how did stalin + mao do it?

[lostsoul]

I am wondering how a person can take another person who a week before was loved by the entire country and turn their image and respect around to the point where they could have safely killed them without anyone questioning them?

Stalin did this, and Mao did this(although mao didn't kill them, he just used them to work in labour camps). They basically took highly respected people and made examples out of them.

I'm wondering, do you think they were jusified in this? or was everyone innocent?

[elijahcraig]

I am wondering how a person can take another person who a week before was loved by the entire country and turn their image and respect around to the point where they could have safely killed them without anyone questioning them?

Stalin did this, and Mao did this(although mao didn't kill them, he just used them to work in labour camps). They basically took highly respected people and made examples out of them.

Trotsky was never Loved by the entire country”. Here is a quote from Bukharin, “the whole country was behind Stalin”. This was said after he saw his mistakes in economic theory disputes with Stalin.

Who did Mao turn into a bad person who was popular?


I'm wondering, do you think they were jusified in this? or was everyone innocent?

Justified in taking out opportunists and revisionists? They are completely justified.

[Vinny Rafarino]

A good supply of ho-hos, twinkies, PCP and human ovens.

[Saint-Just]

Mao did have people executed. And Stalin did put people in Labour camps. It seems extremely simplistic to say: 'killed... Stalin did this, and Mao did this(although mao didn't kill them, he just used them to work in labour camps'

[YKTMX]

I am sure some of the comrades purged where plotting to overthrow the Stalinist counter revolution but I am also sure many were not. What mattered to these leaders was the perception that if you disagreed with the leadership you died, it was more about fear than actually any of that "enemies of the people" bullsit.

[Scottish_Militant]

It's odd how every single old Bolshevik apart from Lenin and Stalin were evil counter-revolutionaries isnt it :rolleyes:

[Cassius Clay]

Guilty as charged your honour!

Actually Stalin was against Bakhurin's execution. But let's not let things like facts get in the way of a good story. Comeon lets hear how evil Stalin killed anyone he disagreed with (ignore testimony that proves people could disagree as much as they want, it would only confuse the plot) in 'Show trials'. I mean it's not as if the people who actually witnessed the trials thought they were genuine and the guilt of those in the dock was also genuine. And it's not as if other Bolsheviks apart from Trotsky played a role in the Revolution/Civil War. Oh yeah it wouldn't of happened without Trotsky.

[Loknar]

Bolshevik before the revolution. Met Trotsky in New York and the two were close until Bukharin joined Stalin's struggle for power in 1923. Member of the 'Left-Communist' faction which opposed signing of Brest-Litovsk Peace in 1917 in favour of a revolutionary war; Formed right bloc with Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin in 1923 against Trotsky, and was the major spokesperson for the turn to the rich peasants during the NEP. Remained with Stalin after Zinoviev and Kalinin joined the Left Opposition. Editor of Pravda 1918-1929. Head of Comintern 1926-1929. Broke with Stalin in 1928 to lead the Right Opposition. Trotsky remarked that Bukharin "must always attach himself to someone, becoming nothing more than a medium for someone else's actions and speeches. You must always keep your eye on him." His devotion to theoretical economics was tireless, and he was considered one of the principal theoreticians of the Bolshevik Party; authored a text book on Communism entitled The ABCs of Communism. Serge wrote, "His mind was effervescent, always alert and active, but rigorously disciplined. ... a good-natured cynicism". Expelled in 1929 from the party for his thoughts, he recanted soon afterwards. Executed after the Third Moscow Trial in 1938. (Under Gorbachev, Bukharin's wife revealed that his confession was forced and published his hitherto secret rebuttal. There was an attempt to 'rehabilitate' Bukharin at this time, seeking for a theoretical and historical justification for 'market socialism').


http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/u.htm

[Loknar]

Stalin and Mao simply created the enemies they wanted by way public confessions and propaganda. Stalin was a very smart and brilliant man, Mao on the other hand in my opinion was a dumbass. Mao wanted to centralize (Red Guard) his authority so he had people thrown into forced labor camps and purged the country side . Mao was just like Stalin,, but probably not as paranoid.

