Fidel Castro: "Blaming Stalin for Everything Would be Historical Simplism"

[Rakhmetov]

Castro muses on Stalin's mistakes

Castro: "I believe Stalin made big mistakes but also showed great wisdom." ...

"Finally, Stalin's character, his terrible distrust of everything, made him commit several other mistakes: one of them was falling in the trap of German intrigue and conducting a terrible, bloody purge of the armed forces and practically beheading the Soviet Army on the eve of war."

Question: What do you believe were Stalin's merits?

Answer: He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist.

One of Stalin's - and the team that supported him - greatest merits was the plan to transfer the war industry and main strategic industries to Siberia and deep into Soviet territory.
I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it.

I think there should be an impartial analysis of Stalin. Blaming him for everything that happened would be historical simplism


http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1992/06/03.htm

[Geiseric]

Isn't he contradicting himself by saying that he played a great role in winning the war, while at the same time Castro remarks that he beheaded the red army, and fell into the trap of german intrigue? And is his idea of party unity purging every sentiment of opposition?

[Rakhmetov]

Isn't he contradicting himself by saying that he played a great role in winning the war, while at the same time Castro remarks that he beheaded the red army, and fell into the trap of german intrigue? And is his idea of party unity purging every sentiment of opposition?

Castro said, "on the eve of war."

[danyboy27]

stalin, Lenin, Mao, those folks are not to blame at all.

They where not really the problems, their interpretation and the continuation of their errors on the other hand must be examined in detail.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Kind of interesting comments from Fidel, I agree with him.

I especially like the quote about historical simplism.

[S.Artesian]

Is anyone here surprised? I mean Fidel did endorse the invasion of Czechoslovakia, among other things, and he also, if memory serves me correctly criticized the student demonstrations in 1968 in Mexico that were violently suppressed by the PRI.

So what's the big news? That Fidel thinks Stalin displayed great wisdom? Fidel's always thought that.

What's next-- shock and disbelief when it hits the mass media that Cuban intelligence services were actively involved in attempts to suppress "ultra-lefts" in Chile?

Besides, who blames Stalin for everything? I don't blame him for everything. I blame the fSU leadership for its suppression of revolutionary militants at home and abroad; for allying with the bourgeoisie, in opposition, to the workers, in popular fronts, starting with China in 1927. I blame the fSU leadership and its allies for the "third period 'Nach Hitler, Uns'" policy. I blame the fSU bureaucracy and its subordinate parties for suppressing the Vietnamese workers in 1937, and again in 1945 when the actions of those parties were instrumental in facilitating the restoration of French colonialism.

I don't blame Stalin and the fSU bureaucracy for the Great Depression, Britain's actions against striking oil workers in Trinidad, or the atomic bombing of Japan.


So Fidel, and those who reproduce this bit of "cracker barrel" wisdom of Fidel are simply setting up a strawman. "Don't blame Stalin for everything." OK, I won't. But how about those things that aren't everything?

[Hebrew Hammer]

What's next-- shock and disbelief when it hits the mass media that Cuban intelligence services were actively involved in attempts to suppress "ultra-lefts" in Chile?

Indeed, I am in deep shock and disbelief.

[thesadmafioso]

Castro has shown a good mix between support and critique, which is something necessary when assessing the character of such a complex figure. I applaud his developed approach to the question and the tactful manner in which he addressed it.

[S.Artesian]

Castro has shown a good mix between support and critique, which is something necessary when assessing the character of such a complex figure. I applaud his developed approach to the question and the tactful manner in which he addressed it.


Please provide reference to Fidel's critique of Stalin.

[thesadmafioso]

Please provide reference to Fidel's critique of Stalin.

He clearly recognizes Stalin's tactical errors in his handling of the higher echelons of the Red Army. Castro also refers to the atmosphere of paranoia which surrounded Stalin, and implies that its effects were more negative than not.

[S.Artesian]

He clearly recognizes Stalin's tactical errors in his handling of the higher echelons of the Red Army. Castro also refers to the atmosphere of paranoia which surrounded Stalin, and implies that its effects were more negative than not.

You call that balanced? Explicit: "Stalin showed great wisdom."

Implicit: "[Maybe] The atmosphere of paranoia created a bad work environment."

I don't call that balanced, but then I don't owe the survival of my revolution in its first 40 years to the Uncle Joe's successors.

