Do you support Stalin?

[Comrade1]

Do you support his actions from 1928-1953

[The Man]

Long live the Hammer, Sickle, and Ice Axe...:laugh:

[psgchisolm]

Some. Mainly the 5 year plans and invading Poland for a buffer. Poland was fucked either way. Stalin knew it would be his turn soon so why not?

[Comrade1]

thanks for opinions guys :)

[Sasha]

http://www.bobpitch.com/anon/her_name_is_rio_aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

[Omsk]

HALT!

I wont allow this thread to blow up,so i must insist that all comrades who want to participate in it point out which of his actions do they approve and which of them they don't.

Don't turn this into a flame war! If you have something against comrade Stalin or Stalinism use arguments and be civil!No one wants to read posts like : HE was a monster i tell you!He killed 2000000000 people!"
Restrain yourself from posting messages such as that.If you want to argue,do so,in a civil and normal way.

With that cleared up...(hopefully)

On the thread:

I support his actions during the Great Patriotic War and after the conflict in which he led a wounded Soviet Union to victory against the greatest evil in the history of man:Nazism and Hitler.
I support his anti-revisionist struggles and especially those against the West,in which he proved that a Soviet Russia can go head on with the United States of Imperialism.
I support his actions in which he helped a number of revolutionary movements to grow and take the path of socialism and communism.
I support his actions in which he re-built Moscow and turned it into a Metropolis.
I support his actions regarding the inflation: Inflation in USSR was 2.3% whilst he was leader, whilst in the USA it was 3.5%.
I support his actions regarding the military and the Red Army.
I support his resolution in the fight against imperialism and capitalism.
I don't like the fact that sometimes,reacted too harshly,but i guess it was necessary.
I don't like the fact that he was too ruthless sometimes,but again,it was necessary.

[Gorilla]

In the future, when everyone is not so dumb, questions like this will be like "do you support Robespierre's reign of terror?" Really you'd have to be a fucking idiot to answer yes or no.

[red cat]

Some. Rather most. I will add to the negative portion of Comrade Eirich's list his stand on abortion and queer issues.

[Comrade1]

A Krushchev revisionist likes most of Stalins actions ^ :confused::lol:

[Tommy4ever]

It would be very easy for me to say that I disagree with all his actions. But I am embarassed to say that I agree with some (very few though).

I agree that it would have been impossible for the Soviet Union to pursue international revolution during the 1920s and 30s - however I feel Stalin took Socialism in One Country way too far and didn't do enough when opportunities for revolution appeared.

I don't criticise Stalin for his opportunistic foriegn policy - without it the Soviet Union would have been destroyed and the Nazis would have ruled all Europe. Better to betray your moral principles than live in that word.

I believe he did well in preparing the Soviet Union for the war, during the war his actions are very much a mixed bag but with some good in there.

That seems to be just about it. If Stalin was put before me as your run of the mill leader of a state then I would have a muh kinder assessment of him as a leader. However he was the leader of the world's socialist movement and remains a blotch on the ideology as a whole - this makes me harder on him.

[Comrade1]

That is a very good and common response to the question. But I must ask why you dont include his industrial policies to the things that you support about him?

[Tommy4ever]

That is a very good and common response to the question. But I must ask why you dont include his industrial policies to the things that you support about him?

I have mixed feelings about his industrial policies. My own ideology would be against the Stalinist style economic system. I also have misgivings about the human cost of the policies

However, I will not dispute the success of the industrial policies. They aimed to do 4 things: industrialise Russia, prepare her for war with the Nazis, rebuild Russia and to catch her up with the West. They achieved all of them. Impressive, but as I am against the Stalinist economic system I cannot whole heartedly support the policies.

[Comrade1]

As I do understand the human cost was large, there is no denying the major success of his policies. The only down part was the neglect of consumer good production

[khad]

I wish you'd fucked up while creating this thread so that I could vote for all options.

That's how little I care about this topic.

[Comrade1]

you care enough to post on it:rolleyes::laugh:

[Sickle-A]

I said none, but I do love Soviet realist art and architecture.
planetware(dot)com/i/photo/moscow-university-demonstrates-its-stalinesque-architecture-r260.jpg

[Comrade1]

So can you tell us why you show no support for comrade Stalin?

[Sir Comradical]

I basically subscribe to Deutscher's positions on Stalin - he was a murderous revolutionary despot.

[The Man]

he was a murderous revolutionary despot.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/30/ellohellnow128646264353025552.jpg

[Sir Comradical]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/30/ellohellnow128646264353025552.jpg

Go light candles to him then.

[The Man]

Go light candles to him then.

:confused:

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Basically all. My main criticism would probably be that he had a bit of a USSR-centric view of the world which ended up causing Mongolia and the People's Democracies in eastern Europe to pretty easily become Soviet neo-colonies after Khrushchov got in power. A lot of people criticise him for thinking that class struggle ends under socialism, but on the contrary, he did indeed have his theory of the "aggravation of class struggle under socialism" and a view that Right opportunism (ie. revisionism), in the conditions of proletarian dictatorship, seeks to “adapt…socialist construction to the tastes and requirements of the ‘Soviet’ bourgeoisie,” and that this would then mean “a strengthening of the capitalist elements in our country… weakening the proletarian dictatorship and increasing the chances of capitalist restoration”. Mao more improved on Stalin's theory IMO, rather than coming up with class struggle under socialism all by himself which some people give him cred for.

[Red_Struggle]

I'm not doing this....

[GallowsBird]

I bet no one can guess which option I chose... :laugh:

[☭The Revolution☭]

The five year plans - thats it. Other than that, if I lived during that time, I'd have rallied the Leninists and placed him under arrest for high crime and acts of genocide against the Communist Party.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Some. Rather most. I will add to the negative portion of Comrade Eirich's list his stand on abortion and queer issues.
IIRC, the USSR was the first country to have large state-funded research of ecology, helping to understand the environment and protecting it. However, it was de-funded after a few years of Stalin. So, that too, at least.
Fuck yeah, pollution!

[Gorilla]

IIRC, the USSR was the first country to have large state-funded research of ecology, helping to understand the environment and protecting it.

Wasn't some of that wrapped up with Lysenko's work?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Wasn't some of that wrapped up with Lysenko's work?
If I understand time-lines correctly, Lysenko's work wasn't until Stalin's time (His research didn't start until 1927, and his paper on it was published in 1928)
I'll quote a passage from a very resourceful book:

For a short period of time, studies in Soviet ecology blossomed as in no other country. That brief period was brought to an end when Stalin and the ascendant bureaucracy demonized "science for the sake of science" as a "bourgeois deviation." Stalin insisted not only that true "proletarian science" must first and foremost justify itself in the interests of the economy. but also that scientific theory had as much to gain from "practice" as it did from the understanding of scientific relationships. In other words, what was happening on the ground, with Trofim Lysenko's infamous crop-yield experiments and theory of "vernalization," for example, should be accepted by scientists because it was in the interests of Soviet agriculture, rather than critically examined for scientific soundness. Even science was not immune to the ideological manipulations and distortions required by Stalin as political considerations came to trump scientific conclusions.

[Jose Gracchus]

The mods should just ban troll/flame bait shitbag thread prompts like this, and warn the idiots who start them.

I don't "support" Stalin [though I find moral 'stances' which are in practice irrelevant on long-dead historical figures something which takes up way more energy and time than can possibly be extrinsically justified on Left discussions].

[Kuppo Shakur]

I only support his actions pre-1928.

[Red_Struggle]

\if I lived during that time, I'd have rallied the Leninists and placed him under arrest for high crime and acts of genocide against the Communist Party.

:confused:

[Spartacus.]

Considering the fact that he led the first socialist state in the world, in an almost unbearable circumstances, surrounded from all sides by imperialist enemies, starting with a country that was almost in the middle ages economically, turned it into a world's second economic superpower, defeated the greatest threat to Russia's existence in its history, greatly contributed to spreading socialism all over the world, increased average life expectancy by two times in just a few decades (which they usually forget to mention when they say he killed "millions" :rolleyes: of people!) and did other incredible and admirable economic and social achievements, I support the majority of things he did with a critical attitude toward some deviations. His greatest mistake in my opinion was not having tight control over NKVD and allowing it to go wild during purges which had disastrous consequences and resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Lenin also unleashed "red terror" against Social-Revolutionaries, but he held it in limits, unlike Stalin. Apart from that, Uncle Joe was :thumbup1:

[Sir Comradical]

Considering the fact that he led the first socialist state in the world, in an almost unbearable circumstances, surrounded from all sides by imperialist enemies, starting with a country that was almost in the middle ages economically, turned it into a world's second economic superpower, defeated the greatest threat to Russia's existence in its history, greatly contributed to spreading socialism all over the world, increased average life expectancy by two times in just a few decades (which they usually forget to mention when they say he killed "millions" :rolleyes: of people!) and did other incredible and admirable economic and social achievements, I support the majority of things he did with a critical attitude toward some deviations. His greatest mistake in my opinion was not having tight control over NKVD and allowing it to go wild during purges which had disastrous consequences and resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Lenin also unleashed "red terror" against Social-Revolutionaries, but he held it in limits, unlike Stalin. Apart from that, Uncle Joe was :thumbup1:

Was it of historical necessity that Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, Trotsky and Tukhachevsky had to be murdered?

[Spartacus.]

Was it of historical necessity that Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, Trotsky and Tukhachevsky had to be murdered?


Judge for yourself... :)




What has been shown by the latest Trotsky process.
Moscow 30 th March 1938
Confidential
To His Excellency the Minister for foreign affairs
To which extent the accused in the recently finished process against the “right and Trotsky bloc” have been guilty to that of what they have been accused has never been fully investigated. If truth has difficulties in being heard in the world then that applies especially to Russia, where objectivity has always been a rare bird and in case it appeared at all, it has been trampled under the feet. During the factual discussion still going on in the foreign circles present here, it seems an opinion has crystallised in a certain direction. After having taken part of the accusations against the twenty one revolutionary veterans many have had to admit that the accusations, in spite of improbabilities and material inconsistencies in a number of aspects, still contain a significant kernel of truth to the extent that those now condemned are determined to eliminate the click in charge and that those now condemned are spirited by a strong will to eliminate the click in power at the first occasion, and that they have taken preliminary steps to realise their aims.” (Correspondence from the Swedish Embassy in Moscow to the Swedish Department of Foreign Affairs in Stockholm, Riksarkivet, Stockholm.)





“ Moscow 25 th September 1936
Légation de Suède
The great trial of conspiracy
Confidential.

By that it is not implied, of course, that the accused (Zinoviev and Kamenev) can be freed from every suspicion of having nurtured more or less well defined plans for the overthrow of the present, hated leaders of government with Stalin on top to grip the power for themselves. That the application of such plans in a certain conspiracy activity to the extent of using terrorism has at least been talked over by the inner circles of those dissatisfied individuals, also appears probable.
Eric Gyllenstierna (Ambassador)“




“Bukharin treason trial
March 8, 1938

Dear “Bijou”:
For the last week, I have been attending daily sessions of the Bukharin treason trial. No doubt you have been following it in the press. It is terrific. I found it of much intellectual interest, because it brings back into play all the old faculties involved in assessing the credibility of witnesses and sifting the wheat from the chaff-the truth from the false-which I was called upon to use for so many years in the trial of cases, myself.
All the fundamental weaknesses and vices of human nature-personal ambitions at their worst-are shown up in the proceedings. They disclose the outlines of a plot which come very near to being successful in bringing about the overthrow of this government.
This testimony now makes clear what we could not understand and what happened last spring and summer. You will recall that the folks at the chancery were telling us of extraordinary activity around the Kremlin, when the gates were closed to public; that there were indications of much agitation and a changing of the character of the soldiers on guard. The new guards, you will remember we were told, consisted almost entirely of soldiers recruited from Georgia, Stalin’s native land.
The extraordinary testimony of Krestinsky, Bukharin, and the rest would appear to indicate that the Kremlin’s fears were well justified. For it now seems that a plot existed in the beginning of November, 1936, to project a coup d’état, with Tukhachevsky at its head, for May of the following year. Apparently it was touch and go at that time whether it actually would be staged.
But the government acted with great vigor and speed. The Red Army generals were shot and the whole party organisation was purged and thoroughly cleansed. Then it came out that quite a few of those at the top were seriously infected with the virus of the conspiracy to overthrow the government, and actually working with the Secret Service organisations of Germany and Japan.
The situation explains the present official attitude of hostility toward foreigners, the closing of various foreign consulates in the country, and the like. Quite frankly, we can’t blame the powers-that-be much for reacting in this way if they believed what is now being divulged at the trial.
Again, it should be remembered that it cannot be conclusively assumed because these facts were adduced through statements of confessed criminals that they were therefore untrue.
I must stop now as the trial reconvenes at 11 A.M. and I’ll have to run.”


American ambassador to Moscow during the Moscow Trials, personally present at them, Joseph Davies, Mission to Moscow, p 269.


From the same author, page 271:




“So-called Bukharin mass treason trial
No. 1039
Moscow , March 17, 1938
To the honorable the secretary of state
Confidential

“Notwithstanding a prejudice arising from the confession evidence and a prejudice against a judicial system which affords practically no protection for the accused, after daily observation of the witnesses, their manner of testifying, the unconscious corroborations which developed, and other facts in the course of trial, together with others of which a judicial notice could be taken, it is my opinion so far as the political defendants are concerned sufficient crimes under Soviet law, among those charged in the indictment, were established by the proof and beyond a reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of guilty of treason and the adjudication of the punishment provided by Soviet criminal statutes. The opinion of those diplomats who attended the trial most regularly was general that the case had established the fact that there was a formidable political opposition and an exceedingly serious plot, which explained to the diplomats many of the hitherto unexplained developments of the last six months in the Soviet Union. The only difference of opinion that seemed to exist was the degree to which the plot had been implemented by different defendants and the degree to which the conspiracy had become centralised.”


17th February 1937, letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:



“With an interpreter at my side, I followed the testimony carefully. Naturally I must confess that I was predisposed against the credibility of the testimony of these defendants. The unanimity of their confessions, the fact of their long imprisonment (incommunicado) with the possibility of duress and coercion extending to themselves or their families, all gave me grave doubts as to the reliability that could attach to their statements. Viewed objectively, however, and based upon my experience in the trial of cases and the application of the tests of credibility which past experience had afforded me, I arrived at the reluctant conclusion that the state had established its case, at least to the extent of proving the existence of a widespread conspiracy and plot among the political leaders against the Soviet government, and which under their statutes established the crimes set forth in the indictment”.


So, yes it was. The same way Lenin had to crush Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks when they threatened to illegally overthrow the Revolution. Not to mention the fact that only a few years later Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Union. Just imagine the consequences if the country was divided in few opposing blocks, without a monolithic leadership, or even worst, if counter-revolutionaries staged a coup during a war, bringing whole country and entire nation in the mortal danger of total annihilation. Remember what happened with Republican Spain due to the fact that it never had a unified and strong leadership? Stalin was a brutal man in brutal times, but having someone like him as leader is sometimes simply necessary. I would still prefer him to some mild liberal like Allende that would end up as a tragic hero, but condemn socialism and his people to doom. :)

[SacRedMan]

He will crush'ya with tha power of Russ'ya!!

Stalin had his good moments, and he wasn't very tall for a great the man of steel :p But he was the right leader at the right moment, supporters say.

[pranabjyoti]

Was it of historical necessity that Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, Trotsky and Tukhachevsky had to be murdered?
None of them were just "murdered". All of them had been trialed on open court before eye-witnesses, most of which are Western European and US citizens of professionals like advocate, ambassador, writer, in short educated intellectuals. Those who are eye-witnesses, hadn't found any flaw in the trial process and most agreed that if the trial had been done on any "democratic" country i.e. in their own homelands, the verdict wouldn't be different.

[Rusty Shackleford]

some (most)

dont like the support of the foundation of Israel which was quickly but far too lately reversed.
rather conservative socially (anti-gay)
and a bit too much personal influence in politics

besides all that, i generally support Stalin. ill admit i have not studied stalin all that much (i have a book by him but i havent read it yet) but i will take criticisms and look at them as long as they are serious

[Invader Zim]

What a ridiculous thread. You might as well ask whether you agree or disagree with everything Hitler did. It would get you about as much serious debate.

[Geiseric]

I dont support his collectivisation, I don't support his neglect of the Ukrainian famine, I don't support his purges of the Red Army which ended up weakening the Soviet Union before WW2, I don't support his assassinations of rivals who didn't particularly do anything wrong, and I don't support how Moscow handled many other revolutionary situations and how they consequently failed.

[The Man]

I dont support his collectivisation, I don't support his neglect of the Ukrainian famine, I don't support his purges of the Red Army which ended up weakening the Soviet Union before WW2, I don't support his assassinations of rivals who didn't particularly do anything wrong, and I don't support how Moscow handled many other revolutionary situations and how they consequently failed.

I love whenever this guy posts.. Cause I know it always has to do something with Stalin killing 50 million people in Ukraine(Even if the thread has nothing to do with Stalin.) :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

I love whenever this guy posts.. Cause I know it always has to do something with Stalin killing 50 million people in Ukraine(Even if the thread has nothing to do with Stalin.) :rolleyes:

But this thread does have something to do with Stalin...

And who suggested Stalin killed 50 million people in the Ukraine?

:confused:

[The Man]

But this thread does have something to do with Stalin...

And who suggested Stalin killed 50 million people in the Ukraine?

:confused:
I know it has something to do with Stalin, That's why it's in parenthesis... But he usually goes off in this tantrum about how Stalin killed a lot of people in Ukraine, in the middle of a thread that has NOTHING to do with Stalin.