[Urban Rubble]

"Trotsky was never Loved by the entire country"

Actually Elijah, Trotsky was VERY popular before Stalin was in power.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 11:31 PM

Trotsky was never Loved by the entire country”. Here is a quote from Bukharin, “the whole country was behind Stalin”. This was said after he saw his mistakes in economic theory disputes with Stalin.

do you honestly think Bukharin was talking for the people? <_<

[elijahcraig]

Oh, yes, the people LOVED Trot, he just wanted to enforce militarized labor, wanted to send the military to the unions to stop their evil ways. The people also loved him when he wouldn&#39;t sign the Brest-Livetsk treaty. Stalin was loved by the people, why? He was from the working class and was speaking only for them. Tort on the otherhand was one thing: a bureacrat.

How can you say Mao was a dumbass? Ever read ANYTHING he wrote? If you have, you know he was not a dumbass.

[Scottish_Militant]

Elijah, ever read ANY of Trotskys work?

No....

Well shut up then ;)

[elijahcraig]

Oh, you should most definitely read "On Our Political Tasks". Trotskys attack on Leninism.

OP-chew
Opp-
chew-
opportun-chew
opportunist&#33;

Bless you&#33;

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 04:41 PM
Oh, yes, the people LOVED Trot, he just wanted to enforce militarized labor, wanted to send the military to the unions to stop their evil ways. The people also loved him when he wouldn&#39;t sign the Brest-Livetsk treaty. Stalin was loved by the people, why? He was from the working class and was speaking only for them. Tort on the otherhand was one thing: a bureacrat.

How can you say Mao was a dumbass? Ever read ANYTHING he wrote? If you have, you know he was not a dumbass.
o of course they loved Stalin :lol:

[elijahcraig]

Read Comrade Cassius Clay&#39;s signature.

[Jesus Christ]

OH MY GOD ELIJAH&#33;, thank you for opening my eyes&#33; <_<




how many Stalinist propagandists did it take to come up with that one?

[elijahcraig]

But I thought it was the Trots&#39; line that Stalin brainwashed the Russians into loving him throught he cult he used? Going back on your "arguments" you little pricks?

They didn&#39;t call him affectionate names because they hated him.

It is also commonly known that the party hated Trotsky and liked Stalin better. There throwing Trot out for his factionalism shows that.

[Jesus Christ]

Elijah, i couldnt care less about Trotsky than I do about Stalin
so stop assuming I am a Trot

and Elijah, youre stuck in the OI cuz ure a moron, and ure post about Stalin and Trot right there just confirmed that you are

[elijahcraig]

How so? That is spot on concerning Trotskyists.

You are someone who has a Leninist in your avatar, pathetic really.

If you can prove that the Russian people somehow hated their leader, then do it. Otherwise, we will accept the warm remembrances of past things, mostly by the elder Russians of today of Comrade Stalin.

“It ain’t me babe, it ain’t me you’re lookin’ for babe.”
-Comrade Stalin

[Jesus Christ]

i admire the man for being compassionate about his country and what he did for it, not necessarily his political ideaology
and can you prove that these are actual quotes from real people?
and during Stalins rule do you think people would actually talk bad about their dictator
a main rule of having a dictator over you: dont talk bad bout the dic
if the mass of people had openly shown their dislike of Stalin he probably would have shit himself and boosted his tally and added a couple more million to his total

and many elderly russians view him as a great leader because under his rule World War 2 was won and that he pushed economic development
but they forget that he did this at the cost of millions

[elijahcraig]

Prove the quotes? Why would an anti-Stalin source such as the Khruschev-controlled paper run pro-Stalin, anti-Khruschev remarks; and why would the capitalist country now have pro-Stalin quotes? It doesn’t even make sense. They have no reason to falsify the information.

If you can prove millions died under Stalin, meaning he killed them, let’s see it.

Read Cassius Clay’s “Uncle Joe Authoritarian” thread. He quotes many many sources showing direct attacks on Stalin for his policies in publications.

[Jesus Christ]

well obviously if an anti-Stalin source is running pro-Stalin ads then they arent so anti-Stalin now are they?
and its people like you in Russia(Stalinists) running those quotes
You have the HONEST and SANE people to ask about Stalins killings

[elijahcraig]

well obviously if an anti-Stalin source is running pro-Stalin ads then they arent so anti-Stalin now are they?

Are you calling Khruschev “pro-Stalin”? Yes, that is what you are doing. Considering he administered the restoration of capitalism and the “destalinization” of the USSR, I find it amusing you are so pathetically calling him pro-stalin.