Balanced is saying "he made mistakes"? Everyone makes mistakes, Lenin made mistakes in his initial support for the militarization of labor; in his touting of war communism a bit too much.

How about the social organization of the revolution? Any mistakes there, or was that just hunky-dory?

[Rafiq]

Blaming Stalin, or any other person for that matter, for all the problems, is not only 'Historical Simplism", it's Idealist and AntiMarxist.

[CHE with an AK]

One problem is that to many in the West, "Stalin" has become synonymous with "Dracula" or "Vlad the Impaler" - he is the catch all boogey man for everything that rightists hate about the Left.

Stalin had lots of mistakes (and Trotsky might have done better) ... but he also took over a nation with shovels and pitchforks and in 3 decades left them with nuclear weapons (while also defeating the greatest war machine ever i.e. Nazis).

[thesadmafioso]

You call that balanced? Explicit: "Stalin showed great wisdom."

Implicit: "[Maybe] The atmosphere of paranoia created a bad work environment."

I don't call that balanced, but then I don't owe the survival of my revolution in its first 40 years to the Uncle Joe's successors.

Balanced is saying "he made mistakes"? Everyone makes mistakes, Lenin made mistakes in his initial support for the militarization of labor; in his touting of war communism a bit too much.

How about the social organization of the revolution? Any mistakes there, or was that just hunky-dory?

Well, he did indeed show a great deal of ability in his leadership during the war and in his management of the party in regards to its unification. His economic policy made it so the Soviet Union would be equipped to turn back the of fascism. I don't see why Casto should feel obliged to underwrite these monumental achievements on any level beyond which he already did, as the information which he furnished provided a perfectly scaled picture of the situation.

The social organization of the revolution was without much glaring issue, I see no reason to bring that into this conversation in a negative fashion.

[S.Artesian]

One problem is that to many in the West, "Stalin" has become synonymous with "Dracula" or "Vlad the Impaler" - he is the catch all boogey man for everything that rightists hate about the Left.

Stalin had lots of mistakes (and Trotsky might have done better) ... but he also took over a nation with shovels and pitchforks and in 3 decades left them with nuclear weapons (while also defeating the greatest war machine ever i.e. Nazis).


As I said, I don't blame him for everything. But what is absolutely clear is that Fidel and those who reproduce this sort of nonsense-- "Stalin made mistakes, but it's not right to blame him for everything..." do it only as a vector for them to justify the most important things about that period-- the suppression of the left opposition, and the Left Opposition, and the actual sacrificing of the proletarian revolution to "bourgeois democracy" in the "self-interest" of the fSU seeking accommodation to the advanced capitalists.

"Oh he made mistakes, who hasn't," ask our cherub cheeked "fair and balanced" assessors.

But what is really behind that is the gross and crude applause for "developmentalism"-- he took a nation of shovels and pitchforks and in 3 decades--- blahblahblah.

Well, first of all, he didn't. It wasn't a nation of pitchforks and shovels by the time Stalin broke with Bukharin and advocated greater industrialization. Shovels and pitchforks were still being used, of course, but the internal transportation network, particularly the railroads had been restored from their ruinous condition after the civil war.

So that's one.

And two, ummh... no, he didn't make it possible for the fSU to defeat Hitler. Tactically, strategically, Stalin left the borders absolutely vulnerable to the attack from the west. Militarily, for the first year of the war, the Nazi advance was delayed only by the number of bodies the German tanks had to climb over. That's a fact. There weren't any successful counterattacks. There weren't really any successful defenses until the winter rolled in.

So that's two.

And three?

The fSU simply never recovered from the body blow of WW2; whatever we say about nuclear weapons, improved output, etc. the destruction of human resources was quite devastating. That combined with the lower productivity of Soviet agriculture and industry meant the fSU would find it very difficult to survive without a revolution in the West, something which the bureaucracy feared more than a military attack.