[The Man]

I dont support his collectivisation, I don't support his neglect of the Ukrainian famine, I don't support his purges of the Red Army which ended up weakening the Soviet Union before WW2, I don't support his assassinations of rivals who didn't particularly do anything wrong, and I don't support how Moscow handled many other revolutionary situations and how they consequently failed.
Stalin actually tried to stop the epidemics in Ukraine, but Penicillin, the drug that contained the disease, wasn't readily available until the early 1940s.


The myth concerning the famine in the Ukraine
One of the first campaigns of the Hearst press against the Soviet Union revolved round the question of the millions alleged to have died as a result of the Ukraine famine. This campaign began on 8 February 1935 with a front-page headline in the Chicago American '6 million people die of hunger in the Soviet Union'. Using material supplied by Nazi Germany, William Hearst, the press baron and Nazi sympathiser, began to publish fabricated stories about a genocide which was supposed to have been deliberately perpetrated by the Bolsheviks and had caused several million to die of starvation in the Ukraine. The truth of the matter was altogether different. In fact what took place in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1930s was a major class struggle in which poor landless peasants had risen up against the rich landowners, the kulaks, and had begun a struggle for collectivisation, a struggle to form kolkhozes.
This great class struggle, involving directly or indirectly some 120 million peasants, certainly gave rise to instability in agricultural production and food shortages in some regions. Lack of food did weaken people, which in turn led to an increase in the number falling victim to epidemic diseases. These diseases were at that time regrettably common throughout the world. Between 1918 and 1920 an epidemic of Spanish flu caused the death of 20 million people in the US and Europe, but nobody accused the governments of these countries of killing their own citizens. The fact is that there was nothing these government could do in the face of epidemics of this kind. It was only with the development of penicillin during the second world war, that it became possible for such epidemics to be effectively contained. This did not become generally available until towards the end of the 1940s.
The Hearst press articles asserting that millions were dying of famine in the Ukraine - a famine supposedly deliberately provoked by the communists - went into graphic and lurid detail. The Hearst press used every means possible to make their lies seem like the truth, and succeeded in causing public opinion in the capitalist countries to turn sharply against the Soviet Union. This was the origin of the first giant myth manufactured alleging millions were dying in the Soviet Union. In the wave of protests against the supposedly communist-provoked famine which the Western press unleashed, nobody was interested in listening to the Soviet Union's denials and complete exposure of the Hearst press lies, a situation which prevailed from 1934 until 1987! For more than 50 years several generations of people the world over were brought up on a diet of these slanders to harbour a negative view of socialism in the Soviet Union. (Mario Susa, Marxist-Leninist Party of Sweden)

[Princess Luna]

The five year plans - thats it. Other than that, if I lived during that time, I'd have rallied the Leninists and placed him under arrest for high crime and acts of genocide against the Communist Party.
No offense, but Trotsky stood a far better chance then you would at "rallying the Leninsts and placing Stalin under arrest for high crimes and genocide against the Communist party" and we all know how it ended.

[Rusty Shackleford]

genocide against the communist party? :laugh::laugh:

[pranabjyoti]

The problem with Trotsky, Bukharin and their followers is the fact that their conspiracy had been opened and they were trialled in open court. So much evidence and witnesses were found against them that not a single person, with some little common sense would ready to follow them.

[Dragovich]

Of course not. I'm not a dunderhead.

[S.Artesian]

HALT!

I wont allow this thread to blow up,so i must insist that all comrades who want to participate in it point out which of his actions do they approve and which of them they don't.

Don't turn this into a flame war!

Tell that to the jerk singing the praises of the ice axe.

[RED DAVE]

The problem with Trotsky, Bukharin and their followers is the fact that their conspiracy had been opened and they were trialled in open court. So much evidence and witnesses were found against them that not a single person, with some little common sense would ready to follow them.In you opinion, was the cold-blooded murder of Trotsky, by an assassin in the pay of Stalin, justified?

RED DAVE

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The crimes of Stalin have already been discussed at length in many other threads in this forum. Defenders of Stalin have also had their say, at length here. When I first got on RevLeft about 9 months ago there was an epic thread which had already been going on for almost a year the main topic of which was "whether or not Trotsky lied about the existence of the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen". There was an incredible amount of vitriol over this issue and some people apparently felt the need to invest a huge amount of time and emotional energy into this. I have a friend who dropped out of RevLeft because of the general nastiness in that specific thread and I'm sure there have been many others.

Capitalism is in the worst crisis since the 1930s.How is this continuing sectarian shitfest the least bit helpful?

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Yes.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The movie "Mission To Moscow" is quite interesting.

[Geiseric]

I heard that Oliver Stone was thinking about making an Alexander/W. esque empathetic movie about Stalin. I hope to god he does it.

[Sir Comradical]

Judge for yourself... :)

American ambassador to Moscow during the Moscow Trials, personally present at them, Joseph Davies, Mission to Moscow, p 269.

From the same author, page 271:

17th February 1937, letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:

So, yes it was. The same way Lenin had to crush Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks when they threatened to illegally overthrow the Revolution. Not to mention the fact that only a few years later Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Union. Just imagine the consequences if the country was divided in few opposing blocks, without a monolithic leadership, or even worst, if counter-revolutionaries staged a coup during a war, bringing whole country and entire nation in the mortal danger of total annihilation. Remember what happened with Republican Spain due to the fact that it never had a unified and strong leadership? Stalin was a brutal man in brutal times, but having someone like him as leader is sometimes simply necessary. I would still prefer him to some mild liberal like Allende that would end up as a tragic hero, but condemn socialism and his people to doom. :)

Yes and it would have helped to have Tukhachevsky around when the Germans invaded.

Anyway the advantage held by prosecution when accusing people of something they haven't yet done but are supposedly plotting, is that their charges are inherently unfalsifiable. It also helps if you can get false confessions out of defendants by threatening family members and executing them. Trotsky's son was murdered on the ridiculous charge of wanting to poison workers. If you believe that charge was legit then that's cool.

[Sir Comradical]

None of them were just "murdered". All of them had been trialed on open court before eye-witnesses, most of which are Western European and US citizens of professionals like advocate, ambassador, writer, in short educated intellectuals. Those who are eye-witnesses, hadn't found any flaw in the trial process and most agreed that if the trial had been done on any "democratic" country i.e. in their own homelands, the verdict wouldn't be different.

The eye-witnesses observed a trial without knowing of the coercion and threats to family members that took place in the background, so of course it would have seemed genuine to them. Kamenev's son and wife were eventually shot without trial. If you think that was justified then that's cool. If you'd like to provide me with your anti-revisionist side of the story then I'll have a look.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I heard that Oliver Stone was thinking about making an Alexander/W. esque empathetic movie about Stalin. I hope to god he does it.

Will he make Stalin out as a PC, multi-cultural 90s camp hero like his Alexander? Will Stalin's death scene with Beria be at all like Alexander's raucous carousing in Babylon before he died?

[Geiseric]

I honestly hope so, that'd be hilarious. He'd romanticize his bank robberies and role in the Civil War, kinda like the Baader Meinhoff Complex did with the RAF.

[pranabjyoti]

The eye-witnesses observed a trial without knowing of the coercion and threats to family members that took place in the background, so of course it would have seemed genuine to them. Kamenev's son and wife were eventually shot without trial. If you think that was justified then that's cool. If you'd like to provide me with your anti-revisionist side of the story then I'll have a look.
The eyewitnesses weren't illiterate dumb people, many of them were diplomats and some were advocates. Do you think they just can't smell such incidents? And moreover, it's not a fact that the accused people confessed in a single day, they confessed when so much heap of evidences against them were put before them.
US engineer John D Littlepage himself observed such sabotaging of soviet industrialization by followers of Trotsky. He, in his book In Search of Soviet Gold described how Piatakov (one of the accused) forced him to by useless lift for Gold mines in Lena are from Germany and very very quickly paid a very high price for that useless machinery.
What you have said is baseless because the trail was done before eye-witnesses from various countries and none of the so many accused just dared to say the "truth" (as described by you) before them, while the world media (controlled by imperialists) is just eagerly waiting to grasp such incidents. If they were that much dumb, then they deserve the penalty.

[bailey_187]

Do u genuinly beleive then, that Bukharin, Trotsky etc were in the pay of Japan and Nazi Germany?

Even people such as the author Behind the Urals, who upheld the USSR, spoke of barely discriminate violence that the purges caused amongst party members. Of course, this memoir on the 1930s USSR does not make it on your great bibliography of Soviet history u keep postin about does it?

[bezdomni]

I don't think "do you support Stalin" is a simple yes/no question. Furthermore, I am not sure if it is even meaningful to ask, since Stalin is long dead and the USSR collapsed over a decade ago.

That said, I have a brief answer to this question as follows.

I think the Soviet Union under Stalin was basically a socialist country, and I uphold the Soviet Union as such. That is to say, I view the USSR as an overall positive socialist experiment in spite of (so-called) Stalinism.

To clarify, I do not think the USSR was a model socialist country. There were very deep problems in the political and economic structure of Soviet society, and of course one cannot have an "ideal" socialist society in the midst or aftermath of a Nazi occupation and brutal war taking 20 million lives and destroying critical infrastructure.

There was nothing great about Stalin. However, the Soviet Union was something great that should be understood and (critically) celebrated by communists today.

This is a very tired conversation and I am not particularly interested in saying much else on the topic. I thought it would be perhaps useful for me to share my thought on this since my view is somewhat idiosyncratic in that I uphold the Soviet Union as a socialist country (and hence, I do uphold Stalin as a historically positive figure in some sense) but on the other hand I drop the dogmatic politics and re-writing of history typical of (so-called) Stalinists.

On a related aside, my favorite book is Master and Margarita.

[mosfeld]

Do u genuinly beleive then, that Bukharin, Trotsky etc were in the pay of Japan and Nazi Germany?

You could take a look at Grover Furr's "Evidence of Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan (http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf)"

[bailey_187]

You could take a look at Grover Furr's "Evidence of Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan (http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf)"

I have.

[Geiseric]

Wait so buying expensive lift machinery needed for gold mining is treason all of a sudden? what's next, the commisar of war bought expensive artillery, TREASON!

[Rooster]

This argument is kinda silly. Supporting the man? Hmm, well, if you want. It's easier to support a man's theoretical contributions to Marxist thought. So, in this instance, I find it hard to support someone who declared, for example, the creation of the socialist republics as "national in form, but socialist in content", plus other such doublethink.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This thread is absurd, and the poll too.

Yes, all? How do we determine what specific decision was Stalin's decision alone or if it was a decision of more than one part, or whether Stalin had any significant part in a decision whatsoever? And not only this, but I do not think there is any case where one would agree with every decision ever taken during a long and varied period (if we assume everything 1928-1953 were decisions of Stalin alone, which is frankly a ridiculous assertion).

Rather the question would be if one agrees with the general trend during the era or something without going into specifics.

However, seeing as it involves Stalin, the thread is destined to be (and by now in fact is basically already) a sectarian shitfest.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Why can´t socialism exist in one country?

[Sir Comradical]

The eyewitnesses weren't illiterate dumb people, many of them were diplomats and some were advocates. Do you think they just can't smell such incidents? And moreover, it's not a fact that the accused people confessed in a single day, they confessed when so much heap of evidences against them were put before them.
US engineer John D Littlepage himself observed such sabotaging of soviet industrialization by followers of Trotsky. He, in his book In Search of Soviet Gold described how Piatakov (one of the accused) forced him to by useless lift for Gold mines in Lena are from Germany and very very quickly paid a very high price for that useless machinery.
What you have said is baseless because the trail was done before eye-witnesses from various countries and none of the so many accused just dared to say the "truth" (as described by you) before them, while the world media (controlled by imperialists) is just eagerly waiting to grasp such incidents. If they were that much dumb, then they deserve the penalty.

Ok fine I'll read it when I have the chance and I'll keep in mind your basic argument. What about the execution of Trotsky's son on the charge of intending to poison workers?

[Red_Struggle]

Why the hell is this thread still going?

Four pages? Good god.

[pranabjyoti]

Ok fine I'll read it when I have the chance and I'll keep in mind your basic argument. What about the execution of Trotsky's son on the charge of intending to poison workers?
Kindly give me any source of information regarding that matter and that should be honest.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I love Stalin with all my heart and all my soul! Stalin is the sunrise when I first get up, Stalin is the cream in my first cup of coffee in the morning, Stalin is the flavour packet I put on my Ramen noodles at lunch, Stalin is the glass of white wine I drink with dinner. Stalin is the tofu I keep in my fridge.

Stalin, oh Stalin, oh Stalin! Great Father of the Peoples and Wise Teacher of the proletarian! Friend of children and Great Protector of the Socialist Fatherland!

Stalin, with your unquenchable thirst for proletarian justice and scourge of wreckers and Trotskyite filth! Stalin, a Family Guy episode I haven't seen yet!

Stalin, 50% off happy hour in my favourite bar! Stalin, two free songs during karaoke night!

I place my faith in thee, oh Stalin!

Stalin, oh Stalin, oh Stalin!

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

I support his fight against the Nazis.

I object to his starving and massacring his own people, betraying the revolution, imprisoning political opponents, having Trotsky murdered, and establishing a new oligarchy.

[Hereward]

HALT!

I wont allow this thread to blow up,so i must insist that all comrades who want to participate in it point out which of his actions do they approve and which of them they don't.

Don't turn this into a flame war! If you have something against comrade Stalin or Stalinism use arguments and be civil!No one wants to read posts like : HE was a monster i tell you!He killed 2000000000 people!"
Restrain yourself from posting messages such as that.If you want to argue,do so,in a civil and normal way.

With that cleared up...(hopefully)

On the thread:

I support his actions during the Great Patriotic War and after the conflict in which he led a wounded Soviet Union to victory against the greatest evil in the history of man:Nazism and Hitler.
I support his anti-revisionist struggles and especially those against the West,in which he proved that a Soviet Russia can go head on with the United States of Imperialism.
I support his actions in which he helped a number of revolutionary movements to grow and take the path of socialism and communism.
I support his actions in which he re-built Moscow and turned it into a Metropolis.
I support his actions regarding the inflation: Inflation in USSR was 2.3% whilst he was leader, whilst in the USA it was 3.5%.
I support his actions regarding the military and the Red Army.
I support his resolution in the fight against imperialism and capitalism.
I don't like the fact that sometimes,reacted too harshly,but i guess it was necessary.
I don't like the fact that he was too ruthless sometimes,but again,it was necessary.

This is the biggest amount of BS I have ever read on the internet, ever. You're telling me that you support;


Genocide
Mass-murder of your own workers and people.
Stifiling of Lenin's Communism.
Hijacking of Communism for own needs.
Rape and murder of millions of Europeans, including millions of innocent German women and girls.
Hid behind the flag of PATRIOTISM in the 1940s in order to make Russians defend their Motherland - not Communism.
The wiping out of thousands of decent Red Army officers in the name of Communism.
It's people like you who sum up this forum; teenagers and men looking for a powerful figure or political system different from the capatalist ones they reside, live and work in. You endorse genocide and murder..

[pranabjyoti]

I object to his starving and massacring his own people, betraying the revolution, imprisoning political opponents, having Trotsky murdered, and establishing a new oligarchy.
I support Stalin for annihilating counter-revolutionary elements, defending the revolution and imprisoning betrayers of revolution and establishing the world's first peasants and workers state.:D

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

the world's first peasants and workers state.:D

Yeah, because the average farmer had so much say in how things were run. :laugh:

Like so many others in history, as soon as Stalin got power he set immediately to consolidating it. People saw it coming, which is why real communists opposed him from the get-go. Trotsky pointed it out, which is why he had to flee and was hunted down and murdered.

He established a small ruling elite, which is oligarchy. This is counter to communism.


STALINISM IS NOT COMMUNISM


Staling betrayed the proletariat and was no different than the Tsars.

[The Man]

This is the biggest amount of BS I have ever read on the internet, ever. You're telling me that you support;


Genocide
Mass-murder of your own workers and people.
Stifiling of Lenin's Communism.
Hijacking of Communism for own needs.
Rape and murder of millions of Europeans, including millions of innocent German women and girls.
Hid behind the flag of PATRIOTISM in the 1940s in order to make Russians defend their Motherland - not Communism.
The wiping out of thousands of decent Red Army officers in the name of Communism.

It's people like you who sum up this forum; teenagers and men looking for a powerful figure or political system different from the capatalist ones they reside, live and work in. You endorse genocide and murder..

I pissed my pants laughing on this one.:laugh:
Remember.. That Out of 28,000 there are only 1,800.

[Omsk]

@Hereward: Reputation: -2147483645

Must i say more?

But il answer just in case.

This is the biggest amount of BS I have ever read on the internet, ever. You're telling me that you support;
Genocide
Mass-murder of your own workers and people.
Stifiling of Lenin's Communism.
Hijacking of Communism for own needs.
Rape and murder of millions of Europeans, including millions of innocent German women and girls.
Hid behind the flag of PATRIOTISM in the 1940s in order to make Russians defend their Motherland - not Communism.
The wiping out of thousands of decent Red Army officers in the name of Communism.
It's people like you who sum up this forum; teenagers and men looking for a powerful figure or political system different from the capatalist ones they reside, live and work in. You endorse genocide and murder..

Don't create strawmen,i said which of his actions i don't support.
And for the notice,im not feeling sad for the German troops,not after what they did both in the Soviet Union and my homeland.

[hatzel]

This is the biggest amount of BS I have ever read on the internet, ever.Yes, this was a suitable way to introduce your post, which was, in fact, the biggest amount of BS I have ever read on the internet, ever...

P.S. If you look at the results of the poll, you'll see that out of 29.000 there are only 1.800, and most of them do not support Stalin. Bazinggggg :)

[Born in the USSR]

I love Stalin with all my heart and all my soul! Stalin is the sunrise when I first get up, Stalin is the cream in my first cup of coffee in the morning, Stalin is the flavour packet I put on my Ramen noodles at lunch, Stalin is the glass of white wine I drink with dinner. Stalin is the tofu I keep in my fridge.