The capitalists in power now are not pro-Stalin, they persecute all Communists.


and its people like you in Russia(Stalinists) running those quotes
You have the HONEST and SANE people to ask about Stalins killings

You are pathetic. You have no proof whatsoever. You simply assert something based on capitalist press, and then scoff at all fact. You are a tool of the capitalists.

[Jesus Christ]

whatever Elijah, keep being a jackass, im done with you

[elijahcraig]

Victory&#33;

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 09:41 PM

Oh, yes, the people LOVED Trot, he just wanted to enforce militarized labor, wanted to send the military to the unions to stop their evil ways.

What is wrong with militarized labor?


The people also loved him when he wouldn&#39;t sign the Brest-Livetsk treaty.

Do you have any idea what was on that treaty?


How can you say Mao was a dumbass? Ever read ANYTHING he wrote? If you have, you know he was not a dumbass.

I&#39;ve read some of his material. I don’t deny he had some good ideas however he was oppressive and he was a fool for thinking he could rely on Russia for food. His “Great Leap” was poorly planed and overly ambitious and as a result millions had to suffer. At least Stalin was successful.

[Urban Rubble]

Eli, Eli, Eli. Normally I don&#39;t get into these Stalin debates. I basically just don&#39;t think it matters, but you have just said 2 totally wrong things.

1. I am no Trotskyist, but I know at least SOME facts. The fact is, Trotsky was a revolutionary hero to the people. Before Stalin came into power he was VERY popular, almost a celebrity. At least as close as one could come at the time.

2. Stalin was not working class. The man hardly did a day of work in his life. Where do you get this shit ? That is fairly well known.

[Loknar]

Stalin never worked? What did he do? rob banks ALL of his adult life?

[elijahcraig]

What is wrong with militarized labor?

Shoot ‘em in the head if they don’t slave labor is alright by you?


Do you have any idea what was on that treaty?

Yes I do buddy boy. Do you know millions were starving? What about Lenin’s promise to end the war after the party came to power?


I&#39;ve read some of his material. I don’t deny he had some good ideas however he was oppressive and he was a fool for thinking he could rely on Russia for food. His “Great Leap” was poorly planed and overly ambitious and as a result millions had to suffer. At least Stalin was successful.

Khrushcev promised Mao assistance, and gave some. Then he withdrew all the technicians and plans, and left the leap forward out on a limb. Only delivered a portion of the machines he was supposed to, and once again revisionist social-imperialists cause the failure of another socialist attempt at greatness.


Eli, Eli, Eli. Normally I don&#39;t get into these Stalin debates. I basically just don&#39;t think it matters, but you have just said 2 totally wrong things.

1. I am no Trotskyist, but I know at least SOME facts. The fact is, Trotsky was a revolutionary hero to the people. Before Stalin came into power he was VERY popular, almost a celebrity. At least as close as one could come at the time.

No, you are wrong. He wanted to send the military on the railroad unions, and militarize the labor. Lenin even made a sarcastic remark about this in his memo, or “testament”.

Trot was thrown out by his own countrymen. A pathetic “hero”.


2. Stalin was not working class. The man hardly did a day of work in his life. Where do you get this shit ? That is fairly well known.

Stalin came from the working class, yes he did. From the town of Gori. THAT is fairly well known.

[Scottish_Militant]

Elijahcraig appears to be swimming in the deep end, whenever he gets into arguments that get too hard for him he shouts on his Daddy RAF

"leave me alone of RAF will sort you out" :angry:

Anyway, he recommends I read Trotsky&#39;s &#39;On Our Political Tasks&#39; - a 5 chapter book which he hasn&#39;t read, but some trashy stalinite website has handed him some quotes from. Quotes which Lenin years later agreed were &#39;the snows of yesterday&#39;

I really do despise these Lenin&#39;s best friend arguments, but Elijah mentions some things that he has no knowledge on. One of these is the Brest-Litovsk treaty and &#39;trotskyism&#39;

I suggest you read this

What was the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the war? In 1915, considering the possibility of the Bolsheviks coming to power in Russia, Lenin wrote an article in his journal Sotsial-Democrat under the heading Some Theses:

"To the question what the party of the proletariat would do if the revolution put it in power in the present war, we reply: we should propose peace to all the belligerents on condition of the liberation of the colonies, and of all dependent and oppressed peoples not enjoying full rights. Neither Germany nor England nor France would under their present governments accept this condition. Then we should have to prepare to wage a revolutionary war i.e. we should not only carry out in full by the most decisive measures our minimum programme, but should systematically incite to insurrection all the peoples now oppressed by the Great Russians, all colonies and dependent countries of Asia (India, China, Persia, etc) and also - and first of all - incite the proletariat of Europe to insurrection against its governments and in defiance of its social chauvinists." (Collected Works, vol. 21, page 403)

