united against the "state-capitalists" of USSR. So, there must be some deep basic difference.

[pranabjyoti]

Whereas you've shown such a delicate sensitivity to the nuances of the historical evidence in this thread, right? Not really. All you've done is what I described earlier. You've labeled people who disagree with you as an illegitimate source of "evidence," and therefore have rejected offhand the information they've presented. You have not engaged the substance of your detractors' claims at all. This is the hallmark of religious behavior. Marx practiced what he called historical science. According to this method, he examined evidence and made abstractions (labels) on that basis. You have the order reversed, filtering out evidence on the basis of whether the person making it bears the correct ideological label.
It's not me, but rather those people who thanked you for your post done that job. I have repeatedly given sources regarding my points but just got dirty personal slandering from people like you and your supporters.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


I have repeatedly given sources regarding my points but just got dirty personal slandering from people like you and your supporters.

In fact, you are the one who indulges in slander. And all your 'sources' have proven to be either out-of-date, biased or they fail to support your assertions, as ComradeOm has pointed out (several times).

[Lucretia]

It's not me, but rather those people who thanked you for your post done that job. I have repeatedly given sources regarding my points but just got dirty personal slandering from people like you and your supporters.

Claiming you've done something, and actually doing it, are two different things.

[Tower of Bebel]

This thread serves no cause. Don't people learn from the past?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Not if they are Stalinists, it seems!

[blake 3:17]

I can provide some evidence which seem to indicate that certain Trotskyite organizations are focusing on very selective issues while ignoring the more important ones, and avoiding actual participation in class struggle.

Schisms and fractures in the Trotskyism isn't news to anyone vaguely aware of the Left.

In the defence of our organizations in a fairly broad way, is that we've had special and particularly powerful influences on movements and politics disproportionate to our numbers. On international solidarity, union reform, gay/lesbian, immigrants rights work people in the broad Trotskyist movement have been at the forefront.

While a member of a fairly unorthodox but essentially Trotskyist group I spent a fair bit of time in a particular Communist Party milieu and saw that it had some strengths our movement lacked. The funniest part was bonding with the elderly Stalinists over Wobbly songs... They thought because I wasn't in the party I was hostile to the Russian revolution.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranabjyoti:



In fact, you are the one who indulges in slander. And all your 'sources' have proven to be either out-of-date, biased or they fail to support your assertions, as ComradeOm has pointed out (several times).
Biased? Why? Because it goes against your "hated" person? Kindly tell me whether truth has any kind of "expiry date" level on it and then one can lebel it "out-of-date".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

pranabjyoti:


Biased? Why?

I'm afraid we may need professional advice on that one.


Because it goes against your "hated" person?

'Goes in favour', I think you meant.


Kindly tell me whether truth has any kind of "expiry date" level on it and then one can lebel it "out-of-date".

Just for starters: Perhaps when Trotsky's image was air brushed out of certain photographs, by your hero?

http://media.museumofhoaxes.com/1919lenin1_lg.jpg

http://media.museumofhoaxes.com/1919lenin2_lg.jpg

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/trotsky_vanishes/

Plenty more examples here:

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

[PhoenixAsh]

THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RELIGION AND AN IDEOLOGY IS THAT RELIGION NEVER CARED ABOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHILE A SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGY IS TOTALLY BASED ON FACTS ON EVIDENCES. IF YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, THAT'S YOUR INCAPABILITY.


Yawn...

Remember Yezhov? You know...the Stalinist who wrote that going against Stalin was evidence enough of a reactionary plot because in a true communist siociety there can not be a dissenting opinion...and that state terror was needed to root that out.

Weeelll...he went on and became head of the NKVD under Stalin...charged with doing just that.

So yeah...we all know what evidence a very entrenched supporter of Stalin talks about. :rolleyes:


You are against me so you need to be rooted out....

You do not believe in me...you are going to hell....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RELIGION AND AN IDEOLOGY IS THAT RELIGION NEVER CARED ABOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHILE A SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGY IS TOTALLY BASED ON FACTS ON EVIDENCES.

You are right that science must answer to the facts, but religious belief systems also have to cope with the facts too. For example, the fact that there is a universe is explained by an appeal to an act of 'god'. So, is everything else. In fact, there is no fact that isn't handled in this way.