Stalin, oh Stalin, oh Stalin! Great Father of the Peoples and Wise Teacher of the proletarian! Friend of children and Great Protector of the Socialist Fatherland!

Stalin, with your unquenchable thirst for proletarian justice and scourge of wreckers and Trotskyite filth! Stalin, a Family Guy episode I haven't seen yet!

Stalin, 50% off happy hour in my favourite bar! Stalin, two free songs during karaoke night!

I place my faith in thee, oh Stalin!

Stalin, oh Stalin, oh Stalin!

So what for do you wroggling?The people really respected Stalin.You,trots,always spat on the opinion of the people.That's why people spat upon you and that's why trots in Russia must be entered in Red Book.

[Geiseric]

Trotskyists in Russia were the representatives of the original revolution, you're saying that Bukharin, Kamanev and Trotsky were never respected, however Trotsky was voted to the head of the Petrograd soviet, and organised the Red Army to an efficient fighting force capible of defeating the Whites.

So Stalin always took into consideration the opinions of the people when he signed alliances with the Nazis, when he forced collectivization on the Peasants ending in who knows how many deaths, and when he purged the Army of many of its experienced soldiers and officers who had nothing wrong. I'm sure all of the workers loved those actions, and those who didn't were killed anyways for treason.

Stalin: Man of the People!

[stella2010]

Remember that this is a time when MASS as in MASS mobilization and MASS production was still new. We now understand MASS.

I do not mean the Catholic tradition.

[robbo203]

So what for do you wroggling?The people really respected Stalin.You,trots,always spat on the opinion of the people.That's why people spat upon you and that's why trots in Russia must be entered in Red Book.

The German people (or many of them) respected Hitler. Does that mean we must accept their assessment of Hitler?

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually even in the Nazi years the majority of Germans didn't explicitly support Hitler. Hitler won political power without mass democratic support.

Comparing Hitler with Stalin is a mistake. All of Hitler's theoretical contributions are utterly reactionary, Stalin's theoretical background, on the other hand, does come from a Marxist framework, despite his many mistakes. (Though it's true Stalin hardly made any original contributions to Marxism, most of his Marxist ideas were just copied from Lenin)

[SacRedMan]

This is the biggest amount of BS I have ever read on the internet, ever. You're telling me that you support;


Genocide
Mass-murder of your own workers and people.
Stifiling of Lenin's Communism.
Hijacking of Communism for own needs.
Rape and murder of millions of Europeans, including millions of innocent German women and girls.
Hid behind the flag of PATRIOTISM in the 1940s in order to make Russians defend their Motherland - not Communism.
The wiping out of thousands of decent Red Army officers in the name of Communism.

It's people like you who sum up this forum; teenagers and men looking for a powerful figure or political system different from the capatalist ones they reside, live and work in. You endorse genocide and murder..

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs37/f/2008/293/f/a/Picard_Facepalm_by_LuckyHRE.gif

[robbo203]

Actually even in the Nazi years the majority of Germans didn't explicitly support Hitler. Hitler won political power without mass democratic support.


Im not particularly arsed about whether a majority of Germans explicitly supported Hitler - although clearly a great many did and that would certainly be a very substantial minority if not a technical majority. I was merely taking Born in the USSR to task for his assumption that because "the people" - though it is not clear whether he means by this a majority or a minority - in the SU respected Stalin, that means Stalin should be respected. It does not.

[CleverTitle]

At this point I think I'd be more eager to discuss Stalin's mustache than the man himself.

What a tired discussion. Surely there are more immediately relevant things for people to be so passionate about?

[Crux]

I reckognize that Napoleon had some progressive features, but in the end fundamentally was a reactionary in comparison to the revolution. Stalin was a modern Bonaparte, not by his personal traits, by the role he played. Even his progressive features become pale in comparison to the fundamental betrayal of the october revolution he represents.

[Queercommie Girl]

I reckognize that Napoleon had some progressive features, but in the end fundamentally was a reactionary in comparison to the revolution. Stalin was a modern Bonaparte, not by his personal traits, by the role he played. Even his progressive features become pale in comparison to the fundamental betrayal of the october revolution he represents.

Napoleon is to capitalism what Stalin is to socialism. Stalin's USSR is still intrinsically a worker's state, albeit a deformed one, like Napoleon's empire is still essentially bourgeois in character.

But yes I agree the lack of worker's democracy in the Stalinist system is a fundamental problem. However, I prefer the analogy of Stalin and Napoleon, rather than Stalin and Hitler.

[RED DAVE]

Napoleon is to capitalism what Stalin is to socialism.So, I guess Napoleon destroyed capitalism and paved the way for the eventual restoration of feudalism.


Stalin's USSR is still intrinsically a worker's state, albeit a deformed one, like Napoleon's empire is still essentially bourgeois in character.Napoleon's empire is bourgeois because the bourgeoisie controlled the means of productin.

Stalinists and Maoists have been trying for decades to show that the USSR is socialist. What they are saying is that you can have socialism without workers conrol of production. No more than you can have capitalism without bourgeois control of produciion.


But yes I agree the lack of worker's democracyOkay, so you admit it.


in the Stalinist system is a fundamental problem.That would be like saying that the lack of bourgeois control of the means of production is a fundamental problem.

Comrade, it's not a fundamental problem. It's a negation, just like Stalinism was the negation of socialism.


However, I prefer the analogy of Stalin and Napoleon, rather than Stalin and Hitler.We're not dealing esthetic preference here. We're dealing materialist analysis.

RED DAVE

[Rooster]

What a tired discussion. Surely there are more immediately relevant things for people to be so passionate about?

The problem is, many CPs in the world still hold Stalinism up as something good and something that created socialism. People living in the past who would try their best to re-formulate and impose the tired old ideas of the USSR on to the modern world if they had the chance. This is why they're mostly all irrelevant and actually detrimental to the overthrow of capitalism.

[Born in the USSR]

The German people (or many of them) respected Hitler. Does that mean we must accept their assessment of Hitler?

I wonder what can idiotic analogies prove?

Hitler corrupted Germans by making them accomplices in robbing the peoples of Europe.Hitler's authority is the authority of the leader of a gang who shares a part of a loot with other members of the gang.

And Stalin? "Oh,cult of personallity,oh "barrack" socialism!" Certainly,it's not a great joy to live in barracks,there are always some deserters there.But even deserters know for themselves that without Stalin's barracks we could not win the war.Everybody understood it then and that's why people gathered in a "totalitarian" society, as in the army.That's why appeared a cult of Stalin as a commander. Such worship cannot be created neither with a whip, nor with a crack.

[Sir Comradical]

Kindly give me any source of information regarding that matter and that should be honest.

"Later Trotsky's son, Sergei, a scientist with no political interests or connections, was arrested on a trumped-up charge of 'poisoning the workers' - and later Trotsky learned that he had died in prison. Alongside his morbid fear of ideas, "the motive of personal revenge has always been a considerable factor in the repressive policies of Stalin". (Diary in Exile, p66)"
http://www.socialismtoday.org/49/assassination.html

"Sedov, Sergei (1908-1937)
Son of L.D. Trotsky and Natalia Sedova Trotsky. Had no formal political involvement in Soviet politics and worked as an engineer. Elected to remain in the USSR following the exile of his parents in 1928. At the height of Stalin's efforts to eliminate all descendants of L.D. Trotsky, Sedov was arrested in 1935 on false allegations that he attempted a mass poisoning of factory workers at the Krasnoyarsk Engineering Works factory. He was imprisoned and eventually sent to Siberia where he remained until his death during a prison uprising in 1937."
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/s/e.htm#sedov-sergei

Even if we accept that his death was accidental, the charge is still ridiculous and anti-semitic.

[Queercommie Girl]

So, I guess Napoleon destroyed capitalism and paved the way for the eventual restoration of feudalism.

Napoleon's empire is bourgeois because the bourgeoisie controlled the means of productin.

Stalinists and Maoists have been trying for decades to show that the USSR is socialist. What they are saying is that you can have socialism without workers conrol of production. No more than you can have capitalism without bourgeois control of produciion.

Okay, so you admit it.

That would be like saying that the lack of bourgeois control of the means of production is a fundamental problem.

Comrade, it's not a fundamental problem. It's a negation, just like Stalinism was the negation of socialism.


You consider the USSR to be "state-capitalist", while I think it was a worker's state, albeit a deformed one. That's the main difference.



We're not dealing esthetic preference here. We're dealing materialist analysis.


Which is exactly what I'm doing here. I'm not talking about aesthetics. Do you really think it is sound, from the perspective of Marxist material analysis, to label Stalin as a "Hitler-like" figure? Such characterisations mostly arose during the Cold War in the West.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I support glorious comrade Stalin's act of giving all the kids of the USSR happy childhoods (http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/p_view.php?id=284).

[Sword and Shield]

I believe that if I were in Stalin's place I would not have been as strong-fisted as he was. I also believe that if I were in Stalin's place, the Nazis would have succeeded in invading the USSR. Thus, in retrospect, I support Stalin's actions as being correct.

[Invader Zim]

I believe that if I were in Stalin's place I would not have been as strong-fisted as he was. I also believe that if I were in Stalin's place, the Nazis would have succeeded in invading the USSR. Thus, in retrospect, I support Stalin's actions as being correct.

Really, well I have a series of questions for you, in that case:

1. If you had been lobbying another group to join you in a united front against fascism throughout the latter years of the 1930s, and finally when you know they are going to take a stand against fascism, choose to sign an agreement with the fascist power that effectively allowed that power to invade Western Europe, North Africa, Poland, etc, without challenge from the nation which should be its bitterest and most devoutly anti-fascist enemy?

2. Would you proceed to have, in a bout of homicidal paranoia, purged your armed forces of the vast majority of its most skilled and experienced leaders, when you know full well that the aforementioned fascist power is ever growing in strength and has its eyes locked firmly on your western border?

3. Would you refuse to believe multiple warnings from multiple powers that this fascist power was on the verge of invading your western border and refuse to prepare accordingly? Would you also ignore them if your own intelligence sources within these powers confirmed that they were not lying? Would you ignore them still if your own intelligence sources within the fascist power itself told you that they were about the invade?

[Born in the USSR]

Would you refuse to believe multiple warnings from multiple powers that this fascist power was on the verge of invading your western border and refuse to prepare accordingly? Would you also ignore them if your own intelligence sources within these powers confirmed that they were not lying? Would you ignore them still if your own intelligence sources within the fascist power itself told you that they were about the invade?How Stalin ignored the menace of war:


"From mid-May,1941 according to the directives of the General Staff started the movement of armies - 28 divisions at all- from domestic military regions to the border. 5 районов." onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='#ebeff9'" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='#fff'">In May - early June,1941 were called up about 800 thousand resrevists, and they were all focused on the completion of border troops of the western military regions and fortified areas. By mid-1941 the total number of army and navy had reached over 5 millions and it was 2.7 times more than in 1939.

In May - June, 1941 to the line of Western Dvina and Dnieper were transferred 19-th, 21-th and 22-th Armies from the North Caucasus, Volga and Ural military regions, the 25-th infantry Corps from Kharkov military region </span>and 16-th Army from Trans-Baikal military region to Kiev Special military region.On May,27 the General Staff gave the western border regions a guidance on the construction of field front-line command posts; and on June,19 -to bring there front-line management of the Baltic, Western and Kiev Special military regions. </span>Office of the Odessa region at the request of the
region Command had made such a permit sooner. On June 12-15, these region was ordered to remove divisions located in the interior of the region close to the border. On June 19, these military regions were ordered to mask the airfields, military units, parks, depots and bases and disperse the aircraft on the ground." ( Marshal Vasilevsky,the head of the General Staff in 1942-1945 ).


Would you proceed to have, in a bout of homicidal paranoia, purged your armed forces of the vast majority of its most skilled and experienced leaders, when you know full well that the aforementioned fascist power is ever growing in strength and has its eyes locked firmly on your western border?
And would you ignore this:

"We must restore the tactics of Clemenceau, who opposed the French government at a time when the Germans were in the eighty miles from Paris. " (Trotsky).

Or you would let Trotskyist 5-th column in the Army to rise a revolt when Nazi 'd be 80 miles from Moscow?


If you had been lobbying another group to join you in a united front against fascism throughout the latter years of the 1930s, and finally when you know they are going to take a stand against fascism, choose to sign an agreement with the fascist power that effectively allowed that power to invade Western Europe, North Africa, Poland, etc, without challenge from the nation which should be its bitterest and most devoutly anti-fascist enemy?

It's interesting what was this "another antifascist group" in 1930s?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

1. If you had been lobbying another group to join you in a united front against fascism throughout the latter years of the 1930s, and finally when you know they are going to take a stand against fascism,
:confused: What exactly are you basing this on?

choose to sign an agreement with the fascist power that effectively allowed that power to invade Western Europe, North Africa, Poland, etc, without challenge from the nation which should be its bitterest and most devoutly anti-fascist enemy?
As opposed to getting invaded by Germany AND Poland while in a much weaker defensive position, with 2 years less preparation, and with France, Britain, the USA etc. cheering on the fascists. :rolleyes:

[Qayin]

Who gives a fuck he is DEAD this has been debated since the site opened for fuck sake. The USSR is gone what are we going to do

[Marxach-Léinínach]

2. Would you proceed to have, in a bout of homicidal paranoia, purged your armed forces of the vast majority of its most skilled and experienced leaders, when you know full well that the aforementioned fascist power is ever growing in strength and has its eyes locked firmly on your western border?
You ever heard of "fifth columns"?

[Omsk]

The Soviet Union prepared itself for war,that is sure,but various other elements played in the favor of the Soviet Union,such as the climate and the resistance from other nations Hitler's armies occupied.


- Between August 1939 and June 1941, when Germany was at war in the West, Russia devoted all its resources to prepare for war with Germany. In that period the regular Russian army expanded from 2,000,000 soldiers to 5,500,000 soldiers, and many millions more were given military training in order to be called as ready reserves once the war starts. In fact, between Aug. 1939 and June 1941, the Russian army expanded and moved towards the western border from remote inland regions at such rate that the German intelligence simply could not keep track of it, and was therefore terribly wrong in its estimates of the size of the Russian force it was about to attack.

The Russian military industry, that was already enormous, switched, in January 1939!, to an extreme wartime regime, and produced vast quantities of tanks, aircraft, and particularly vast stockpiles of ammunition, so much that there was a separate government minister for ammunition production beside the minister of military industry. Work hours increased. In June 1940 the entire country switched to seven days of work per week, then work hours increased too, initially to 10 hours per day, then to 12 hours per day, and since mid 1940 the penalty for any failure to provide the requested quotas or product quality, or even just being late for work, was years in prison. This wartime work regime was so extreme that later, even in the worst days of the war, there was no need to add to it, since Russia was already making its maximum war effort since before Hitler invaded. The Russian army's General Staff also worked since 1940 around the clock, preparing for war like mad, although Russia was still allegedly with excellent relations with Germany. Since Feb. 1941, under Zhukov, the Russian army General Staff and units' staffs worked 15 to 17 hours per day, seven days per week, preparing for war.



But,in the case of the great war in Russia,the Red Army fought with heroism,which sometimes compensated for the lack of equipment.


The Russian border fortress in Brest, Poland, for example, with 4000 Russian soldiers, was massively attacked and encircled immediately when the Germans invaded. Despite being besieged, outnumbered 10:1, running out of food, water, ammunition, the Russian defenders fought fiercely for five weeks, while the war front moved hundreds of kilometers behind them, and later resistance of a few survivors continued underground for months. For the Germans, Brest was a very bitter first taste of the type of fierce Russian fighting they would later experience in Stalingrad and elsewhere.

In the city of Smolensk, on the main road to Moscow, the advancing Germans encircled in the 3rd week of fighting a large Russian force, but unlike other encirclements, this force did not surrender. It kept fighting fiercely, counter attacked the Germans, and eventually succeeded in braking out of the encirclement in order to continue fighting. Similar persistent fighting took place in Odessa, Murmansk, and elsewhere, and especially in Leningrad, which remained besieged, terribly starved, and shelled since the 3rd month of the war, and kept fighting for over two years until the horrible siege was finally removed by the advancing Russian army.

[Ned Kelly]

I support the collectivization of agriculture, the rapid rate of industrialization that was achieved during Stalin's reign and the defeat of Fascism in Europe.

[Ned Kelly]

As a counterweight, i must state that I hold beef with the initial un-cooperative nature of the USSR towards the Chinese Revolution, due to Stalin's long held pro KMT stance.

[Invader Zim]

How Stalin ignored the menace of war:


"From mid-May,1941 according to the directives of the General Staff started the movement of armies - 28 divisions at all- from domestic military regions to the border. 5 районов." onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='#ebeff9'" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='#fff'">In May - early June,1941 were called up about 800 thousand resrevists, and they were all focused on the completion of border troops of the western military regions and fortified areas. By mid-1941 the total number of army and navy had reached over 5 millions and it was 2.7 times more than in 1939.

In May - June, 1941 to the line of Western Dvina and Dnieper were transferred 19-th, 21-th and 22-th Armies from the North Caucasus, Volga and Ural military regions, the 25-th infantry Corps from Kharkov military region </span>and 16-th Army from Trans-Baikal military region to Kiev Special military region.On May,27 the General Staff gave the western border regions a guidance on the construction of field front-line command posts; and on June,19 -to bring there front-line management of the Baltic, Western and Kiev Special military regions. </span>Office of the Odessa region at the request of the
region Command had made such a permit sooner. On June 12-15, these region was ordered to remove divisions located in the interior of the region close to the border. On June 19, these military regions were ordered to mask the airfields, military units, parks, depots and bases and disperse the aircraft on the ground." ( Marshal Vasilevsky,the head of the General Staff in 1942-1945 ).

Blah blah blah, do you seriously deny that STalin's regime absolutely refused to believe their own intelligence, and as a result when the actual invasion occured, the Red Army was automatically on the back foot?