Such was the bold, revolutionary strategy worked out by Lenin in advance for the Russian Revolution. It has nothing in common with the mealy-mouthed pacifism which the Communist Party parsons preach today, and which they try to foist upon the leader of October. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, before 1917, stood for revolutionary war: a war directed by the Revolution against imperialism, which would combine the armed struggle of the Red Army with the insurrection of the workers of Europe and the peoples of the oppressed nations.

In the period of agitation and preparation prior to October, the Bolsheviks repeatedly emphasised that they stood for a "peace without annexations or indemnities", that they would offer such a peace to the imperialists, and, in the event of their refusing, the Bolsheviks would launch a revolutionary war against them. Thus, Lenin wrote late in September, 1917:

"If the least probable should occur, i.e. if no belligerent state accepts even an armistice, then the war on our side would become a really necessary, really just and defensive war. The mere fact that the proletariat and the poorest peasantry will be conscious of this will make Russia many times stronger in the military respect, especially after a complete break with the capitalists who rob the people, not to mention that then the war on our side will be, not in words, but in fact, a war in alliance with the oppressed peoples of the whole world." (Collected Works, vol. 26, page 63)

The idea of revolutionary war was accepted without question as part of the basic strategy of the Party. Thus, when Kamenev and Zinoviev wrote their open letter opposing the October Revolution, one of their key arguments was the prospect of a revolutionary war, with which they attempted to frighten the workers:

"The masses of soldiers support us because we advance not a slogan of war, but a slogan of peace…If we seize power alone now and if we find ourselves compelled by the entire world situation to engage in a revolutionary war, the soldier masses will recoil from us."

This was a good argument for signing the Brest-Litovsk peace, months in advance. But it was proof, not of the historical foresight of Kamenev and Zinoviev, but only of their shaky nerves and opportunist waverings. Their later support for the signing of the Treaty was merely the obverse side of their opposition to the October insurrection: the two cannot be separated. For a Marxist, not only what is said, but who says it and for what reasons, are the important questions.

What was the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The army which they inherited from Tsarism had completely disintegrated; whole units had demobilised themselves; discipline had broken down; the officers had gone over to reaction. It was this concrete situation, and not any fundamental theoretical considerations which determined the actions of the Bolsheviks. To portray the disagreements in the Party as anything more than tactical differences is a complete travesty of the truth. Under different circumstances - if, for example, they had had time to build the Red Army - the question would have been posed in an entirely different way, as was demonstrated by the Polish war of 1920.

The first policy pursued by the Bolsheviks was to prolong the negotiations as long as possible, in the hope that a revolutionary movement in the West would come to the assistance of the revolution. This idea, which "realist" philistines today characterise as "Trotskyism" was expressed on dozens of occasions not only by Trotsky but also by all of the Bolshevik leaders, including Lenin. Kamenev, for example, who later supported Lenin&#39;s stand on the signing of the peace, said of the propaganda conducted at Brest-Litovsk that "our words will reach the German people over the heads of the German generals, that our words will strike from the hands of the German generals the weapon with which they fool the people". Events worked out differently to what Kamenev anticipated, but at the time he spoke for the entire Bolshevik Party.

The main credit for conducting the successful propaganda at Brest-Litovsk was Trotsky&#39;s. He turned the conference into a platform for expounding the ideas of the revolution to the war-weary workers of Europe. Trotsky&#39;s speeches were later collected together and published in several editions and in many languages by the Communist International during Lenin&#39;s lifetime. Only after 1924 did the Stalinists suddenly discover in them the "revolutionary phrase", which warranted their suppression.

The delay of the revolution in the West, and the military weakness of the Russian Revolution, caused a difference of opinion in the Party leadership, a difference in which Lenin found himself in a minority. The first time the differences were expressed was on January 21, 1918 - when the negotiations were nearing a climax. Fearing a new offensive if the Bolsheviks rejected a German ultimatum, Lenin proposed an immediate signing of the peace, even on the disastrous terms offered by the Germans. Trotsky agreed that there was no possibility of continuing the war, but thought that negotiations should be broken off and the Bolsheviks should only capitulate in the event of a new advance. Bukharin demanded the waging of a revolutionary war.