The difference is that the latter bends to facts to fit a preconceived world view -- which is precisely what you have been doing since you arrived here at RevLeft.

If you do not like the facts, you question the sources used, or the motives of the person quoting them.

Now, that is a sensible tactic for Marxists in general to adopt (since there are so many enemies out there who wish us ill), but you use it to reject any fact (no matter how valid) if you do not like it. It is here that you leave the world of science and cross over into the realm of dogma.

[pranabjyoti]

Pranabjyoti:



You are right that science must answer to the facts, but religious belief systems also have to cope with the facts too. For example, the fact that there is a universe is explained by an appeal to an act of 'god'. So, is everything else. In fact, there is no fact that isn't handled in this way.

The difference is that the latter bends to facts to fit a preconceived world view -- which is precisely what you have been doing since you arrived here at RevLeft.
REALLY? But I must admit that I am just an apprentice to trots in this regard.

If you do not like the facts, you question the sources used, or the motives of the person quoting them.
Why not? If something contradicts my sources, I have full right the question the sources. At least, like trots, I haven't discarded the sources by saying that they are "out-of-date", "bourgeoisie" etc. If my sources are bourgeoisie, they your trot sources are imperialist at their worst sense.

Now, that is a sensible tactic for Marxists in general to adopt (since there are so many enemies out there who wish us ill), but you use it to reject any fact (no matter how valid) if you do not like it. It is here that you leave the world of science and cross over into the realm of dogma.
Kindly step out from your anti-Stalin dogma and then call me dogmatic. You (and many other like you) call yourself Marxist, but very rarely you and your "comrades" gave any kind of class analysis and I have doubt how much you have the ability to understand and define history on the basis of class politics.

[pranabjyoti]

Yawn...

Remember Yezhov? You know...the Stalinist who wrote that going against Stalin was evidence enough of a reactionary plot because in a true communist siociety there can not be a dissenting opinion...and that state terror was needed to root that out.

Weeelll...he went on and became head of the NKVD under Stalin...charged with doing just that.

So yeah...we all know what evidence a very entrenched supporter of Stalin talks about. :rolleyes:


You are against me so you need to be rooted out....

You do not believe in me...you are going to hell....

But, I am just surprised with the capability of Stalin regarding his ability to draw people (non-Russian, non-USSR citizen) to his side and how those people, with very little possibility of direct influence by Stalin to speak and write for him.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP YOU TO OVERCOME YOUR DIZZINESS AND PUT YOUR BRAIN TO WORK.

[PhoenixAsh]

But, I am just surprised with the capability of Stalin regarding his ability to draw people (non-Russian, non-USSR citizen) to his side and how those people, with very little possibility of direct influence by Stalin to speak and write for him.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP YOU TO OVERCOME YOUR DIZZINESS AND PUT YOUR BRAIN TO WORK.

Yes it has...It seems throughout history that there is no lack for willing executioners nor for the lack of will to appoint them, enable them and condone their behaviour if not being responsible for it.

THis does not matter one iota for the fact that Stalin was culpable. And it doesn't matter one ioata for the fact that you are excusing him, condoniing him, arguing in favor of his behaviour and continuously evade the point of the arguments brought against you.

So answer the question...do you remeber Yezhov and do you condone his actions like Stalin condoned them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pranabjyoti:


But I must admit that I am just an apprentice to trots in this regard.

Once again, you bend the facts to suit a prejudice. So, full marks for consistency.


Why not? If something contradicts my sources, I have full right the question the sources. At least, like trots, I haven't discarded the sources by saying that they are "out-of-date", "bourgeoisie" etc. If my sources are bourgeoisie, they your trot sources are imperialist at their worst sense.

But, which 'imperialist' sources have Kleber or ComradeOm quoted?


Kindly step out from your anti-Stalin dogma and then call me dogmatic.

It's not easy to 'step out' from the view that the Stalin regime helped kill the Bolshevik Party and the revolution. In fact, it's impossible.


You (and many other like you) call yourself Marxist, but very rarely you and your "comrades" gave any kind of class analysis and I have doubt how much you have the ability to understand and define history on the basis of class politics.

Not so, most of the comrades who have argued with you have adopted a class analysis.

You just can't help lying, can you?