If you do you are historically illiterate.


And would you ignore this:

"We must restore the tactics of Clemenceau, who opposed the French government at a time when the Germans were in the eighty miles from Paris. " (Trotsky).

Or you would let Trotskyist 5-th column in the Army to rise a revolt when Nazi 'd be 80 miles from Moscow?

The notion of the Red Army being loaded with Trotskyite fifth columnists is a load of baseless nonsense concocted by the regime, as has been proven following the opening of the archives in the 1990s.


It's interesting what was this "another antifascist group" in 1930s?

What a cretinous question, we are discussing the USSR dear.


What exactly are you basing this on?

Err, I dunno, maybe the fact that Britain and France had drawn a line in the sand and atually went to war with Nazi Germany over Poland? Do you actually have the faintest idea oabout the events we are discussing?


As opposed to getting invaded by Germany AND Poland while in a much weaker defensive position, with 2 years less preparation, and with France, Britain, the USA etc. cheering on the fascists.

Another utterly moronic and ignorant comment. We know that Britain and France were going to go to war with Germany, with or without the Soviet Union. Do you really suppose that Hitler would have invaded either Poland, and later France, in 1939 if he thought that Germany would be faced with a two front war against three major power?

Like most Stalin-kiddies you fail at basic history.

[Born in the USSR]

Invader Zim

I write for those who are able to understand the facts,not for stupid fanatics.So don't bother with answers,historically literate man from Wales.

[Omsk]

Err, I dunno, maybe the fact that Britain and France had drawn a line in the sand and atually went to war with Nazi Germany over Poland? Do you actually have the faintest idea oabout the events we are discussing?

~
BRITISH capitalists AIDED HITLER


British diplomacy granted to Hitler Germany everything that it had refused for more than a decade to the German republic: the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Nazi -- terrorized plebiscite in the Saar, German rearmament and naval expansion.... British finance, which had strangled the struggling German democracy with demands for impossible war reparations, supported Hitler's regime with heavy investments and loans. It was no secret to any intelligent world citizen that the British Tories made these concessions to Hitler because they saw in him their "strong--arm gangster" who would eventually fight the Soviets, which important sections of British finance capital have always seen as their greatest foe.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 147


If any doubt remained as to the motives of the British and French foreign offices, it was removed at the Munich conference. Munich -- with its cynical sell out of Czechoslovakia -- was the trump card of the Tory ruling cllass in its game of driving Germany toward the east. The British Prime Minister chamberlain posed as "appeasing" Hitler, while actually egging him on. Chamberlain suggested that the Sudetenland might be given to Hitler before anyone in Germany had dared to express such a desire.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 148

It surprises me how ignorant and vulgar you are.If you can't discuss with a dose of civility,than don't discuss at all.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that so many leftists are against every single one of Stalin's policies...

[RNL]

I find it a bit disturbing to see so many Stalin avatars around here.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Err, I dunno, maybe the fact that Britain and France had drawn a line in the sand and atually went to war with Nazi Germany over Poland?

A war which saw them dropping leaflets in Poland kindly asking the Nazis to stop, as opposed to bombs or troops or anything like they seriously considered using against the Red Army during the Winter War :rolleyes:

[Sword and Shield]

I find it a bit disturbing to see so many Stalin avatars around here.

I had one, then realized it made people think I was a tankie, so I changed it.

[Invader Zim]

Invader Zim

I write for those who are able to understand the facts,not for stupid fanatics.So don't bother with answers,historically literate man from Wales.

Nice come back... except I see that you are unable to challenge anything I said.

Whatever.


A war which saw them dropping leaflets in Poland kindly asking the Nazis to stop, as opposed to bombs or troops or anything like they seriously considered using against the Red Army during the Winter War

Why would Britain and France indulge the imperial interests of the USSR?

[Coggeh]

I agree that it would have been impossible for the Soviet Union to pursue international revolution during the 1920s and 30s - however I feel Stalin took Socialism in One Country way too far and didn't do enough when opportunities for revolution appeared.

I don't criticise Stalin for his opportunistic foriegn policy - without it the Soviet Union would have been destroyed and the Nazis would have ruled all Europe. Better to betray your moral principles than live in that word.


You must be joking me?

How exactly would it have been impossible? Maybe he should have tried not destroying the Spanish revolution in the first place eh?

It wasn't impossible it was very possible just Stalin being the opportunist he is decided not to support the revolution in Spain in any meaningful way or in other countries because it might upset trade partners such as Britain and France.

And no the Soviet Union would not have been destroyed by the nazi's what the hell. Where are you getting your history from exactly? first of all nazi's may not had come to power if the USSR endorsed a popular front against the nazi's in Germany with other anti fascist parties but they didn't they kept fighting with the SPD and other organisations which may have been ally's and basically rolled out the red carpet for the nazi's in doing so.

[Gorilla]

You must be joking me?

How exactly would it have been impossible? Maybe he should have tried not destroying the Spanish revolution in the first place eh?

It wasn't impossible it was very possible just Stalin being the opportunist he is decided not to support the revolution in Spain in any meaningful way or in other countries because it might upset trade partners such as Britain and France.

And no the Soviet Union would not have been destroyed by the nazi's what the hell. Where are you getting your history from exactly? first of all nazi's may not had come to power if the USSR endorsed a popular front against the nazi's in Germany with other anti fascist parties but they didn't they kept fighting with the SPD and other organisations which may have been ally's and basically rolled out the red carpet for the nazi's in doing so.

This is dishonest criticism. The PCE and the Soviets "destroyed" the Spanish Revolution by pursuing popular frontism.

Blame them for that if you want, but don't turn around and also blame them for not pursuing popular frontism in Germany - especially with the SPD that killed Luxemburg and Liebknicht.

[Red_Struggle]

Why in fucking hell is this thread still going? Seriously.

[Geiseric]

Wait i'm confused by Stalin's logic with the non-agression pact with the nazis. Did he think that the capitalists and the nazis would have a war, and totally ignore the U.S.S.R, weakening each other, then the red army would come in and take the cake?

Or did he honestly think the Nazis, who killed thousands of communists in germany, wouldn't invade the U.S.S.R? The way I see it, after the Soviet failure of the Winter War, I would be more careful about who thinks the U.S.S.R. was weak and thought there was a prime oppurtunity for the invasion.

Also, the habit Stalin had of supporting nationalists and capitalist governments such as the KMT, the Spanish liberal republic, and to a certain degree the Nazis by avoiding a united front with the Social Democrats is also what I was wondering about. What was his logic there?

These some of my main problems with Stalin's actions, and I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

[Kléber]

Wait i'm confused by Stalin's logic with the non-agression pact with the nazis. Did he think that the capitalists and the nazis would have a war, and totally ignore the U.S.S.R, weakening each other, then the red army would come in and take the cake?

Or did he honestly think the Nazis, who killed thousands of communists in germany, wouldn't invade the U.S.S.R? The way I see it, after the Soviet failure of the Winter War, I would be more careful about who thinks the U.S.S.R. was weak and thought there was a prime oppurtunity for the invasion.

Also, the habit Stalin had of supporting nationalists and capitalist governments such as the KMT, the Spanish liberal republic, and to a certain degree the Nazis by avoiding a united front with the Social Democrats is also what I was wondering about. What was his logic there?

These some of my main problems with Stalin's actions, and I'd like to hear the other side of the story.
The bureaucratic logic was this: if the Soviet Union stop supporting world revolution and instead politically surrenders to the capitalist governments, then the Soviet state will be tolerated by capitalists, bureaucracy will be allowed to sit there and enjoy its semi-bourgeois privileges, or as Stalin and his friends called it, "our full and joyous life."


~
BRITISH capitalists AIDED HITLER .
Capitalists in every country aided Hitler. I'm sure that Invader Zim knew that already.

But the British and French "democracies" were at war with Hitler since 3 September 1939, when the Soviet army invaded Poland on 17 September 1939 and assisted the Nazi army in finishing off organized Polish resistance


A war which saw them dropping leaflets in Poland kindly asking the Nazis to stop, as opposed to bombs or troops or anything like they seriously considered using against the Red Army during the Winter War :rolleyes:
Obviously, the duty of defeating fascism was only ever up to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet government deserted this duty in 1939.

Dropping leaflets is better than the Soviet Union did to defend France when the Nazis invaded (a big fat nothing), capturing one of the industrial metropoles of Europe for their genocidal plans against the Soviet people.

[Chambered Word]

I love Stalin because fuck women's rights guise.

Can't believe we have another thread like this. Brb popcorn.

[CynicalIdealist]

Some. I don't know my Soviet Union history, but defending the Soviet Union from Hitler was definitely the right thing to do, just to name one good thing. For the most part, however, I don't uphold Stalin. Quite the opposite actually.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Yeah so hey i herd that its liek really important to have a deep understanding of every single one of Stalin's intentions ever.

[Born in the USSR]

Wait i'm confused by Stalin's logic with the non-agression pact with the nazis.

Use your head.

The results of the non-agression pact:

Nazi invasion occured two years later.Is it bad or god,if it is known that the time then worked for the USSR?

Soviet border was removed 150-250 km westward.Was it bad or good for the USSR?And was it bad or good for those few millions of Slavs and Jews of Western Ukrania and Belorussia who was saved from Nazi occupation?

Fascist Poland was destroyed.Yes,fascist in fact,the country with military right nationalist dictatorship,the country that only a year before took part together with Nazi Germany and fascist Hungary in the occupation of Czechoslovakia.So is it bad or good to beat the fascist state with hands of the other fascist state?

Nazi agression was redirected to West and the WW2 started as a war between two imperialist blocks.Is it bad or good to knock imperialist heads?

All this is bad for trots;they so much hated Stalinism that they were ready to destroy it with the USSR and with peoples of the USSR.

And what is your opinion?

[Chris]

I generally think he did what was necessary at the time, for the survival of the at that time only socialist state in the world. But I can't say I support every one of his actions, particularily not the removal of power from the Soviets and independent Unions. These may, in the situation that the USSR was in at the time, have been necessary. We cannot know what was and what wasn't, and when looking at the USSR's accomplishments under Stalin, the overall result speaks for itself.

I do agree with the theoretical contributions of Stalin (Socialism in One Country and Aggravation of Class Struggle under Socialism) however.

[Coggeh]

This is dishonest criticism. The PCE and the Soviets "destroyed" the Spanish Revolution by pursuing popular frontism.

Blame them for that if you want, but don't turn around and also blame them for not pursuing popular frontism in Germany - especially with the SPD that killed Luxemburg and Liebknicht.

I like to way to threw out my entire post based on poor wording that i was alerted to by another user. I meant united front. It was my mistake though, apologies.

[The Man]

I support him bit i love his role in red orchestra and hope his role in red orchestra 2 will be better. But he was a traitor the revolution!

Your one of the 11 year old kids who play C&C Red Alert right? I guarantee you know NOTHING About Communism.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I think stalin was a really good imperialist, capitalist business man. I think Stalin is shrouded in myth amongst marxists. STALIN IS NOT A MARXIST. The fact is Stalin came to power and was hell to the working class and used them as slave labor. STALINISM IS STATE CAPITALISM

STALIN WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I think stalin was a really good imperialist, capitalist business man. I think Stalin is shrouded in myth amongst marxists. STALIN IS NOT A MARXIST. The fact is Stalin came to power and was hell to the working class and used them as slave labor. STALINISM IS STATE CAPITALISM

STALIN WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!

Why do you have a Stalinist like Che as your avatar then?

[Sword and Shield]

I think stalin was a really good imperialist, capitalist business man. I think Stalin is shrouded in myth amongst marxists. STALIN IS NOT A MARXIST. The fact is Stalin came to power and was hell to the working class and used them as slave labor. STALINISM IS STATE CAPITALISM

STALIN WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!

:rolleyes: Yup he used Che as slave labor to promote his STATE CAPITALISM. He was such a bad IMPERIALIST he invaded Nazi Germany!!! :crying:

[RedSunRising]

STALIN WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!

I spilled my coffee laughing so much at that! :laugh:

Way to go with the materialist analysis.

[RedSunRising]

Why do you have a Stalinist like Che as your avatar then?

Because Trots divide the world into bad, wicked Stalinoids and good Stalinoids who are really Trots underneath it all...Che, despite the fact of his actively repressing Trots, counts as a good Stalinoid who was basically a Trot...because well he is "cool".

[Kléber]

Che, despite the fact of his actively repressing Trots, counts as a good Stalinoid who was basically a Trot...because well he is "cool".
No, it's because he went against the Cuban and Soviet bureaucracies by protecting Trotskyists and getting them out of jail.


Guevara had attempted to justify the suppression of the Cuban Trotskyists in 1961, loyally repeating the criticisms of the pro-Moscow PSP members. However, his disillusionment with the Soviet Communist Party and the 'Sovietisation' of the direction of the Cuban Revolution had become increasingly apparent in the period following the Missile Crisis of October 1962. Not only had he vented his anger at the USSR's unwillingness to fulfil their commitment to send and, if necessary, use the nuclear missiles,(70) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote70) but he had partially broken with Stalinism over the issue of 'peaceful coexistence' and spreading the revolution to other countries. As described in Section 3.4.2, Guevara's criticisms of the Soviets' strategy led the more ardent pro-Moscow communists to characterise him privately as a Maoist if not Trotskyist. As it became evident that Fidel Castro was beginning to align Cuba with the Soviet Union in the Sino-Soviet dispute, at the same time as Guevara's economic strategy was also losing ground in favour of the policy options desired by the pro-Soviet wing of the Cuban leadership, so Che's personal position towards the Cuban Trotskyists softened. A number of Latin American Trotskyists had been incorporated into his various guerrilla projects,(71) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote71) and Guevara simply no longer had any need to support the suppression of the dissident Trotskyist communists in order to defend a wider political position which he had evidently lost. Ricardo Napuri, a Peruvian who worked with Guevara in Cuba between 1959-64 in his various guerrilla projects, has gone so far as to argue that Guevara initially supported the suppression of the Cuban Trotskyists more out of the need to avoid losing positions in the leadership in the face of pressures from Moscow and the advance of the pro-Moscow PSP members in the G-2, the State Security services, and other revolutionary institutions, rather than out of any personal anti-Trotskyist conviction.(72) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote72)
Disillusioned with Moscow and finding himself on the losing slope in the internal leadership struggles, Guevara increasingly expressed and acted upon his own personal convictions. No longer having any particular axe to grind against the Trotskyists, who themselves shared Guevara's sympathies for the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet dispute, he was instrumental in freeing a number of the POR(T) members imprisoned in La Cabaña jail in Havana. Roberto Tejera was released on the orders of Guevara the day after he had been interviewed by Che personally about his supposed crimes.(73) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote73) Similarly, Armando Machado was released from prison in Havana on Guevara's initiative.(74) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote74)
However, in Oriente where Guevara had little influence over which individuals remained imprisoned, the repression against the POR(T) continued. It culminated in the arrest of the Guantánamo section of the POR(T) in late 1964 and early 1965, less than a year before the formal founding of the new Cuban Communist Party. With the Trotskyists' mimeographed bulletin Voz Proletaria having ceased publication and their small but symbolic intervention in revolutionary institutions having been broken, the members of the POR(T) found themselves in prison en masse. The political nature of this clamp-down in 1964-65 was demonstrated by the sensitivity which the authorities displayed in not arresting Mary Low Machado, a participant in POR(T) meetings, due to the protection which her foreign passport granted her,(75) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote75) or Juan León Ferrera Ramírez because he had worked in Guevara's own exemplary voluntary quartet of cane cutters.(76) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote76)
In Santiago de Cuba, José Medina Campos, Idalberto Ferrera Ramírez, Luciano García, Elías Suárez, Antonio Medina Campos, and Guido Brañas Medina were all charged with alleged crimes against the state. The tribunal which heard their case in March 1965 found them guilty of coming to agreement among themselves and with as yet unknown third persons to conspire against the Cuban government, and having "organised a counter-revolutionary movement called the 'Partido Obrero Revolucionario Trotskista'" in Guantánamo.(77) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote77) In language similar to that employed during the Moscow Show Trials in the 1930s, the Sentencing Report stated that "following the orientations of Yankee imperialism they formed a study circle in which they discussed the best way to sow confusionism and divisionism among the Cuban population [....] as well as publishing a counter-revolutionary bulletin [....] called 'La Voz Proletaria' in which they published false news and information and circulated a large amount of counter-revolutionary propaganda [....], defaming the leaders of the Revolution and criticising the Revolutionary Laws."(78) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote78) According to the tribunal, all this activity was apparently undertaken while the Trotskyists awaited the landing of mercenaries who sought to overthrow violently the Cuban government. Again demonstrating the political nature of the alleged crimes, Idalberto Ferrera Ramírez was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, José Medina received five years, and Luciano García, Elías Suárez, Antonio Medina and Guido Brañas each received three year sentences.(79) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote79)
In Havana, Roberto Acosta was also arrested in early 1965 after a mimeographed version of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed with a new Cuban introduction was printed in his house.(80) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote80) When Guevara returned from Africa he apparently became aware of Acosta's arrest and detention because of the Trotskyist's absence from his post in the Ministry of Industry. Having already lost the strategic arguments over revolutionary strategy, Guevara convened a meeting with Acosta.(81) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote81) According to Roberto Acosta, although the meeting took place in the presence of officials from G-2, Guevara expressed the view that Acosta was a revolutionary, that if the Trotskyists thought they were right then they should continue the struggle to obtain what they were fighting for, and that at some point in the future Trotskyist publications would be legal.(82) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote82) As Guevara said, "Acosta, you can't kill ideas with blows".(83) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote83) Assuring Acosta that he would be freed shortly,(84) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote84) Guevara apparently closed the meeting with an embrace and the words: "See you in the next trenches".(85) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote85) http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html

[W1N5T0N]

I think Sir Comradical has a point, Stalin really crossed the line. A self-proclaimed 'man of the people' should not have killed Russians only because they did not match his ideals 100 %. But he put a lot of effort into organizing Russia to match the Nazis. I believe that in times like those, one has to put aside some moral values in order to stop greater evil. However, there is a line, and believe that in his purges, he crossed that line. I think that executing millions (including children) and betraying close friends and allies, as well as loyal followers, sadly casts a dark shadow over his time in office.