Far from the false picture presented by the Stalinists from 1924 onwards of Lenin and the Bolsheviks being defied by an undisciplined and ultra-left Trotsky, both Lenin and Trotsky constituted the "moderate" minority in the leadership on this question. And what was true of the leadership was doubly true of the rank and file. The overwhelming majority of workers opposed the signing of the treaty. When the leadership invited the Soviets to give their views on Brest-Litovsk, over two hundred responded: of these, only two large Soviets (Petrograd and Sevastopol - the latter with reservations) supported peace. All the other big workers&#39; centres, Moscow, Ekaterinburg, Kharkov, Ekaterinoslav, Ivanovo-Vozuesensk, Kronstadt, etc, voted by overwhelming majorities to break off the negotiations.

At the Central Committee meeting on January 24, 1918 the final decision was taken on the line which Trotsky should adopt at Brest-Litovsk. Before the meeting, Trotsky records a conversation with Lenin in which he agreed to Trotsky&#39;s plan to refuse to sign the treaty but to declare hostilities at an end, on condition that should the Germans advance again, Trotsky would support the immediate signing of the treaty and on no account support the proposal for a "revolutionary war". To this Trotsky agreed (The accuracy of this report is attested to by Lenin, who repeated it later in a speech at the Eleventh Party Congress. (Works, vol. 27, page 113). Here Lenin did not put forward his demand for the immediate signing of the treaty, but merely moved a motion which was passed, calling on Trotsky to drag out the negotiations as long as possible. A vote was then taken on Trotsky&#39;s motion to stop the war but refuse to sign the treaty, which was also passed.

Wait for it now, "RAF.....Cassius.........heeeeeeeeeeeeeelp" :rolleyes:

[Urban Rubble]

Eli, read my damn post. I did not say Trotsky was popular at the end of his time. I said that after the revolution he was a hero, he was. That is all there is to it, this is fairly well documented. When Stalin was in power he was not, but before that he was basically a celebrity.

Stalin did not work. He was not a worker. He hardly did a day of work in his life. Tell me, what was this working class job that he held ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don&#39;t worry bolshivik1917. I already told you, Silly fugazi children are not worth my time.

[Urban Rubble]

What do you think RAF ? Was Stalin a member of the working class. From what I&#39;ve read, and this includes both pro and anti Stalin books, he hardly worked at all.

[Loknar]

He was a crminal at times.

[Urban Rubble]

So was McCarthy.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 12 2003, 09:41 PM
So was McCarthy.
Doesnt matter to me. He did so much to protect America.

[Urban Rubble]

Ya, arresting and interrogating 60 year old grandpas is such a great feat.

You amaze me, even the conservatives will tell you that McCarthy was a fucking idiot and a disraceful chapter in American history. I cannot believe you are justifying this man. This proven criminal who did NOTHING to help this country.

Tell me, what notable communist did this guy ever stop. What&#39;s that ? Can&#39;t name one ? So what did he do for this country besides arrest and intimidate innocent people ?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 12 2003, 06:27 PM
What do you think RAF ? Was Stalin a member of the working class. From what I&#39;ve read, and this includes both pro and anti Stalin books, he hardly worked at all.
Yes he came from a poor working class family.

The majority of the revolutionary vanguard had careers in politics spanning their entire lives.


A real stalin bio (http://www.stel.ru/stalin/young_joseph_1879-1904.htm)


You will see from this Bio how Stalin was probably the most "working class" of them all.

[Urban Rubble]

Well ya, I know that his family was working class. I know all about his carzy abusive dad and all that. What I was saying is this, Stalin himself never did a whole lot of work. He was a revolutionary at the age of like 18. I just don&#39;t think he had alot of working class experience.

Oh well, McCarthy sucks.

[elijahcraig]

Elijahcraig appears to be swimming in the deep end, whenever he gets into arguments that get too hard for him he shouts on his Daddy RAF

"leave me alone of RAF will sort you out"

HEY&#33; I’m RAF’s *****, get it straight.


Anyway, he recommends I read Trotsky&#39;s &#39;On Our Political Tasks&#39; - a 5 chapter book which he hasn&#39;t read, but some trashy stalinite website has handed him some quotes from. Quotes which Lenin years later agreed were &#39;the snows of yesterday&#39;

Since when is marxists.org stalinist you little uneducated tinkerbell?