[North Star]

blaming Stalin for everything is simplism and is anti-Marxist actually. It ignores the problems the USSR faced in the 1920's and the isolation, backwardness and organizational problems that led to the rise of the bureaucracy. Castro didn't speak out against the Mexican government in 1968 because at the time Mexico and Canada were the only countries in the Western Hemisphere to recognize Cuba and Castro didn't want to offend its main ally in the region. Castro didn't speak out about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia at the time especially because of economic difficulties in 1968 but his speech did criticize "bureaucracy." People point to Castro's recent remarks about the "Cuban model" but he was well aware of his mistake in so closely aligning with the USSR since at least the late 1960's. In the 1970's he even was to have told the Angolans not to get too close to the USSR and go to the Romanians for expertise in developing the oil fields. I think if countries like Mozambique and Angola had avoided long civil wars and if there had been other revolutions had occurred in Latin America, there could have been a Cuban led bloc emerge in the Third World, one far less reactionary on foreign policy than the Chinese were.

[Forward Union]

Stalin was the result of historical conditions. His opponents, rather than accept that, seem to embark on some kind of anti-cult of personality tirade.

[Sir Comradical]

He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist.

Yes! By massacring his party.

[Mr. Cervantes]

stalin, Lenin, Mao, those folks are not to blame at all.

They where not really the problems, their interpretation and the continuation of their errors on the other hand must be examined in detail.

Is any platform of communism or socialism possible without errors and imperfections?

Striving for a platform without errors strikes me as utopic and unrealistic. Imperfections will always exist.

I don't think anyone can say that communism or socialism are perfect systems.

[manic expression]

Is anyone here surprised?
I'm surprised it took you more than 15 seconds to start bad-mouthing Fidel's words without rhyme or reason.


I mean Fidel did endorse the invasion of Czechoslovakia, among other things, and he also, if memory serves me correctly criticized the student demonstrations in 1968 in Mexico that were violently suppressed by the PRI.Nice...it only took you 2 paragraphs to try to distract us from the subject at hand. What's next, your piercing materialist analysis that golf = capitalism? Your incredible insight that since the Paris Commune no longer exists, it doesn't matter at all? :lol:


So what's the big news? That Fidel thinks Stalin displayed great wisdom? Fidel's always thought that.The reason it's posted is to reiterate why Fidel thinks Stalin displayed wisdom in some of his policies, and a lack of wisdom in others. It's called nuance. Perhaps you've heard of it.


So Fidel, and those who reproduce this bit of "cracker barrel" wisdom of Fidel are simply setting up a strawman. "Don't blame Stalin for everything." OK, I won't. But how about those things that aren't everything?You're setting up a strawman by trying to determine for everyone what the context of the quote was.


There weren't really any successful defenses until the winter rolled in.Trying hard to disregard the heroic sacrifices of the defenders of Brest, I see. Typical. Anyway, NO ONE had figured out how to stop the Blitzkrieg...it's not like the Wehrmacht was on a losing streak. When faced with that onslaught, Stalin, after committing some errors (see OP), led the Soviet Union in its regrouping, its evacuation of industry (one of the most important decisions of the whole war), its recalling of armies from the east and its victories beginning at Moscow.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Blaming Stalin for all the mistakes would be useless - it would support the great man theory of history. The conditions of the revolution and failure of the Revolution to spread were the source of the problems. Stalinism is just a poor answer to those problems (in part because it doesn't see that - and resulting problems like weakening of worker's power and party-substitutionism as necessarily a problem) and a poor answer that derailed the workers movement for a few generations.

[S.Artesian]

So 1) who's surprised? Wasn't that great olympic champion of the ice-axe toss, Mercader, given sanctuary in Cuba after his release from prison?

2) Who's blaming Stalin? As opposed I mean to attempting a materialist critique of the actions taken by the Party and the state from 1924 on?--- something, of course, Fidel never did.

[danyboy27]

Is any platform of communism or socialism possible without errors and imperfections?

Striving for a platform without errors strikes me as utopic and unrealistic. Imperfections will always exist.

I don't think anyone can say that communism or socialism are perfect systems.

no, but there a great difference between a plane with flaws who can fly for 500 hour and another one who crash into a mountain after 15 minutes.

The U.S.S.R didnt lasted a hundred of years, China and vietnam turned capitalist in less than 70 years, most of the eastern countries are currently embracing neoliberalism.

You can be a maoist a stalinist or a marxist-leninist, that all fine, but if you dont realize that the model you embrace is deeply flawed and need some more thinking, how can you even hope of making it work better?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Of course a materialist shouldn't say Stalin is to blame for everything. But he was a ruthless person who offered various unfortunate "innovations" which were adopted by Communist movements after him, and created conditions where his particular views were seen as the only authentic viewpoint on Communist revolution.