[pranabjyoti]

I think Sir Comradical has a point, Stalin really crossed the line. A self-proclaimed 'man of the people' should not have killed Russians only because they did not match his ideals 100 %. But he put a lot of effort into organizing Russia to match the Nazis. I believe that in times like those, one has to put aside some moral values in order to stop greater evil. However, there is a line, and believe that in his purges, he crossed that line. I think that executing millions (including children) and betraying close friends and allies, as well as loyal followers, sadly casts a dark shadow over his time in office.
Same blabbering again! Despite repeated eye-witness accounts of trails held in open court.

[KC]

Stalin's dead. He's an object of history. History is there for us to analyze. What the hell is the point of taking a position on the past? This is where dogma comes in.

[hardlinecommunist]

Do you support his actions from 1928-1953
Yes i support `Stalin he was a great `Marxist Leninist and he was the right man in the right place at the right time in History he upheld Leninism and crushed Trotskyite revisionism and built the worlds first morden Socialist State under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Revmind84]

Mao's 70/30 formula had no science behind the numbers, but he did get at something significant. I think it's rather absurd to say, "I agree with all of Stalin's actions." In fact, it's absurd to say one agrees with ALL of ANY leader's actions. Communists are human beings who make errors, at the end of the day.

[Heathen Communist]

I have to say that overall, I very much dislike Stalin and his policies. His system corrupted Socialism and caused the Soviet Union to become reactionary. I feel he also repressed Anarchists, Trotskyists, etc. too harshly; if someone has an argument to make, hear them, then act depending on the relevance of said argument. The Russian anarchists and Trotskyists had numerous contributions to make, and the USSR might have been much better without Stalinist oppression.

However, he did manage to thoroughly bring Russia out of the shadow of Feudalism and industrialize. I think a large part of the problem with his rule is that he had to act quickly to stop the Nazis, thus crippling Russia's ability to progress unhindered.

[Ocean Seal]

Polarizing poll is polarizing and doesn't solve anything. Also I'm surprised that so many people put none, but I guess when you put up a silly poll you get silly results.

[Geiseric]

I find it hard to believe that without Stalin, Russia would have digressed back into the Feudal backwardness that was its condition before the revolution. The monarchists were gone, so were the hardline capitalists. Also if it wasn't for Stalin's military purges, Russia would have done much better in early stages of the war, due to an abundance of experienced officers from the Civil War, who were killed in his purges. Also, he allowed the Nazis to occupy western Poland, giving them hundreds of miles less of ground to cover if they chose to invade. Whether it was idiocy or he actually believed that the Nazis wouldn't invade their most hated political adversaries as well as a major power in europe who threatened their progress, the Non Agression pact was a bad idea in my opinion.
Also Pranabjyoti, is it possible that the confessions were forced or the outcome of the court was already determined even before they started? The purges were like a much larger and intense version of America's Red Scare, only instead of looking for Capitalists they were looking for dissenting communists! Just because somebody saw the confessions doesn't mean they're necessarily true. They could have been told to confess or their famillies would die. The soviet government would of done it too, they executed Trotsky's factory worker son who stayed in the U.S.S.R. and harassed him and his family until the day they died.

[Geiseric]

I find it hard to believe that without Stalin, Russia would have digressed back into the Feudal backwardness that was its condition before the revolution. The monarchists were gone, so were the hardline capitalists. Also if it wasn't for Stalin's military purges, Russia would have done much better in early stages of the war, due to an abundance of experienced officers from the Civil War, who were killed in his purges. Also, he allowed the Nazis to occupy western Poland, giving them hundreds of miles less of ground to cover if they chose to invade. Whether it was idiocy or he actually believed that the Nazis wouldn't invade their most hated political adversaries as well as a major power in europe who threatened their progress, the Non Agression pact was a bad idea in my opinion.
Also Pranabjyoti, is it possible that the confessions were forced or the outcome of the court was already determined even before they started? The purges were like a much larger and intense version of America's Red Scare, only instead of looking for Capitalists they were looking for dissenting communists! Just because somebody saw the confessions doesn't mean they're necessarily true. They could have been told to confess or their famillies would die. The soviet government would of done it too, they executed Trotsky's factory worker son who stayed in the U.S.S.R. and harassed him and his family until the day they died.

[Chicxulub]

Stalin was a hero to most Russians of the day, and many today. in many places in Central Asia, he is still a folk hero (especially in the republics), and his economic cunning raised the standard of living and transformed the backward Russian empire into the Soviet state that challenged the United States.

Josef Stalin was a hero to the world and the world's people. I say that with no irony nor attempt at trollage.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Stalin supporters should be restricted.

Stalin and his nationalist bureaucratic collectivism did so much damage to the socialist movement, not only in the USSR, but all over. Giving discredit to us, giving capitalists a lot of fodder for their anti-communism.

I have my critiques of Lenin and Trotsky, but it's so sad that Lenin had to die, or that Stalin instead of Trotsky took over.

[Chicxulub]

Stalin supporters should be restricted.

Stalin and his nationalist bureaucratic collectivism did so much damage to the socialist movement.

I have my critiques of Lenin and Trotsky, but it's so sad that Lenin had to die, or that Stalin instead of Trotsky took over.

luxemburgist trash should be restricted, quite simply for making the communist movement look pathetic.

[Chicxulub]

I find it a bit disturbing to see so many Stalin avatars around here.

...Yet, I don't see you criticize those with Trotsky avatars, despite kronstadt.

[Die Rote Fahne]

...Yet, I don't see you criticize those with Trotsky avatars, despite kronstadt.
I certainly note Trotsky as a true Marxist revolutionary, and i am fond of his works. Unlike Stalin he didn't destroy what the working class, Lenin and the Bolsheviks built in Russia.

Though, of course, Trotsky should be criticized when it comes to the Kronstadt rebellion...but to think he should be criticized on the same level of Stalin is absurd.

Maybe Stalin's nationalist, imperialist and authoritarian totalitarianism and severe paranoia, which led to the demise of any chance for socialism to develop in Russia, made him so worthy, in your eyes.

Stalin was not a socialist, a communist, or a Marxist. He was a dictator who wanted power for the new elite, the party, not the working class. He was a traitor to the Bolsheviks, to the revolution and to the proletariat.

I criticize where criticism is due. Whether it's criticizing Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Chomsky, Michael Moore, De Leon, etc. Quite frankly, Stalin deserves the most.

If only we could all prescribe to Bureaucratic Collectivism...

[Born in the USSR]

Stalin supporters should be restricted.

Stalin and his nationalist bureaucratic collectivism did so much damage to the socialist movement, not only in the USSR...


Don't talk for the USSR,talk about yourself.

Stalin's nationalism - oh yes,that's a crack!And Trotsky,of course was internationalist.Just one example of his "internationalism",that's how he staffed his People's Comissariat for Military and Naval Affairs:34-Jews,8-Letts,1 German and 0 Russians.In fact, this sort of internationalism is more like a Jewish nationalism!

May be Stalin assigned anywhere Georgians?Politburo in 1940 consisted of 10 members:Russians-6,Geargians-2,Armenian-1,Jew-1.

[Omsk]

Again with this mass restriction idea,it was done once,and it was removed,no point in bringing it back,plus i don't see why should Stalin supporters be restricted?
Are most of the Stalin supporters vulgar and in a lack of argument? I don't think so.
Are most Stalin supporters Red Alert kiddies? I don't think so.
Are the Stalinist supporters spaming everything with praises to Stalin and the USSR? I don't think so.
While i have seen very rude Trotskyists who hardly had any argumentation or sources.

So next time you decide to condemn a certain group,think twice.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Again with this mass restriction idea,it was done once,and it was removed,no point in bringing it back,plus i don't see why should Stalin supporters be restricted?
Are most of the Stalin supporters vulgar and in a lack of argument? I don't think so.
Are most Stalin supporters Red Alert kiddies? I don't think so.
Are the Stalinist supporters spaming everything with praises to Stalin and the USSR? I don't think so.
While i have seen very rude Trotskyists who hardly had any argumentation or sources.

So next time you decide to condemn a certain group,think twice.

Im pretty sure rudeness doesnt get one restricted.

However, maybe you'd like to share the good argument for Stalin's purges, his nationalism, his bureaucratic collectivism? No?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Don't talk for the USSR,talk about yourself.

Stalin's nationalism - oh yes,that's a crack!And Trotsky,of course was internationalist.Just one example of his "internationalism",that's how he staffed his People's Comissariat for Military and Naval Affairs:34-Jews,8-Letts,1 German and 0 Russians.In fact, this sort of internationalism is more like a Jewish nationalism!

May be Stalin assigned anywhere Georgians?Politburo in 1940 consisted of 10 members:Russians-6,Geargians-2,Armenian-1,Jew-1.


This post made my IQ decrease...

[Omsk]

However, maybe you'd like to share the good argument for Stalin's purges, his nationalism, his bureaucratic collectivism? No?
Gladly.

So,the purges,nationalism (??) and bureaucratic collectivism. Ok.



The richer peasants hated collectivization. They were five percent of the total. But the poorest peasants liked it, and they were 30 percent of the total. Of the others, half -- the poorer half -- were rather for it. The other half were rather against it. But both sections did not care much, provided that collectivization benefited them.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 297

Yet always the communists had on their side half or more than half of the total peasant population and against them only a small minority, while the remainder just judged by the results.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 298

...In short, Stalin was not forcing lines of development on a system in which there was no support for such developments. Rather he was pursuing policy lines for which there was significant support within some sections of the regime. Under such circumstances, the interpretation that Stalin was in part responding to other forces in the system seems to have as much validity as that which attributes an initiating role solely to the leader.
Gill, Graeme. Stalinism. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, 1990, p. 64

The peasant question is one of the most important questions in our politics. In the conditions prevailing in our country, the peasantry consists of various social groups, namely, the poor peasants, the middle peasants and the kulaks. It is obvious that our attitude to these various groups cannot be identical. The poor peasant is the support of the working-class, the middle peasant is the ally, the kulak is the class enemy--such is our attitude to these respective social groups.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 164

Stalin is giving the Russian people--the Russian masses, not Westernized landlords, industrialists, bankers and intellectuals, but Russia’s 150,000,000 peasants and workers--what they really want, namely joint effort, communal effort. And communal life is as acceptable to them as it is repugnant to a Westerner.
Duranty, Walter. “Red Russia of Today Ruled by Stalinism, not by Communism,” New York Times, June 14, 1931.

Finally, what about the other 90% of peasants who did not rebel? Some peasants did not reject collectivization and even supported it. In March 1929 peasants suggested at a meeting in Riazan okrug that the Soviet government should take all the land and have peasants work on it for wages, a conception not too distant from the future operation of kolkhozy. An OGPU report quoted one middle peasant in Shilovskii raion, Riazan okrug, in November 1929 to the effect that 'the grain procurements are hard, but necessary; we cannot live like we lived before, it is necessary to build factories and plants, and for that grain is necessary'. In January 1930, during the campaign, some peasants said, 'the time has come to abandon our individual farms. It's about time to quit those, [we] need to transfer to collectivization.' Another document from January reported several cases of peasants spontaneously forming kolkhozy and consolidating their fields, which was a basic part of collectivization. Bokarev's analysis summarized above suggests a reason why many peasants did not rebel against collectivization: the kolkhoz in certain ways, especially in its collectivism of land use and principles of egalitarian distribution, was not all that far from peasant traditions and values in corporate villages throughout the USSR. In any case, this example, and the evidence that the vast majority of peasants did not engage in protests against collectivization, clearly disproves Graziosi's assertion cited above that the villages were 'united' against collectivization.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 75.

For the same reasons, all such anecdotal citations from OGPU documents of peasants refusing to work are at best problematic and often meaningless as overall indicators of their actions and the consequences of them, and no generalizations or conclusions that most or all peasants resisted work in the farms, are valid if drawn from such evidence.
In such extreme versions, the “resistance interpretation” would lead one to expect that the kolkhoz system could not have functioned: peasants would have avoided work, committed sabotage and subterfuge, and produced little or nothing. Writings in this interpretation rarely indicate that peasants actually performed any agricultural work; from these studies, it appears that virtually all that peasants ever did was show resistance.... The harvest data for the 1930s, however, demonstrate that this interpretation is not compatible with the results of the system's work. Many if not most peasants adapted to the new system and worked hard in the crucial periods every year. When conditions were favorable, harvests were adequate and sometimes abundant; when unfavorable, the results were crop failures, and famine if harvests were especially low. Most notably, harvests were larger in the years after natural disasters and crop failures (1933, 1935, 1937), indicating that many peasants worked under very difficult conditions, even famine, to produce more and overcome the crises. This means that in addition to its problems of evidence, the “resistance interpretation,” at least in its extreme versions, is one-sided, reductionist and incomplete. Peasants' responses to the kolkhoz system cannot be reduced to resistance without serious omissions and distortions of actual events. A more complete and accurate interpretation has to take more than resistance into account.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 78.

When one reads that peasants refused to work 'in certain kolkhozy' or 'in a series of kolkhozy', sometimes one begins to think that those phrases are euphemisms or a code for 'everyone', 'everywhere' and 'always'. In fact, of course, OGPU personnel did write 'everywhere' and 'always' when they meant it. This focus can also lead the researcher to inflate the concept of resistance to include actions and attitudes that were understandable and temporary responses to natural disaster, mismanagement or other problems, and not attacks on the system.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 79.

First we need to address the meaning of resistance. Scholars often cite OGPU reports of peasants not going out to work, or of only a few kolkhozniki working.. These reports have to be understood in the context that in 1930, and for years afterwards, most collective farms had a labor surplus. An investigation in April 1930 found that kolkhozy in the North Caucasus would employ only 60% of their available labor, and those in the Urals only 50%;... and Ukraine even lower, from 25 to 31%.... This low labor use in 1930 does not appear to have reduced farm work done: for example, a nearly complete survey in mid-1930 in the Middle Volga found that sowings in kolkhozy increased more than six-fold over 1929, and included one-third of the region's sown area even though kolkhozy had only 22% of the region's households. Farms could increase crop areas despite low labor turnout because collectivization eliminated the traditional inter-stripping of allotments, the typical pattern of landho*lding in Soviet villages. This pattern constrained many peasants’ capabilities, particularly because the population growth in the 1920s resulted in smaller allotments. Once this basically medieval system was eliminated, many fewer peasants could cultivate all the village land. For years farms had more labor than they could employ, despite dekulakization and recruitment of peasants for industrial labor. A low turnout for work, therefore, may not have been a sign of resistance as much as a result of the real demands of work in the kolkhozy.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 79.

Then, often kolkhozniki would not show up for work because of the income distribution plans in the kolkhoz. Apparently most kolkhozy in 1930 and many in 1931 distributed income in an equalizing manner, despite directives to distribute by work done (in 1931 according to the labor-day system).... When some kolkhozy began work with plans to distribute jobs and remuneration on an equal basis, peasants stopped showing up for work. Then the farms announced that they would remunerate on the basis of the amount each member worked, and everyone showed up for work, even (in one case) members who had submitted doctors' notes that they were not labor-capable. Admittedly, these are anecdotal sources, but they do suggest an alternative interpretation of some of the other anecdotal sources used to document resistance.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 80.

Based on these sources, however, the peasants' most frequent form of 'resistance' was to divide up kolkhozy into individual fields to harvest. These actions were stimulated in some cases by a rumor of a secret state decree to dissolve the kolkhozy; one North Caucasus peasant urged division of his kolkhoz because (he thought) kolkhozy in Ukraine had been dispersed. In this case as in many others, however, peasants' actions did not have the quality of opposition or sabotage, of a clandestine attempt to undermine the state. Their demands were open, sometimes formalized in a petition to higher authorities, and honest: to be allowed to work in the way they thought best. In several cases peasants urged division of the kolkhozy to save the harvest and to provide higher procurements for the government. These demands and actions do not fit easily into the “resistance interpretation,” because peasants explicitly stated that they intended their actions as a means to fulfill the government's demands to produce more and to meet the procurement quotas.
Even besides these cases, and despite or because of the crisis conditions in summer and autumn 1932, many peasants tried to work within the system. During early 1933 OGPU and other personnel investigated villages to determine the extent of the famine for relief efforts. Invariably their reports showed that while famine affected mostly peasants who did not earn many labor-days, it often struck peasants who had earned hundreds of labor-days, and highly productive, successful kolkhozy. Clearly, since many kolkhozniki were hard-working and successful until the procurement campaign of autumn 1932, resistance is far from the whole story.
By early 1933, the USSR was in the throes of a catastrophic famine, varying in severity between regions but pervasive. After efforts in January to procure more grain, the regime began desperate efforts in February to aid peasants to produce a crop. The political departments, which the regime introduced into the state arms (sovkhozy) and the machine tractor stations (MTS) in early 1933, played a crucial role in these efforts. These agencies, composed of a small group of workers and OGPU personnel in each MTS or sovkhoz, removed officials who had violated government directives on farm work and procurements, replacing them with kolkhozniki or sovkhoz workers, who they thought would be more reliable, and organized and otherwise helped farms to produce a good harvest in 1933. They were supported by draconian and coercive laws enforcing labor discipline in the farms in certain regions, but also by the largest allocation of seed and food aid in Soviet history, 5.76 million tons, and by special sowing commissions set up in crucial regions like Ukraine, the Urals, the Volga and elsewhere to manage regional-level aspects of organization and supplies to the farms.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 82.