[QUOTE]"To the question what the party of the proletariat would do if the revolution put it in power in the present war, we reply: we should propose peace to all the belligerents on condition of the liberation of the colonies, and of all dependent and oppressed peoples not enjoying full rights. Neither Germany nor England nor France would under their present governments accept this condition. Then we should have to prepare to wage a revolutionary war i.e. we should not only carry out in full by the most decisive measures our minimum programme, but should systematically incite to insurrection all the peoples now oppressed by the Great Russians, all colonies and dependent countries of Asia (India, China, Persia, etc) and also - and first of all - incite the proletariat of Europe to insurrection against its governments and in defiance of its social chauvinists." (Collected Works, vol. 21, page 403)


Such was the bold, revolutionary strategy worked out by Lenin in advance for the Russian Revolution. It has nothing in common with the mealy-mouthed pacifism which the Communist Party parsons preach today, and which they try to foist upon the leader of October. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, before 1917, stood for revolutionary war: a war directed by the Revolution against imperialism, which would combine the armed struggle of the Red Army with the insurrection of the workers of Europe and the peoples of the oppressed nations.

There is no mention of an armed insurrection of the Red Army in Europe in that quote. It says “incite”. That does not mean liberate them with the Red Army.

You know very well that quoting something from 1915 will not do for any subject of the Peace Treaty. Lenin had promised the Germans, since they had helped him in exile, to stop the war as soon as he came to power. When he came, they offered horrible terms. They allowed for many colonies to be taken away from Russia. Lenin wanted to sign anyway, millions were starving, and if he did not, the revolution would be dead at once. Trot didn’t see the reality of this, and was quite happy to let the workers revolution be squashed.




In the period of agitation and preparation prior to October, the Bolsheviks repeatedly emphasised that they stood for a "peace without annexations or indemnities", that they would offer such a peace to the imperialists, and, in the event of their refusing, the Bolsheviks would launch a revolutionary war against them. Thus, Lenin wrote late in September, 1917:

Don’t make Trot to be a Bolshevik, he was anything but. He was a bold-faced opportunist Menshevik.





Wait for it now, "RAF.....Cassius.........heeeeeeeeeeeeeelp"

What was that? Giving me your third-rate idealist view of history? Trotskyite view of the whole event, eh? HAHHAHA



Eli, read my damn post. I did not say Trotsky was popular at the end of his time. I said that after the revolution he was a hero, he was. That is all there is to it, this is fairly well documented. When Stalin was in power he was not, but before that he was basically a celebrity.

I don’t know where you get him being a “celebrity”, that’s just not true.


Stalin did not work. He was not a worker. He hardly did a day of work in his life. Tell me, what was this working class job that he held ?

RAF already posted that link;.

Working class “experience”? Good lord Rubble, what does that even mean. He grew up in the working class, he knew how it was to be in a working class family. Becoming a Communist revolutionary is a pure act of being a worker.

[Urban Rubble]

Eli, just because someone had working class parents does not mean they were working class themselves. As I said, Stalin had been a revolutionary since the age of 18. He was in school before that. He never had a working class job.

As for Trotsky, I don&#39;t really care. It&#39;s a stupid argument. From the numerous books I have read on the revolution, Stalin, Trotsky and general Russian life at the time, after the revolution Trotsky was a very popular man. He was considered a revolutionary hero.

[elijahcraig]

Eli, just because someone had working class parents does not mean they were working class themselves. As I said, Stalin had been a revolutionary since the age of 18. He was in school before that. He never had a working class job.

So you oppose the historical materialist fact that you are marked with the class you grow up in? Idealist are you now?


As for Trotsky, I don&#39;t really care. It&#39;s a stupid argument. From the numerous books I have read on the revolution, Stalin, Trotsky and general Russian life at the time, after the revolution Trotsky was a very popular man. He was considered a revolutionary hero.

Who wrote them? Duncan Hallas? Tony Cliff? AhhahaA

[Urban Rubble]

God your arguments suck.

So if Stalin never did a day of work in his life, he would still be working class ?

[elijahcraig]

He was with the working class all of his life, YES he was working class. RUB-BLE.

[Loknar]

Eli, your arguments are so piss poor. Urban won this round.

[elijahcraig]

So you don’t consider a man who grew up in the working class, and stayed there, a working class member?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:28 AM
So you don’t consider a man who grew up in the working class, and stayed there, a working class member?
Did he ever use his hands and get dirty like the usual Russian peasant? To be apart of the working class you must WORK?