(1) He banned homosexuality without rhyme or reason. Communist countries like Cuba adopted these laws too. Is Stalin the only person to blame? Of course not, Communists around the world should have stood up to him, but they didn't. But thanks at least in part to Uncle Joe, the good seminarian, homosexuality was actually banned in Russia for a long time, and then in many other Communist countries. Lest we forget, Lenin actually legalized it too when he had taken over, but after Stalin banned it again it was never legal under Soviet leadership.

(2) He persecuted various religious groups, including the minorities, such as Buddhists, Muslims, and various Christians. This harsh state Atheism also continued through post-Stalin regimes. Cuba continued such policies here too. Granted, some amount of religious reform is necessary in a Communist society, but forcefully defrocking Buddhist monks and demolishing ancient Churches is not only pointless, but culturally disrespectful. Shamanism too suffered greatly, as the cultural traditions of Siberian nomads was seen as little more than stone age nonsense. Granted, Stalin wasn't to blame for believing these things, it was common for materialist atheists at the time to hold such views (as today for that matter), but that is no reason to institute the brutish paternalism of Stalin.

(3) He was incredibly brutal towards a variety of national minorities after WWII-many like the Chechens and Tatars died in large numbers getting deported to Siberia. There's no materialistic reason to morally blame an entire ethnic group and punish them unconditionally, and such blunt state repression has no place in a Leftist society. I've seen some say these groups sided with the Nazis, but provide no materialist analysis of (a) why some sided with the Nazis, (b) why Stalin punished members who fought in the Red Army and neutral civilians alongside alleged "traitors", and (c) why it was a bad idea to pursue even "moderately" humane policies regarding these groups.

(4) The policies of forced collectivization of agriculture created many deaths and widespread resentment in places like the Ukraine. Agricultural collectivization may be a good thing, but the way it was instituted in Russia was brutal and the famines that resulted hardly led to the liberation of the peasant class. On the contrary, it probably just increased their level of false consciousness. Granted, the USSR's famines were certainly no worse than famines in India under the English, but it was still a human tragedy.

(5) Stalin's policies were great at building new steel factories, but led to horrible environmental effects and were frequently based on bad science. Sure, Stalin can't be wholly blamed for thinking Lysenko was actually a credible scientist-after all, Stalin himself was not trained as a scientist. However, that begs the question as to why a non-scientist like Stalin saw himself as qualified on that matter. He can be blamed for creating a system where pseudo-technocrats like Lysenko could "climb the ladder" of authority despite being horrible in their respective field, simply because the "leader" approves of their particular "Science". Aside from bad science, with the excessive bureaucratization of this field, the USSR created a system where bureaucrats could decide to drain the Aral Sea without ever once bothering to find out whether the people who actually lived around the Aral Sea would rather live in a desert with a saline pond 50 km away, instead of a bucolic fishing town.

(6) There is no excuse for his tendency to blatantly rewrite history, IE actually editing Trotsky out of various photographs.

(7) He famously cracked down on internal party opposition to his control. This, of course, would have been fine if Stalin were really this perfect proletarian Deus that his cult of personality implies, but considering the brutal mistakes of the aforementioned policies show that, in fact, he was not, and that "Party Unity" should not have been established by giving him absolute authority under his individual patronage.


I think "traditional" Marxist-Leninists like Castro have failed to thoroughly criticize the role of Stalin in "pioneering" many of the worst policies of the "international Left" of the 20th century, and have failed to criticize the party structure for instituting these mistakes. It is also clear that excessive bureaucracy and authoritarian centralism both made those mistakes harder to rectify, and caused them ultimately to contribute to the collapse of the USSR.

So no, blaming Stalin for everything is foolish. But not blaming Stalin at all is dangerous in that it creates the possibility of repeating his mistakes, IE Cuban policies on gays in the 60s.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wise words from El Commandante, to be honest.

Because history is so often written by victors, who are not genuine historians at all but mere propagandists, it is difficult to ever appear to be tackling a topic with historical neutrality, for one side will always cry bias or propaganda.