To focus so exclusively on resistance, especially as extreme versions of the resistance interpretation do, in light of Soviet peasants' repeated production of good harvests in the wake of serious crop failures and famines, misrepresents most peasants' actions and omits their accomplishments, and therefore presents an incorrect interpretation of Soviet rural life....
Collectivization was thus fundamentally ambivalent as a policy, with good sides and bad. Peasants' responses to this were also ambivalent; including of course significant resistance but also many other attitudes including significant adaptation and support. And in the peak of crisis, peasants repeatedly demonstrated their ability to put aside their objections, to overcome adversity even at great cost, and to produce harvests that ended famines.
In other words, the 'trope' that I propose here to encompass and understand all of the peasants' responses to collectivization is not that of heroic but futile resistance against a totally wrong system, the noble peasants fighting with the weapons of the weak, which refers only to a fraction of the peasants, but rather one of bitter and ambivalent heroism, desperate but often successful efforts by some peasants despite natural disasters, the ineptitude and harshness of the regime, and the scorn and hostility of some of their neighbors. This conception corresponds much better to the concrete results that in most years fed the growing population of the USSR.
The “resistance interpretation” seems to be an example of theory-driven or even politically motivated scholarship, in which scholars selected evidence to fit preconceived theoretical assumptions or express their hostility to the Soviet regime, but did not consider how representative and realistic their evidence actually was. The “resistance interpretation,” in its extreme versions at least, is actually deeply unrealistic: peasants, like other people, had different attitudes and responses to the events that affected them. Just consider the wide array of views of some former peasants who came to positions of prominence in the early 20th century Russia and the USSR:... Given such a spectrum of perspectives from former peasants, we should expect and seek out a variety of views in the evidence, rather than assume that all peasants were resistant and attribute to all of them the views of a minority.
Tauger, Mark. “Soviet Peasants and Collectivization, 1930-39: Resistance and Adaptation.” In Rural Adaptation in Russia by Stephen Wegren, Routledge, New York, NY, 2005, Chapter 3, p. 88.



PEASANTS HAVE ACCEPTED COLLECTIVIZATION

One thing, however, is sure--the peasants have accepted collectivization and are willingly obeying the Kremlin's orders. The younger peasants already understand that the Kremlin's way will benefit them in the long run, that machines and mass cultivation are superior to the old "strip system" and individual farming.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 318

Beyond all question, the new kolkhoz statute was Stalin's greatest success in his whole political life. The collectivization of agriculture in the new form satisfied the peasants, and it had the most far-reaching historical consequences. The problem of the development of agricultural technique and of the restoration of large-scale farming had been solved. More still, for a long time to come this new reform attached most of the peasants in loyalty to the regime.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 190

It is widely supposed that the Russian peasant is against the kolkhozy. That is not so. It may confidently be said that it was just the reform of 1933 that brought victory to Russia in the Second World War, and that in spite of initial failures it was just this happily formulated kolkhoz statute that prevented the collapse of the regime....
It may safely be said that it was thanks to collectivization that the Soviet Union survived the Second World War.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 191

Collectivization now protected the peasant from his rightful primeval enemies: drought, hail, pests, and cattle disease.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 193

Now a new life was introduced, and, need it be said, it seemed marvelous to the peasant. Hence his eagerness to fight for his country in the Second World War, in contrast to the first.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 194

I saw collectivization break like a storm on the Lower Volga in the autumn of 1929. It was a revolution that made deeper changes than did the revolution of 1917, of which it was the ripened fruit. Farmhands and poor peasants took the initiative, hoping to better themselves by government aid. Kulaks fought the movement bitterly by all means up to arson and murder. The middle peasantry, the real backbone of farming, had been split between the hope of becoming kulaks and the wish for machinery from the state. But now that the Five-Year Plan promised tractors, this great mass of peasants began moving by villages, townships, and counties, into the collective farms....
A few months earlier, people had argued calmly about collectives, discussing the grain in sown area, the chances of tractors.. But now the countryside was smitten as by a revival. One village organized as a unit then voted to combine with 20 villages to set up a cooperative market and grain mill.... Then Yelan united four big communes into 750,000 acres. Learning of this, peasants of Balanda shouted in meeting: "Go boldly! Unite our two townships into one farm of a million acres."...
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 35

What would they [Middle Volga Nationalists] do with the kolkhozes, Belinsky asked. The nationalist's reply was stereotyped: they would disband them at once. And if the majority of the peasants were against this?--No matter, they would still be disbanded. They conflicted with “national sentiments,” Other industries would remain in State hands; but there was no need to plan all this in detail, all these problems would settle themselves once there was national independence.
We were by no means so sure. We found this to be the prevalent attitude; and yet--the truth must be faced--though we revolutionary democrats detested the kolkhoz system, we were not sure that it was any longer true to say this of the majority of the land workers. The generation who had known the world of independent holdings was dying out. Even those who as small children had witnessed scenes of bloodshed when the farms were being collectivized could hardly remember the earlier order; they had grown up in a different world, with public day nurseries, state schools, state food supplies, state newspapers, magazines, books, films, plays, state training at every stage of mind and body. They had their dissatisfactions but not consciously with the social structure. To them kolkhoz life was normal, not an innovation.
In this and in other ways, plans for the overthrow of Stalinism and for what was to replace it took a different form from earlier days. The revolution had been made in the name of the workers and peasants against other social classes; today the whole ruling class of the USSR was of worker and present origin. Nor could be the Red Army be regarded as a workers' and peasants' army in opposition to rulers of some other class origin. Both our friends and our enemies were workers and peasants, and the Red Army had become an amorphous, classless, or rather “inter-class” mass, with an altogether different mentality. The new program had to be planned for the whole of society, not for one section. The old worker and peasants slogans have lost their validity in the USSR.
Tokaev, Grigori. Comrade X. London: Harvill Press, 1956, p. 161

The peasants turned more and more in favor of collective farming as a result of seeing the state farms and the machine and tractors stations. The peasants would visit the state farms and the machine and tractor stations, watch the operation of the tractors and other agricultural machinery, admire their performance and there and then resolve to join the collective farm. It was in this manner that the collective farm movement developed, i.e., the peasants were persuaded by superior state farms and agricultural machinery to join collective farms--not my arm-twisting or use of force as is asserted by the paid and unpaid agents of the bourgeoisie--the Trotskyites, the 'learned' bourgeois professors, and bourgeois intellectuals.
Brar, Harpal. Trotskyism or Leninism. 1993, p. 176

Purges in the military:


Though the purge had deprived the Red Army of many capable soldiers, Stalin had retained the services of the best known. They were eventually to justify his faith by their devotion to the USSR in its war against Hitlerite Germany.
Prominent among them are: Voroshilov,... Budenny,…Yegorov,... and Shaposhnikov,... To this core of tried and reliable soldiers, the post revolutionary military academies have added many younger figures whose worth was proved for the first time in action against the Nazis. Best known of these is the 46 year old Timoshenko.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 107

On July 4, 1937, Ambassador Davies wrote in his diary, "Litvinov was very frank. He stated that they had to 'make sure' through these purges that there was no treason left which could co-operate with Berlin or Tokyo; that someday the world would understand that what they had done was to protect their government from 'menacing treason.' In fact, he said they were doing the whole world a service in protecting themselves against the menace of Hitler and Nazi world domination, and thereby preserving the Soviet Union strong as a bulwark against the Nazi threat. That the world someday would appreciate what a very great man Stalin was.
Davies, Joseph E. Mission to Moscow. New York, N. Y.: Simon and Schuster, c1941, p. 167

Everything was strained to the breaking point. In that period it was necessary to act mercilessly. I believe our actions were fully justified.... But if the Tukhachevskys and the Yakirs, with the Rykovs and the Zinovievs, had started an opposition during the war, there would have been cruel internal strife and colossal losses. Colossal!
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 275

In June, 1919, an important fort called "Krasnaya Gorka" (The Red Hill), in the Gulf of Finland, was captured by a detachment of Whites. A few days later it was recaptured by a force of Red marines. Then it was discovered that the chief of the staff of the Seventh army, Colonel Lundkvist, was transmitting all information to the Whites. There were other conspirators working hand-in-glove with him. This shook the army to its very core.
Trotsky, Leon. My Life. Gloucester, Massachusetts: P. Smith, 1970, p. 423

+


THOUSANDS OF ARMY COMMANDERS WERE REHABILITATED AND SERVED IN WWII



In late 1939 and early 1940 several thousand Red Army commanders were rehabilitated because of the extreme shortage of officers and the incompetence demonstrated during the Soviet-Finnish war. Generally officers up to the level of divisional commanders were rehabilitated. The rehabilitated included many future heroes of the Great Patriotic War, such as: Rokossovsky, future marshall; Meretskov, future marshall; Gorbatov, future army general; Bogdanov, future commander of the Second Tank Army; Kholostyakov, future vice-admiral; Rudnev, future commissar of partisan units in Ukraine--all of whom were later named Heroes of the Soviet Union. Also, 0zeryansky, hero of the defense of Leningrad, awarded two Orders of Lenin and three Orders of the Red Banner;...

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 466



A few survivors were released from the camps; serveral had already been freed in 1940-41, such as Gorbatov, Rokossovsky, and Meretskov, who rose to fame during the war.

Laqueur, Walter. Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations. New York: Scribner's, c1990, p. 92



MILITARY UNFAIRLY TREATED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ARE FAIRLY TREATED BY THE CENTER

(Roger Reese)
Thousands of officers were expelled from the party as a result of independent actions by primary party organizations, and subsequently discharged from the army in an orgy of denunciations at the local level out of Moscow's control.... Simultaneously, thousands of officers were reinstated and tens of thousands of new officers commissioned, more than making up for the purged officers numerically, but not in experience, and making it extremely difficult to assess the impact of the Ezhovshchina on military cadres. This new information suggests a need to re-examine our understanding of the purge of the Red Army, because before the publishing of the aforementioned materials and documents, it was assumed that all officers removed from the armed forces in the years 1937-39 had been arrested and either executed or imprisoned by the NKVD. Table 9.1 from a report by Shchadenko, Chief of the Commanding Personnel section of the People's Commissariat of Defense, however, shows that a minority of army officers and political leaders were removed from the army by arrest, and the majority were discharged from the army through expulsion from the party.
Getty and Manning. Stalinist Terror. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 198

He [Stalin] replaced all his military leaders at one time or another, often with good cause, but he also gave them the opportunity to show that their previous mistake had been accidental. Giving them this chance, however, did not mean that he had forgotten the earlier fault.
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 468

NUMBERS PURGED FROM THE MILITARY ARE EXAGGERATED & MANY WERE READMITTED

All told, 34,301 army, air force, and Political Administration of the Red Army (PUR) leaders were discharged from the army either through arrest or expulsion from the party during the Ezhovshchina. Of these, 11,596 were reinstated by May 1940....
The numbers also show a more limited impact on the military than previously thought. Before the publication of the figures in Table 9.1, it had been variously estimated that between 25% and 50% of the Red Army officer corps were repressed in the Ezhovshchina. Conveniently, Shchadenko's office gave the percentage of the leadership permanently discharged in the purge, which allows a calculation of the total strength of the nachal'sostav (the military leadership) in the purge years. In 1937, [the military leadership] numbered 144,300, of whom 11,034 discharged for political reasons remained discharged as of May 1940, equaling 7.7% of the [military leadership]. In 1938 there were 179,000 leaders, of whom 6742 political dischargees were still discharged in May 1940, which equaled 3.7% of the [military leadership]; and in 1939 the Army had 282,300 leaders, 205 or .08% of whom were discharged for political reasons and remained discharged in May 1940. Because the Army stepped up officer procurement during the Ezhovshchina, and at a rate that outpaced discharges, it is extremely difficult to invent a statistic to describe the cumulative impact of the purge on the military, and Shchadenko's annual figures are probably the most definitive we will ever have. We face the same situation with the Red Air Force, which in 1937 had approximately 13,000 officers, lost 4724 in the purge, but had about 60,000 officers in 1940.
Getty and Manning. Stalinist Terror. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 199

The reason for the earlier high estimates of the percentage of repressed officers and PUR men by Western historians was not so much the erroneous estimates of the number of repressed officers, but tremendously low estimates of the size of the [military leadership]. John Erickson and Robert Conquest estimated the officer corps to number 80,000 and 70,000 respectively, so whereas Erickson's estimates of between 20,000 and 30,000 men discharged is very near the mark, his estimate of the impact is very far off, as is Conquest's estimate of 35,000 arrested officers out of a corps of 70,000. His estimate of a minimum of 20,000 arrested PUR men is 300 percent off. Both these historians considered the majority of victims of the Ezhovshchina to have been arrested, not expelled and discharged, and did not realize how quickly and in what large numbers men were rehabilitated.
[The number arrested is much higher than the number actually expelled or discharged]
...On orders from Moscow, the Communist Party purged itself frequently between 1921 and 1939. Some chistki (purges) were conducted on a unionwide basis, others were restricted to selected areas, all were to rid the party of self-serving opportunists, people from social classes ineligible for party membership, the politically unreliable, those of a bad moral character, and even those incompetent at their posts.

In the years of the Ezhovshchina, 34,301 Red Army and Red Air Force officers and political personnel were removed from the military for political reasons. As of May 1, 1940, 11,596 victims of arrest and expulsion in the army and air force had been reinstated in rank, but as a rule not to their former positions, leaving as a direct result of the purge 22,705 personnel of the [military] (of which about 13,000 were from the army, 4700 from the air force, and 5000 from PUR) either dead, in the Gulag, or cast into civilian society in disgrace. Although in its worst year approximately only 7.7% of the Red Army's leadership was discharged for political reasons, versus the 20% to 25% suggested by John Erickson and 50% claimed by Robert Conquest, this does not diminish the seriousness of the purge;...
Getty and Manning. Stalinist Terror. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 213

In 1937 the Soviet Armed Forces readmitted 4661 ousted men. At the direction of the party Central Committee, the Commissariat of Defense created a board in August 1938 to receive complaints from dismissed officers. More than 30,000 appeals and petitions came to it. As a result, 6333 officers regained their old status in the services in 1938, and 184 in 1939, totaling 11,178 in three years. In addition, 2416 won changes in the terms of their dismissals, presumably from political to less serious grounds. By 1939, more Air Force officers were reinstated (867) than arrested (344).
The impact of these dismissals on the armed forces is hard to determine. To begin with, the percentage of officers permanently removed for any reason is unclear, since the number of officers was growing extremely rapidly as new graduates poured out of military schools in preparation for war. But two frames from this moving picture are available: 6.9% of all infantry officers in the ranks as of 1936-37 had been dismissed but not reinstated by May 1940; the figure for the officers active in 1938-39 was 2.3%. Older works commonly suggested that 50 percent of all officers had been purged, with most shot. This number resulted from overestimating the number arrested and greatly underestimating the size of the officer corps.
Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 123

The repressions of 1937-38 inflicted significant losses on military cadres. During the Yezhovshchina 24,000 men were arrested and "discharged for associating with plotters." In addition, more than 4000 commanders of Polish, Latvian, and other "undesirable nationalities" were purged. As a result, the army lost 8 percent of its commanders. The condemnation of the Yezhovshchina seems to have pertained primarily to army cadres. By May 1, 1940 12,000 repressed individuals had been reinstated.
Siegelbaum and Sokolov. Stalinism As a Way of Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, c2000, p. 274

Over 40,000 soldiers were freed from arrest after it was found out that Yezhov and others, under their command, falsified their "criminal anti-State activities." Altogether, there were let out of jail, for lack of evidence, after Stalin started the process of these Investigative Commissions--over 320,000 people... because they were innocent.
Rybin, Aleksei. Next to Stalin: Notes of a Bodyguard. Toronto: Northstar Compass Journal, 1996, p. 79

There was much talk at the Congress of rehabilitating the unjustly condemned. Indeed, thousands were rehabilitated in 1939 and 1940, including many military commanders; many future military heroes of World War II were restored to their positions during these two years.
Szymanski, Albert. Human Rights in the Soviet Union. London: Zed Books, 1984, p. 240

*of course,i am aware that a lot of people who died in the purges were not all guilty of high treason,and i admit that mistakes have been made.

And on the question on nationalism:you are going to have to be more precise.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Gladly.

So,the purges,nationalism (??) and bureaucratic collectivism. Ok.




Purges in the military:



+



*of course,i am aware that a lot of people who died in the purges were not all guilty of high treason,and i admit that mistakes have been made.

And on the question on nationalism:you are going to have to be more precise.

I'm not talking about agricultural collectivization...i'm talking about bureaucratic collectivization. A bureaucratic collectivist state owns the means of production, while the surplus is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy, rather than among the working class. Also, most importantly, it is the bureaucracy&mdash;not the workers or the people in general&mdash;who controls the economy and the state.

On nationalism, his socialism in one country idea, the "great patriotic war", the "motherland", imperialism (which is almost always based on nationalism)... Honestly, if you dont understand Soviet Nationalism by now, you havent read up on Stalin's Russia.

Understand?

[Omsk]

I'm not talking about agricultural collectivization...i'm talking about bureaucratic collectivization. A bureaucratic collectivist state owns the means of production, while the surplus is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy, rather than among the working class. Also, most importantly, it is the bureaucracy&mdash;not the workers or the people in general&mdash;who controls the economy and the state.

Understand?

I misunderstood you,but now back to the important thing - you haven't actually answered or countered my post,do you want more information or will you continue to evade answering?



On nationalism, his socialism in one country idea, the "great patriotic war", the "motherland", imperialism (which is almost always based on nationalism)... Honestly, if you dont understand Soviet Nationalism by now, you havent read up on Stalin's Russia.

What is wrong with the word "Motherland" ? What is wrong with the "Great Patriotic War" ?