[elijahcraig]

I don’t have the details, but since his family was directly from the working class I would say: YES.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Did any of you actually read the Bio? Jus tcos I am sick of hearing this debate;


December 28 J. V. Stalin starts work at the Tiflis Physical Observatory.


August J. V. Stalin leads a mass strike at the Central Railway Workshops in Tiflis.


April 22 J. V. Stalin leads the workers&#39; May Day dem-onstration in the Soldatsky Market Place, in the center of Tiflis.


J. V. Stalin establishes contact with the advanced workers in Batum and organizes Social-Democratic circles at the Rothschild, Mantashev Sideridis, and other plants


January 31-February 17 J. V. Stalin organizes a strike at the Mantashev plant which ends in the victory of the workers.

February 27-beginning of March J. V. Stalin directs the activities of the strike committee during a strike at the Rothschild plant.

March 8 J. V. Stalin leads a demonstration of strikers who demand the release of 32 of their arrested fellow strikers.

March 9 J. V. Stalin organizes and leads a political demonstration of over 6,000 workers employed in the various plants in Batum who demand the release of 300 worker-demonstrators arrested by the police on March 8. Outside the prison where the arrested workers were confined, the demonstration was shot at by troops and 15 workers were killed and 54 were injured. About 500 demonstrators were arrested. That same night J. V. Stalin wrote a manifesto on the shooting down of the demonstrators.

March 12 J. V. Stalin leads a workers&#39; demonstration which he had organized in connection with the funeral of the victims of the shooting on March 9.


Can this be the end of the "was Stalin working-class" question now?

[Urban Rubble]

RAF, that just proves my point. My original point was not really was he working class or not, it was that he never did a whole lot of working. Most of his adult life he was a professional revolutionary, before that he was in school. He did political work, I doubt he spent a day out in the factory actually running the machines.

It wasn&#39;t intended as a jab, he was a revolutionary most of his life, that is hardly something to look down on.

[elijahcraig]

Good god you are a moron.

[Urban Rubble]

How am I a moron. Why don&#39;t you tell me instead of waiting for RAF to bring facts, something you fucking lack.

Pick up a book Eli, it&#39;s painfully obvious you just repeat things that you are told.

The man began his revolutionary life at the age of 18 or 19, before that he was in school. This did not leave alot of time for working. I&#39;m sure he worked at home, but he did not have alot of working class jobs. I wouldn&#39;t expect you to know these things, you&#39;d have to read a book to find that out. Fucking lackey.

You need to learn to think for yourself. I don&#39;t care if you&#39;re a Stalinist, I&#39;m fine with it. What pisses me off is that you allow yourself to be manipulated so fucking easily. If a few posts on a message board and a couple days is the only thing it took to change your opinion, you are a sad little boy.

[elijahcraig]

How am I a moron. Why don&#39;t you tell me instead of waiting for RAF to bring facts, something you fucking lack.

Wait? Facts? I had no biography, but I had the knowledge of Stalin’s early life. You, on the other hand, did not.


Pick up a book Eli,

Why do you always say this? Reading is one of the only things I do.


it&#39;s painfully obvious you just repeat things that you are told.

Like repeating things from Marx and Lenin? Yes, that’s true. No one should call oneself a Marxist without doing so.


The man began his revolutionary life at the age of 18 or 19, before that he was in school. This did not leave alot of time for working. I&#39;m sure he worked at home, but he did not have alot of working class jobs. I wouldn&#39;t expect you to know these things, you&#39;d have to read a book to find that out. Fucking lackey.

What book? Name one which explains this. What grand book have you read on the subject which I need to “pick up”?

The point is that Stalin was from the working class, meaning he knew their pain better than “intellectuals”. And he spoke with a workers’ mind always.


You need to learn to think for yourself. I don&#39;t care if you&#39;re a Stalinist, I&#39;m fine with it. What pisses me off is that you allow yourself to be manipulated so fucking easily. If a few posts on a message board and a couple days is the only thing it took to change your opinion, you are a sad little boy.

I’ve been a Marxist-Leninist for two and a half years, like I said. Why do you always say this? How many times must we discuss my ideology? Being a Stalinist is the same as being a Marxist-Leninist. And no one “thinks for me”, you little Zhivago.