To be honest, I think that it is still too soon for any impartial critique of the USSR 1929-53 and Stalin to become accepted in the mainstream intellectual world, but I imagine in a couple of generations history will be re-written as it should be - for historical fact, not for ideological one-upmanship.

[RedSonRising]

I absolutely agree with that. In the same way Oliver Stone stated that you can't pin the entire superstructure of Nazi Germany on Adolf Hitler, you can't associate the structures and decisions of Stalin's Soviet Era to just one man's will or image.

For those who see that bit as a weak critique from Castro, this is another part of the same article.

"I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework.


I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had.


I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history.


I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time.


During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor.


I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway. Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure.


I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake, from the standpoint of principles and international law.


Stalin made a series of mistakes that were criticized by a large part of the world, and which placed Communists - who were great friends of the USSR - in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes."

[danyboy27]

I love you guys, but blaming stalin for the failure of the USSR dont feel right, its like saying there is nothing wrong with The system and the problem was only a fews bad apples.

In comparaison its like blaming reagan for the failure of the american economical system.

the american economical system was flawed to begin with, someone like reagan messing up with the established order was inevitable.

[Rafiq]

(2) He persecuted various religious groups, including the minorities, such as Buddhists, Muslims, and various Christians. This harsh state Atheism also continued through post-Stalin regimes. Cuba continued such policies here too. Granted, some amount of religious reform is necessary in a Communist society, but forcefully defrocking Buddhist monks and demolishing ancient Churches is not only pointless, but culturally disrespectful. Shamanism too suffered greatly, as the cultural traditions of Siberian nomads was seen as little more than stone age nonsense. Granted, Stalin wasn't to blame for believing these things, it was common for materialist atheists at the time to hold such views (as today for that matter), but that is no reason to institute the brutish paternalism of Stalin.


I'm not fond of Stalin, but this is just dishonest.

People were allowed to practice whatever the hell they wanted, but religious structural powers, and their cult temples, churches and mosques, where dismantled, and, hell, rightfully so!

You have no fucking clue how corrupt, tyrannical, and oppressive these institutions were.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

(2) He persecuted various religious groups, including the minorities, such as Buddhists, Muslims, and various Christians. This harsh state Atheism also continued through post-Stalin regimes. Cuba continued such policies here too. Granted, some amount of religious reform is necessary in a Communist society, but forcefully defrocking Buddhist monks and demolishing ancient Churches is not only pointless, but culturally disrespectful. Shamanism too suffered greatly, as the cultural traditions of Siberian nomads was seen as little more than stone age nonsense. Granted, Stalin wasn't to blame for believing these things, it was common for materialist atheists at the time to hold such views (as today for that matter), but that is no reason to institute the brutish paternalism of Stalin.
Sources, please. Or are there none?

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm surprised it took you more than 15 seconds to start bad-mouthing Fidel's words without rhyme or reason.

Oh noez! Bad mouthing Fidel! God you guys practice such servile deference; you would've made excellent bootlickers for the bourgeoisie in another lifetime.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm not fond of Stalin, but this is just dishonest.

People were allowed to practice whatever the hell they wanted, but religious structural powers, and their cult temples, churches and mosques, where dismantled, and, hell, rightfully so!

You have no fucking clue how corrupt, tyrannical, and oppressive these institutions were.

Excuse me, it's not dishonest, and I'm well aware of the fact that religious institutions have misused their power in history. Of course religious institutions in reactionary societies develop reactionary beliefs and institutions, but demolishing cultural artifacts, banning religious institutions and imprisoning religious figures is no way to reform them or encourage the masses in general to hold more "enlightened" views. To Castro's credit, current Cuban policy towards the Catholic church and Santeria, for instance, is far more enlightened than Stalin's policies towards all religions in the USSR-Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Shamanism alike. The left can acknowledge the presence of reactionary beliefs in religion and pushing to reform the culture without taking a culturally insensitive and anti-pluralistic approach.

Anyways, considering the CPSU became increasingly corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive under Stalin, the charge of autocratic behavior cuts both ways. For instance, Stalin's aforementioned ban on homosexuality or abortion was no less socially tyrannical than the Church's attempt to ban those same policies, but Stalin justified it by saying it was "bourgeois" not "sinful".


Sources, please. Or are there none?

Wiki is a good place to look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism_and_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Soviet_Union#History

Of course, wiki should be taken with a grain of salt, but I've seen it described in other areas.