And more information:



GOOD JOB UNITING MANY NATIONALITIES

The greatness of this achievement in human association can hardly be exaggerated. To bring into being a multinational State uniting races which for centuries had been at each other’s throats, inflicting pogroms and enslaving each other; races which were largely illiterate, steeped in superstition, and engulfed in abysmal ignorance, was daring in the extreme. Every nation became free to speak it's own language, have its own schools, form its own government, and exercise its own clearly-defined right to federate or withdraw from the federation.... The boundaries of the republics and other autonomous regions are but the demarcation lines of authority in essentially national matters..... And as class oppression vanishes, national oppression vanishes also. Every nation has the "right" to separate itself from the Union, but none is likely to wish to exercise that "right" when it's economic and social existence and national freedom are tightly bound up with union.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 147

Every nationality in the union was allowed full linguistic autonomy and what might have seemed a dangerously lavish degree of cultural and political autonomy. Thus the Jews, who had remained alien expatriates under Tsardom, received a small autonomous area with the promise of an independent Republic if and when the number of the population concentrated at any one point should justify the augmented status.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 215

For in practice 2 rules are followed in regard to the Soviet national system. First, the power is progressively restricted to "proletarian elements" of the population--the workers and poor peasants, whether industrialized or not. Second, 95 percent of the political leaders are communists, and what is more, it is an almost invariable rule that the national Communist Party secretaries and their most important district subordinates are either Russians or members of a different nationality from the people around them.
It must be admitted also that the Bolsheviks adhere with remarkable steadiness to their creed of communist equality irrespective of race or color, which assures the members of former "subject" people's opportunities to rise to the highest central positions and removes any feeling of racial inferiority.
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 215

Stalin's thesis began by demonstrating the already proven fact that the misrule of the Czars and their treatment of the subject peoples as inferior beings, had been one of the main factors in the rapid disintegration of the old Empire. "If we fall into this error of Great Russian superiority, we shall suffer a similar fate," insisted Stalin, "but if we go to the other extremes advocated by the Mensheviks and certain European Socialist parties, and divide the new State into a number of separate entities on an ethnological basis only, we shall weaken ourselves vis-a-vis the capitalist states of Europe and eventually be defeated piecemeal in a future war." Between these twin dangers Stalin steered the Soviet ship on a middle course.
In his suggested plan the right of secession from the Soviet republic was granted to each one of the Constituent States should its people prefer to rule themselves rather than live under the aegis of the Bolshevik party. While it remained part of the USSR, each nation was to have its own elected assembly, which would exercise complete authority in the local concerns of the population; only in decisions as to foreign policy were the Assemblies subordinate to the Central Authority. No attempt was made to Russianize the peoples of the different nations, cultural traditions were to be perpetuated in the new schools, already spreading into the most backward provinces.
By these means Stalin confidently maintained that the centuries-old antipathy between the subject peoples and their Russian oppressors could eventually be destroyed.
The wisdom of this fundamental contribution to the creation of the USSR has now been proved to the hilt. Whereas in the half-century before October, 1917, national uprisings against the Central Government had occurred with unfailing regularity, under Bolshevik rule not one widespread effort has been made by any one of the peoples to escape from the Federation of Soviet Republics. This is in itself a great achievement and will in the future be recognized as one of Stalin's most far-reaching contributions to world progress, as each succeeding year piles proof on proof of the sound foundation upon which the Soviet State has been constructed.
Without Stalin's foresight, Japan would unquestionably have established a puppet kingdom in Eastern Russia at the same time as she annexed Manchukuo; but for the solidarity of the Stalin constitution Hitler might have found support among the Ukrainian people such as he found among the rabid nationalist minorities which brought Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and France under a foreign domination. Perhaps even these misbegotten offspring of the Versailles agreement would have achieved a lasting stability, if they had originated in the same free choice which created the Soviet state.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 56

This federation at first was loosely organized. Regional autonomy expressed itself in a variety of flexible forms. Some of these local governments retained their own foreign offices; others issued their own money. Each nationality received the amount of freedom which its workers and peasants demanded. The Communists relied on the pressure of mutual economic interests to bring and hold these peoples together, once capitalist exploitation, the source of their bitterness, was removed.
Strong, Anna Louise. This Soviet World. New York, N. Y: H. Holt and company, c1936, p. 80

In the West it is not realized that after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Ukraine received a certain autonomy within the Soviet Union that went further than any sovereignty it had ever enjoyed under Austrian, Polish, or Tsarist rule. Unlike those in other republics, Ukrainian Communist rulers were always regarded in Moscow as influential junior partners, and cooperation with the enormous republic was considered crucial to the stability of the entire state. That is why the Ukraine retained all the attributes of an independent state: education in the native language, traditional arts and literature, its own Politburo (which was enjoyed by no other republic), its own membership in the United Nations, all of which were unthinkable under other dominations.
Sudoplatov, Pavel. Special Tasks. Boston: Little, Brown, c1993, p. 259

But a Georgian is a Georgian. A Ukrainian is a Ukrainian. They are no more Russians than you or I are.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 89

This dogma of racial liberation, this unfettering, combining with that of social liberation, with the slogans of peace, land, and the control of production by labor, and welding together national aspirations and Socialism, had the effect of giving considerable impetus to the preparations for the October Revolution. The attitude taken up by the Bolsheviks with regard to the problems of nationalities brought them the sympathy of everyone, without bringing about the national secessions that some people expected. And there, once again, far-seeing wisdom, in its intrepid thoroughness, completely triumphed. "If Kolchak and Denikin were beaten," wrote Stalin, "it is because we have had the sympathy of oppressed nations."
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 93

Soviet Russia is performing an experiment without parallel anywhere in the world in organizing the co-existence of a number of nations and tribes within a single proletarian state on a basis of mutual confidence and voluntary and fraternal goodwill. Three years of Revolution show that this experiment has every chance of success.
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 204

Perhaps Stalin and the rest of us exaggerate the degree to which he succeeded in taming the national minorities with his compromise, but he seems to a gotten what he wanted, and so have his successors. So far [1965], there has been no Yugoslavia, Poland, or Hungary within the USSR. Stalin certainly believed that the creation of the new Soviet brotherhood and supra-national patriotism in a giant industrial state was better than the murderous communal strife of Tsarist days, or the establishment of dozens of squabbling, economically impotent, little new countries. And the strength of the national minorities, nearly half the population of the USSR, had been harnessed, without crippling concessions to any nationalism, to his real purpose--the industrial and military drive for power.
Randall, Francis. Stalin's Russia. New York: Free Press,1965, p. 233

Stalin's own contributions to the whole discussion [of keeping the nationalities together] have never been made public and still remain inaccessible in a secret Stalin fond in the Presidential Archive. Particularly after 1991 there has apparently been a reluctance to reveal how well Stalin understood the potential danger of disintegration, given certain constitutional preconditions. He was less optimistic than others about the spread of revolution in the West, believing on the contrary that there was a need to make preparations in order to be in a position to repel aggression.
Medvedev, Roy & Zhores. The Unknown Stalin. NY, NY: Overlook Press, 2004, p. 267

Every nationality in the union was allowed full linguistic autonomy and what might have seemed a dangerously lavish degree of cultural and political autonomy. Thus, the Jews, who had remained alien expatriates under Czardom, received a small autonomous area with the promise of an independent republic if and when the number of the population concentrated at any one point should justify the augmented status.
At first sight such an arrangement might seem to foster a spirit of petty nationalist and racial antagonism and universal disintegration--that is the exact opposite of what the Bolsheviki are trying to achieve. In a heterogeneous capitalist State--the British Empire, for instance--liberty given minor nationalities must have had a centrifugal effect, but in the USSR the Communist party acts as a cement to bind the whole mass together and permit the facile exercise of central control.
...The strictness of the party discipline does the rest, and, although there have been cases of regional friction and sporadic difficulty, the system on the whole seems to work more smoothly than any organization of a heterogeneous State yet devised by man.
...It must be admitted also that the Bolsheviki adhere with remarkable steadiness to their creed of Communist equality irrespective of race or color, which assures the members of former “subject” peoples opportunities to rise to the highest central positions and removes any feeling of racial inferiority.
Stalin is a Georgian, Trotsky a Jew, Rudzutak a Lett, Dzershinsky was a Pole. These men offer salient examples for Communists of every nationality in the USSR. It is thus clear that the Soviet federal system, while reinforcing nationalism, did not sacrifice cohesion and centralized direction.
Duranty, Walter. “Stalinism Solving Minorities Problem” New York Times, June 26, 1931.

RIGHT OF SECESSION IS UNQUALIFIED

This right of secession is unqualified in the 1936 Constitution, whereas its exercise was subject to approval by all the Republics under the 1924 Charter. The right to secede has never been formally granted in any other true federation. The assertion of such a right in United States precipitated the Civil War.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 310

It was Stalin who, in April 1917, reported on the national question at the Conference of the Bolshevik Party.... Stalin proposed the adoption of the conception recommended during the Tsarist regime. The theory was accepted, not without a struggle; a fairly powerful opposition came from Pyatakov, and a certain number of delegates, against the clause establishing the right of nations to independence, even to the length of separation; the possible consequences of this clause frightened them.
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 92


STALIN FIRMLY OPPOSED SECESSION BY NATIONALITIES

The Georgian Mensheviks were in favor of the secession of Georgia from Russia. Stalin was naturally in favor of the autonomy of the Caucasian peoples in language and administration, but he was a fanatical opponent of the breaking up of the Russian Empire, and consequently of the secession of Georgia.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 28

What is certain is that Stalin was instinctively opposed to any splitting of Russia into its national components.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 54

Stalin, needless to say, was entirely in agreement with Lenin that these populations [the minority peoples] should only be granted their apparent national independence if they accepted the Soviet regime, the regime of the dictatorship of proletariat.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 59

Comrade Stalin combated the federalist tendencies of the bourgeois nationalists, which the Mensheviks shared. He argued that the victory of the proletariat demanded the unity of all workers, irrespective of nationality, and that national partitions must be broken down and the Russian, Georgian, Armenian, Polish, Jewish and other proletarians closely amalgamated as an essential condition for the victory of the proletariat all over Russia.
Yaroslavsky, Emelian. Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. Moscow: FLPH, 1940, p. 40


LENIN FIRMLY OPPOSED NATIONALISM

Lenin was as far as could be from being a nationalist. It is quite clear that at that time he regarded any national feeling as a narrowness, a sort of superstition, almost as morbid.... It may be that he also felt that it would be inexpedient for him as a Russian, a member of the dominant nation, in whose name the other peoples were oppressed, to carry out this work himself. Stalin, on the other hand, was not a Russian but a member of a people subjugated by the Russians. Both from the political and the propagandist point of view it would be much more effective if he dealt with this subject. He seemed, indeed, to be the very man for the job.... With his knowledge and experience, Stalin was obviously the very man that was wanted. He had had years of experience through his political activity and his agitation among the motley nationalities of the Caucasian towns, and he must have been very successful in mastering the nationalities problem; for the Bolshevik organizations composed of the various nationalities had chosen him again and again as their delegate at various congresses and conferences.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 29

But Lenin himself, with his personal revulsion against any shade of nationalism….
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 30

To him [Lenin] nationalism, Russian nationalism included, was just an obsession, as senseless as any other superstition, and, after all, that is [as] intelligible.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 56


STALIN CHOSEN BY LENIN TO HEAD NATIONALITIES ISSUE

The first part of the work is undeniably of permanent value. It was concerned with finding a universally valid definition of the concept Nationality. That problem Stalin solved brilliantly.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 30

This first considerable work of Stalin's bears all the marks of his character. The first part shows already in the still young Stalin an extraordinary exactitude of thought. His analysis of his subject is exemplary, the logic of the steps in his argument is faultless, and his formulations are models of precision.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 36

A People's Commissariat for Nationalities, that is to say a ministry, was set up within the government, to deal with the questions of national minorities. Stalin was regarded from the first as the Party's expert on this subject, and became the Commissar.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 48

In Cracow in 1912 Stalin unquestionably made a very good impression on Lenin.... Lenin's regular visitors in exile, whether at Cracow or Zurich, were almost all intellectuals. Stalin, when he met him, shoemaker's son and pupil of a seminary (which to Lenin meant a man virtually without education), was naturally regarded by Lenin, consciously or unconsciously, as a representative man of the masses. But Stalin was already well-read and energetically educating himself, and in conversation with him Lenin found that though he was a man of the lower class Stalin was able to discuss any political matter with him on equal terms. Indeed, there was one subject on which this young man could give information to the party leader, for all the latter's wide knowledge and experience. Stalin could not only tell him much that was of great interest about the real working-class environment, but, as a representative of a national minority, could tell him about the psychology of those minorities, about which Lenin knew next to nothing. Lenin had never lived in any part of Russia inhabited by a non-Russian population. Stalin was the first representative he had met of the masses of a non-Russian people under Russian rule, and he had much that was new and impressive to tell him. Thus it is not surprising that in a letter to Maxim Gorky Lenin described Stalin as a 'remarkable Georgian'.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 102-103

...when they took power in 1917, they made Stalin, Commissar of Nationalities, in charge of the problems of non-Russian peoples in the new state.
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 15

Stalin was an expert on nationalities and was therefore the head of this department for a period of six years under Lenin; he was thus dealing with one of the two main problems of the revolution.... The country which we today call the USSR...gives every one of its constituent peoples as much liberty in regard to its language as Switzerland gives to each of its 22 little cantons. In this respect Russia is actually modeled on Switzerland.
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 71

Yenukidze states, "...Stalin wrote a great deal on the national question. On this question, in particular, he is undoubtedly after Lenin the most competent theoretician in our party.
Life of Stalin, A Symposium. New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1930, p. 94

If a Leninist nationalities policy is not pursued now, republics might secede from us. We have colossal experience in this regard.... It was none other than Lenin who made the appointment to one of the most important posts of the time, People's Commissar of Nationalities. He appointed Stalin to head up this ministry!
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 194

On most matters, though, he [Stalin] agreed with Lenin; and Lenin for his own part badly needed Dzhughashvili’s contributions on the national question. Whereas the Mensheviks had several theorists who wrote about the nationalities in the Empire, the Bolsheviks had only Dzhughashvili. No wonder Lenin warmed to him.
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 93

STALIN WARRED AGAINST ISLAM FORCING WOMEN TO WEAR VEILS [BURQA]

There came also a sharp conflict with Islam; for Stalin now attempted to make an end of the old forms of existence even in that fanatically Mohammedan region. Particularly sanguinary, and accompanied by many murders, was the campaign for the equality of rights of women. Women who allowed themselves to be persuaded by the communist agitators to throw away the veil were murdered almost without exception by their fellow villagers.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 177

STALIN UNITED A LARGER AREA THAN THE CZARS EVER CREATED

In the matter of foreign relations it is obvious that Stalin will leave behind him a great and splendid realm. If we consider him simply as a Russian statesman, and apply the old historical measure of values to his life's work, he is actually, in the nationalist sense, the greatest Russian statesman in all history. He is not only won back for Russia all that the Russian Tsars were compelled to cede at the beginning of this century, but has secured almost all the territories claimed by the Tsars since Catherine The Great. All that was ceded to Japan by the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905, after the defeat in the Russian-Japanese war, was Russian again, with a little added. The Karelian Isthmus, conquered by Peter the Great but ceded to Finland at the beginning of the last century, has been recovered by Stalin. The Baltic provinces, and Bessarabia, lost in 1918--Volhynia and western White Russia, Lithuania and Vilna--in a word, the 1914 frontier, has been won back and extended. Of the old Russia, only two small districts on the Russo-Turkish frontier, Kars and Ardahan, ceded to the Turks in 1919, are missing. The Russian revolution voluntarily renounced Congress Poland. It is Russian once more; and Eastern Galicia, the northern Bukovina, and Carpatho-Ukraine, the regions for which Russia fought in 1914-17, regions which had never been under Russian rule, are now Russian.
The dream of all the Tsars has been attained, all the 'Five Russias' are united under a single sceptre: Great Russia, Little Russia (Ukraina), White Russia, Red Russia ( Galicia), and sub-Carpathian Russia. For the first time in history, all the eastern Slavs are united in a single realm. It was the ambition of all the rulers of Russia, attained by none --until now, by Stalin.
Nor is that all. Since the 18th-century Russia had regarded herself as the protector of all the Slavs. Panslavism provided the modern ideology for that claim. Now the inclusion of all Slav States under Russian leadership and guidance has been achieved. During the war Stalin resuscitated Panslavism as a political instrument, and actually created organs for that policy, such as the Committee of the Slav Peoples, in Moscow, and the Pan-Slav Congresses.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 391-92

In the Far East, too, Stalin has fulfilled the political ambition of the Tsars. The small region of Tannu Tuva, quietly striven for by Russian policy during the last 20 years of the Tsardom, with no apparent prospect of wresting it from Chinese sovereignty, is today Russian territory. The Tsars also laid claim to Mongolia; Stalin has made it a vassal State....
While Russia's 1914 frontier has not been reached in the Middle East, and the old Russian dream of dominance of the Dardanelles has still not been fulfilled, the Stalinist foreign policy has at least attained more than even the Treaty of San Stefano of 1877, which was subsequently revised to Russia's disadvantage at the Congress of Berlin. Russia is now, in any case, at the gates of Byzantium.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 393

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I'm not talking about agricultural collectivization...i'm talking about bureaucratic collectivization. A bureaucratic collectivist state owns the means of production, while the surplus is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy, rather than among the working class. Also, most importantly, it is the bureaucracy&mdash;not the workers or the people in general&mdash;who controls the economy and the state.
Sorry, states are inherently bureaucratic. You can't specifically make a state bureaucratic like Stalin supposedly did, nor can you wave a magic wand and make a state not bureaucratic like ol' Lev apparently would've. Get over it.
Anyhow, what's that about party bureaucrats getting the surplus during Stalin's time? Even under Brezhnev, Kosygin etc. bureaucrats only got part of the surplus while most of it went to the state. In Stalin's time, bureaucrats who took bonuses and such for themselves were the ones who were targetted by the purges you types cry about so often. And the workers did control the state and economy via their vanguard party.