[Urban Rubble]

I&#39;ll get back to you in a bit Eli. Go read the other thread.

[Urban Rubble]

"Wait? Facts? I had no biography, but I had the knowledge of Stalin’s early life. You, on the other hand, did not."

How did you have this knowledge ? Oh ya, like I said, you are repeating what you have been told on this board. Why would you say I have no knowledge of his early life when I have sat here and discussed it a number of times ?

"Why do you always say this? Reading is one of the only things I do."

I say this because I find you repeating what other people tell you over and over. I am sure you do read, but you are missing alot of facts in this case.

"Like repeating things from Marx and Lenin? Yes, that’s true. No one should call oneself a Marxist without doing so. "

I doubt Marx and Lenin told you anything. I am talking about various people on this board that you are getting information from and then repeating.

"What book? Name one which explains this. What grand book have you read on the subject which I need to “pick up”?

The point is that Stalin was from the working class, meaning he knew their pain better than “intellectuals”. And he spoke with a workers’ mind always."

What book ? I don&#39;t know, take your fucking pick. It has never been disputed (from either side) that he was in school in his teens and then devoted his life to politics and revolution. RAF&#39;s timeline just proved me right. Sure, he had working class knowledge, my point was is that he did not have alot of actual labor jobs.

"I’ve been a Marxist-Leninist for two and a half years, like I said. Why do you always say this? How many times must we discuss my ideology? Being a Stalinist is the same as being a Marxist-Leninist. And no one “thinks for me”, you little Zhivago. "

Go re-read what you just quoted from me. Where in there did I say anything about you changing your ideology ? I said you changed your opinion, on Stalin that is. Again, that isn&#39;t why I have a problem. It is because of how easy you change your mind. Here was your thinking: Stalin = Hitler. 5 days later, Stalin= Hero.

Look up to Stalin, fine with me. Just get your fucking facts straight.

[elijahcraig]

How did you have this knowledge ? Oh ya, like I said, you are repeating what you have been told on this board. Why would you say I have no knowledge of his early life when I have sat here and discussed it a number of times ?

I have learned many things on this board about Stalin. I did not learn of his early life from this board though.


I say this because I find you repeating what other people tell you over and over. I am sure you do read, but you are missing alot of facts in this case.

Just shut the fuck up, I’m sick of this fucking bullshit.


I doubt Marx and Lenin told you anything. I am talking about various people on this board that you are getting information from and then repeating.

Thanks, you MORON. Reading Marx and Lenin, fucking jackass. You are seeming more and more like that jackass Redstar every moment.


What book ? I don&#39;t know, take your fucking pick. It has never been disputed (from either side) that he was in school in his teens and then devoted his life to politics and revolution. RAF&#39;s timeline just proved me right. Sure, he had working class knowledge, my point was is that he did not have alot of actual labor jobs.

Name the grand source you wish me to read of, I really want to know O Rubble, thou art my master now, tell me. I will repeat it to all I come upon.


Go re-read what you just quoted from me. Where in there did I say anything about you changing your ideology ? I said you changed your opinion, on Stalin that is. Again, that isn&#39;t why I have a problem. It is because of how easy you change your mind. Here was your thinking: Stalin = Hitler. 5 days later, Stalin= Hero.

Look up to Stalin, fine with me. Just get your fucking facts straight.

FUCK YOU. I’ve answered this numerous times. If you are such a pathetic individual that you cannot gather the information from my COMPLICATED posts, it is not my problem.

I don’t need a counsellor, scum. Stop this idiocy, now.

[Urban Rubble]

You&#39;re a fucking crybaby, seriously. I didn&#39;t know you were so easily upset, did mommy serve your bottle too hot ?

Like I said, lighten up. Don&#39;t bust a vessel, it&#39;s only a message board. The only reason I have to repeat myself is because you keep doing the same bullshit.

Oh, and how do I sound like RedStar ?

[elijahcraig]

My mother’s been usurped by Queen Rubble.

[Urban Rubble]

Awwww, poor Elijah. Don&#39;t worry baby, one day you&#39;ll find a place where no one challenges your feeble intellect and everyone agrees with you. Then you won&#39;t have to look like a fool over and over.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what is so great about overrunning innocent Indian villages, raping and kidnapping. Talking the Shining Path here.

[elijahcraig]

Yes, Mother.

Can you fetch me my bottle? Update me on my sheeplike behavior on every post? It’s so good and fun.