On nationalism, his socialism in one country idea
"Socialism in one country" = REALITY. Do you think he should've just gone around invading countries at random or something? Besides by the end of his life the revolution had spread from Beijing and Pyongyang to Berlin and Warsaw. If evil Stalin only wanted socialism in the USSR he wasn't very good at acheiving it was he?

the "great patriotic war", the "motherland"
Well, the "Great Patriotic War" certainly roused the Russian masses didn't it?

imperialism (which is almost always based on nationalism)...
OK so when was the USSR under Stalin ever imperialist? When they invaded some extremely hostile pro-Nazi fascist states in the run up to the Nazi invasion?

[bailey_187]

Im just LOL'ing at some of Erich's sources

[Die Rote Fahne]

Sorry, states are inherently bureaucratic. You can't specifically make a state bureaucratic like Stalin supposedly did, nor can you wave a magic wand and make a state not bureaucratic like ol' Lev apparently would've. Get over it.
Anyhow, what's that about party bureaucrats getting the surplus during Stalin's time? Even under Brezhnev, Kosygin etc. bureaucrats only got part of the surplus while most of it went to the state. In Stalin's time, bureaucrats who took bonuses and such for themselves were the ones who were targetted by the purges you types cry about so often. And the workers did control the state and economy via their vanguard party.

Yes, but you're still missing the point. The bureaucracy was the new elite, the new capitalist class which took the surplus (profits) form the workers, and instead of distributing it among the workers, distributed among the party (bureaucracy).

The idea that you can have a state with non bureaucracy is of course wrong. Learn to read.


"Socialism in one country" = REALITY. Do you think he should've just gone around invading countries at random or something? Besides by the end of his life the revolution had spread from Beijing and Pyongyang to Berlin and Warsaw. If evil Stalin only wanted socialism in the USSR he wasn't very good at acheiving it was he?No, Stalin being a counter-revolutionary is REALITY. The idea that we should toss aside Internationalism for the nationalistic policy of supporting and strengthening only your own socialist movement is absurd, and very antithetical to Marxism. Especially when you don't even attempt to give the working class political power, or turn over the means of production.


Well, the "Great Patriotic War" certainly roused the Russian masses didn't it?

OK so when was the USSR under Stalin ever imperialist? When they invaded some extremely hostile pro-Nazi fascist states in the run up to the Nazi invasion?
Mussolini also roused the masses, as did Franco, did it mean they were right? No.

Stalin and his patriotism was anti-internationalist. Calling it "The Great Patriotic War" was evidence enough. This was totally reactionary, and counter-revolutionary.

Did we forget the post-war expansionism? Maybe? Did it slip your mind?

[GallowsBird]

I think stalin was a really good imperialist, capitalist business man. I think Stalin is shrouded in myth amongst marxists. STALIN IS NOT A MARXIST. The fact is Stalin came to power and was hell to the working class and used them as slave labor. STALINISM IS STATE CAPITALISM

STALIN WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!

CANT U C HE WOZ EVUL!!!!!!!!11111111111

:rolleyes:








Anyway.... I found this good article written by the great Paul Robeson which I found interesting: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/702.html


To You Beloved Comrade
By Paul Robeson, reprinted in Northstar Compass, October 2003

There is no richer store of human experience than the folk tales, folk poems and songs of a people. In many, the heroes are always fully recognizable humans—only larger and more embracing in dimension. So it is with the Russian, Chinese and the Africa folk-lore.

In 1937, a highly expectant audience of Moscow citizens—workers, artists, youth, farmers, from surrounding towns—crowded into the Bolshoi Theatre. They awaited the performance by the Uzbek National Theater, headed by the highly gifted Tamara Khanum. The orchestra was a large one, with instruments both ancient and modern.

How exciting would be the blending of the music of the rich culture of composers Moussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Gliere, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Khrennikov, with that of the beautiful music of the Uzbeks, stemming from an old and proud civilization. Suddenly, everyone stood up, began to applaud, to cheer, to smile. The children waved. In a box to the right—smiling and applauding back to the audience—stood the great Stalin.

I remember that the tears began to flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly—I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good—the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. I lifted high my son Pauli to wave to this world leader, and his leader. For Paul Jr. had entered school in Moscow, in the land of the Soviets.

The wonderful performance began, unfolding new delights at every turn-ensemble and individual, vocal and orchestral, classic and folk dancing of amazing originality. Could it be possible that a few years before in 1900–1915—these people had been semi-serfs—their cultural expression forbidden, their rich heritage almost lost under the Tsarist oppression’s heel?

So here one witnessed in the field of the arts—a culture, national in form, socialist in content. Here was a people, quite comparable to some tribal folk in Asia—quite comparable to the proud Yorubs or Basuto of West and East Africa, but now their lives flowering anew within the socialist way of life, twenty years matured under the guidance of Lenin and Stalin. And in this whole area of development of national minorities—of their relation to the Great Russians—Stalin has played and was playing a decisive role.

I was later to travel—to see with my own eyes what could happen to so-called backward peoples. In the West (in England, in Belgium, France, Portugal, Holland)—the Africans, the Indians (East and West), any of the Asian people were considered so backward that centuries, perhaps, would have to pass before these so-called modern so called “colonials” could become part of society.

But in the Soviet Union, Yakuts, Nenetses, Kirgiz, Tadzhiks—had respect and were helped to advance with unbelievable rapidity in this socialist land. No empty promises, such as colored folks continuously hear in the United States, but deeds. For example, the transforming of the desert in Uzbekistan into blooming acres of cotton. And an old friend of mine, Mr. Golden, trained under the Carver at Tuskegee, played a prominent role in cotton production. In 1949, I saw his daughter, now grown up and in the university—a proud Soviet citizen.

Today in Korea—in Southeast Asia—in Latin America and the West Indies, in the Middle East—in Africa, one sees tens of millions of long oppressed colonial peoples surging towards freedom. What courage—what sacrifice—what determination never to rest until victory! And arrayed against them, the combined powers of the so-called Free West, headed by the greedy, profit-hungry, war-minded industrialists and financial barons of our America. The illusion of an “American Century” blinds them for the immediate present to the clear fact that civilization has passed them by—that we now live in a people’s century—that the star shines brightly in the East of Europe and of the word.

Colonial peoples today look to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They see how under the great Stalin millions like themselves have found a new life. They see that aided and guided by the example of the Soviet Union, led by their Mao Tse-tung, a new China adds its mighty power to the true and expanding socialist way of life. They see former semi-colonial Eastern European nations building new People’s Democracies, based upon the people’s power, with the people shaping their own destinies. So much of this progress sterns from the magnificent leadership, theoretical and practical, given by their friend Joseph Stalin.

They have sung—sing now and will sing his praise—in song and story. Slava-Slava-Slava-Stalin, Glory to Stalin. Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands.

In all spheres of modern life the influence of Stalin reaches wide and deep. From his last and simply written but vastly discerning and comprehensive document, back through all of the years, his contributions to science of our world society remain invaluable. One reverently speaks of Marx, Engels Lenin and Stalin—the shapers of humanity’s richest present and future.

Yes, through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage. Most importantly—he has charted the direction of our present and future struggles. He has pointed the way to peace—to friendly co-existence—to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions—to the end if war ad destruction. How consistently, how patiently, he labored for peace and ever—increasing abundance, with that deep kindness and wisdom.

He leaves tens of millions all over the earth bowed in heart-aching grief.

But, as he well knew, the struggle continues. So, inspired by his noble example, let us lift our heads slowly but proudly high and march forward in the fight for peace—for a rich and rewarding life for all.

In the inspired words of Lewis Allan, our progressive lyricist-

To you our Beloved Comrade Stalin, we make this solemn vow:
The fight will go on—the fight will still go on.
Sleep well, Beloved Comrade, our work will just begin.
The fight will go on—till we win—until we win!

[Honggweilo]

FACT: stalin had a mustache

FACT: stalin smoked pipe

FACT: stalin had a huge impact on history

i think we can all agree on this, everyone who doesnt is a historic revisionist ultra-left lacantian hipster hippie nazi stalinist anarcho trotskyite and needs to be put down by late abortion

[Aurora]

I support the collectivization of agriculture, the rapid rate of industrialization that was achieved during Stalin's reign and the defeat of Fascism in Europe.
Collectivisation was done so rapidly and badly that the peasants destroyed or sold vast amounts of their livestock and grain before joining the collectives so much so that there was famine and rationing needed to be introduced again, this is after opposing collectivization like a year before and claiming the kulak could transition into socialism. The rapid rate of industrialisation was opposed by Stalin after being put forward by the left opposition in the form of the 5 year plan. Then when the leadership zigzagged towards industrialisation it was so badly planned that their wasn't machinery capable of tilling the new collective farms and the industrialisation was equally as badly planned in other areas. When it came time for war Stalin's government had executed some of the top military officials in the country and the SU was badly prepared as Stalin himself refused to believe that Hitler would turn on him leading to their massive defeats in the first few months.

Any advances made in the USSR were made in spite of the monumental fuckups and zigzags of Stalin and the bureaucracy.

crap thread btw

[Kléber]

And Trotsky,of course was internationalist.Just one example of his "internationalism",that's how he staffed his People's Comissariat for Military and Naval Affairs:34-Jews,8-Letts,1 German and 0 Russians.In fact, this sort of internationalism is more like a Jewish nationalism!

May be Stalin assigned anywhere Georgians?Politburo in 1940 consisted of 10 members:Russians-6,Geargians-2,Armenian-1,Jew-1.

Way to recycle Tsarist propaganda (http://volume1brooklyn.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/trotsky-poster-cropped.jpg) like a nazbol weasel. Only fascist pieces of shit admire Stalin for getting rid of Jewish communists. If you went around complaining about "Trotsky's Jewish nationalism" back then you would be correctly taken out and shot by the Red Army for spreading that counter-revolutionary anti-Semitic propaganda.

So what if the best Red commanders happened to be Jewish? The Bolshevik party was also disproportionately Jewish. Jews tended to make the best activists and revolutionary leaders, because they were brutally oppressed and massacred by the Tsarist state and the White armies. Trotsky was not some backstabbing coward who visited the front in an elaborate disguise, he was the proletarian field marshal,he carried a gun into battle, he chose the right people for the job.

[We will rise again]

No leftist should be restricted.

And Chicxulub you are in no position to call a fellow communist trash, all you are doing is making things worse for you and your intolerant tendency.

Quit fighting.

[Chicxulub]

Way to recycle Tsarist propaganda (http://volume1brooklyn.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/trotsky-poster-cropped.jpg) like a nazbol weasel. Only fascist pieces of shit admire Stalin for getting rid of Jewish communists. If you went around complaining about "Trotsky's Jewish nationalism" back then you would be correctly taken out and shot by the Red Army for spreading that counter-revolutionary anti-Semitic propaganda.

So what if the best Red commanders happened to be Jewish? The Bolshevik party was also disproportionately Jewish. Jews tended to make the best activists and revolutionary leaders, because they were brutally oppressed and massacred by the Tsarist state and the White armies. Trotsky was not some backstabbing coward who visited the front in an elaborate disguise, he was the proletarian field marshal,he carried a gun into battle, he chose the right people for the job.

tl;dr: Trot is mad

[Sword and Shield]

Stalin supporters should be restricted.

It's so ironic that all the people complaining about Stalin's purges are advocating mass restrictions on revleft.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's so ironic that all the people complaining about Stalin's purges are advocating mass restrictions on revleft.

It's actually not. If Stalin was actually a socialist I'd be fine with his supporters. But Stalin was 100% counter-revolutionary.

[Chicxulub]

It's actually not. If Stalin was actually a socialist I'd be fine with his supporters. But Stalin was 100% counter-revolutionary.

...Just like the way I think Trots are counter-revolutionary, seeing how many times Trotsky tried to subvert the revolution with his fifth column.

[Born in the USSR]

Only fascist pieces of shit admire Stalin for getting rid of Jewish communists.

What a brilliant reaction,what a great rage!This make me think that the root of antistalinism of some trots is not class but national.And the following eulogy confirms this:


Jews tended to make the best activists and revolutionary leaders, because they were brutally oppressed and massacred by the Tsarist state and the White armiesMay be other nations weren't opressed by Tsarism,Georgians,for example?But we do not see the predominance of Stalin's fellow-countrymen in the state machinery.BTW,the national oppression does not necessarily makes people's revolutionary,it often makes them nationalists.


So what if the best Red commanders happened to be Jewish? The talk is not about commanders but about commissariat clerks,that is about the bureaucracy.Here we can see what was the Trotskyist bureaucracy look like:it was a nationalist bureaucracy of the one nation,wich was an absolute minority in the large multinational country.

[9]

Just for the record...


Don't talk for the USSR,talk about yourself.

Stalin's nationalism - oh yes,that's a crack!And Trotsky,of course was internationalist.Just one example of his "internationalism",that's how he staffed his People's Comissariat for Military and Naval Affairs:34-Jews,8-Letts,1 German and 0 Russians.In fact, this sort of internationalism is more like a Jewish nationalism!


I totally called it (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2061980&postcount=22).

[Die Rote Fahne]

...Just like the way I think Trots are counter-revolutionary, seeing how many times Trotsky tried to subvert the revolution with his fifth column.

Haaahaha...Even if its true, which it isn't, thats just one thing he and Stalin have in common.

[Ilyich]

Lenin was a flawed but genius thinker. His interpretation of the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat (the vanguard party under democratic centralism) failed but his ideas were well meaning. Trotsky was Lenin's well meaning, but once again, failed follower. Stalin, on the other hand, was a tyrant who perverted Marxist theory to conform to his own agenda. He was a mass murderer as well.

[Kléber]

What a brilliant reaction,what a great rage!This make me think that the root of antistalinism of some trots is not class but national.
Race baiting? That's pathetic.


May be other nations weren't opressed by Tsarism,Georgians,for example?But we do not see the predominance of Stalin's fellow-countrymen in the state machinery.Which is because the Georgian Bolshevik leaders were purged for opposing the Great-Russian chauvinism of Stalin's clique.


Here we can see what was the Trotskyist bureaucracy look like:it was a nationalist bureaucracy of the one nation,wich was an absolute minority in the large multinational country.Now you're just spewing fascist bullshit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This make me think that the root of antistalinism of some trots is not class but national.

uh-oh. Don't like where this is going. Although it wouldn't be the first instance of Jew-baiting by a Stalinist. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840966,00.html)

But seriously. Most Russian Stalinists who've come on this board do seem to have pretty bad positions on a number of subjects, notably social issues and Chechnya. Doesn't do wonders for the notion that Russian Stalinists are all just "great soviet motherland" nostalgists.

[Klaatu]

Yes i support `Stalin he was a great `Marxist Leninist and he was the right man in the right place at the right time in History he upheld Leninism and crushed Trotskyite revisionism and built the worlds first morden Socialist State under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Do you really know what you are talking about?

Stalin RUINED Socialism for the next three centuries! He took a great idea and made it into an evil enterprise, complete with murder and misery. Thanks to Stalin, we may not see a return to Socialism (a superior economic system) in our lifetimes!

Why not study history!?!?!?

[red cat]

Do you really know what you are talking about?

Stalin RUINED Socialism for the next three centuries! He took a great idea and made it into an evil enterprise, complete with murder and misery. Thanks to Stalin, we may not see a return to Socialism (a superior economic system) in our lifetimes!

Why not study history!?!?!?

Are those questions directed towards yourself ? :)

[TheLeftStar]

Yes, I support some of his actions like going to war against Nazi Germany. I don't support the Katyn massacre of Polish Army officers by Nazis & Soviets under Stalin

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Do you really know what you are talking about?

Stalin RUINED Socialism for the next three centuries! He took a great idea and made it into an evil enterprise, complete with murder and misery. Thanks to Stalin, we may not see a return to Socialism (a superior economic system) in our lifetimes!

Why not study history!?!?!?

Socialism would have a bad image right now no matter what, whether Lenin had stayed alive, whether Trotsky had got his way, etc.

Are you under the impression that the bourgeoisie would be singing the praises of socialism if only evil Stalin hadn't tarnished its image? Aaaah, naivety :rolleyes:

[Marxach-Léinínach]

BTW wouldn't it be anti-semitic to ignore the fact that much of Trotsky's crew was of his own nationality, purely because that nationality was Jewish? Say he'd been Latvian and most of his guys were Latvian, it wouldn't be anti-Latvian to point that out would it? All races and nationalities should be treated equally, with no-one getting a tougher or easier time than the others.

[Honggweilo]

oh here comes the anti-semitism myths again.

http://www.seniorplaza.nl/hfd.11%20-%20Groot,%20Paul%20de.jpg


Paul "dutch stalin" de Groot (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Groot), was one of the most supportive of Stalin even during Krusthev secret speech. And he was as Jewish as can be.

[9]

BTW wouldn't it be anti-semitic to ignore the fact that much of Trotsky's crew was of his own nationality, purely because that nationality was Jewish?
lol


Say he'd been Latvian and most of his guys were Latvian, it wouldn't be anti-Latvian to point that out would it? All races and nationalities should be treated equally, with no-one getting a tougher or easier time than the others.Their nationality is really only relevant to begin with if you're some sort of national chauvinist, I think that is partially the point.

[Sasha]

BTW wouldn't it be anti-semitic to ignore the fact that much of Trotsky's crew was of his own nationality, purely because that nationality was Jewish? Say he'd been Latvian and most of his guys were Latvian, it wouldn't be anti-Latvian to point that out would it? All races and nationalities should be treated equally, with no-one getting a tougher or easier time than the others.

since when is being jewish an nationality?

edit: nvm, what an glorious flame fest this turned out be again

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/content/img/f253516/fest-queen-flame-cr.jpg

closed