[S.Artesian]

I absolutely agree with that. In the same way Oliver Stone stated that you can't pin the entire superstructure of Nazi Germany on Adolf Hitler, you can't associate the structures and decisions of Stalin's Soviet Era to just one man's will or image.

For those who see that bit as a weak critique from Castro, this is another part of the same article.

"I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework.


I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had.


I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history.


I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time.


During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor.


I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway. Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure.


I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake, from the standpoint of principles and international law.


Stalin made a series of mistakes that were criticized by a large part of the world, and which placed Communists - who were great friends of the USSR - in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes."


So with his training as a lawyer apparently taking the lead, Fidel criticizes for violating the......law. And an abuse of power. And mistakes.

So what the "balanced" critic of Stalin, Fidel, does here is exactly what the defenders of Fidel's criticism accuse the "unbalanced" critics of doing-- abstracting Stalin and his actions from its material base in the internal conditions of the fSU, and severing those actions from the institutional needs of the former Soviet bureaucracy which required sacrificing international revolution in order to seek accommodation to capitalism.

"Stalin made mistakes," says Fidel, "Long live Stalinism." Before and after, of course, supporting the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the popular front in Chile etc etc.

Excuse me for not being impressed. Or considering Fidel's assessment to be "fair and balanced," or even accurate.

[RedSonRising]

So with his training as a lawyer apparently taking the lead, Fidel criticizes for violating the......law. And an abuse of power. And mistakes.

So what the "balanced" critic of Stalin, Fidel, does here is exactly what the defenders of Fidel's criticism accuse the "unbalanced" critics of doing-- abstracting Stalin and his actions from its material base in the internal conditions of the fSU, and severing those actions from the institutional needs of the former Soviet bureaucracy which required sacrificing international revolution in order to seek accommodation to capitalism.

"Stalin made mistakes," says Fidel, "Long live Stalinism." Before and after, of course, supporting the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the popular front in Chile etc etc.

Excuse me for not being impressed. Or considering Fidel's assessment to be "fair and balanced," or even accurate.


He makes several comments on his disagreements on terms of ideological conviction and abuses in terms of ethics. He speaks pragmatically and without passion when weighing the positive and negatives of Stalin's leadership, but he clearly feels that the abuse of power and violent collectivization of land and so forth were not just technical legislative abuses, but wrong and ideologically difficult to come to terms with from within a political alliance with the USSR against Western imperialism.

[S.Artesian]

He makes several comments on his disagreements on terms of ideological conviction and abuses in terms of ethics. He speaks pragmatically and without passion when weighing the positive and negatives of Stalin's leadership, but he clearly feels that the abuse of power and violent collectivization of land and so forth were not just technical legislative abuses, but wrong and ideologically difficult to come to terms with from within a political alliance with the USSR against Western imperialism.


I know that, and it all boils down to "Stalin made mistakes. Long live Stalinism." You don't see any criticism, or at least you don't reproduce it, of the fSU role in the defeat and destruction of the proletarian revolution in countries around the globe.

Stalin was "too violent," too abusive, too this, too that. The issue isn't the "too," it's the basis for the organization of the "that."

[Geiseric]

I completely understand what fidel is trying to say, thinking Stalin was to blame for everything has as much materialist substance as thinking capitalism came back to the U.S.S.R. by capitalist roaders!

[RedSonRising]

I know that, and it all boils down to "Stalin made mistakes. Long live Stalinism." You don't see any criticism, or at least you don't reproduce it, of the fSU role in the defeat and destruction of the proletarian revolution in countries around the globe.

Stalin was "too violent," too abusive, too this, too that. The issue isn't the "too," it's the basis for the organization of the "that."


Ah, I see your point now. I'm in agreement that the basic structure under which a Stalin was able to arise reveals a fundamentally flawed model, combined with a turbulent set of conditions that allowed Stalin to be as error-ridden as he wanted to, regardless of the will of the working class that the Vanguard Party was initially supposed to serve.

To say Castro is saying "Long Live Stalinism since it is free of structural flaws" however, is a stretch. The subject matter is clearly Stalin's leadership analyzed individually, and he acknowledges this by saying that the problems of the USSR existed beyond his own individual decision-making.

[manic expression]

(1) He banned homosexuality without rhyme or reason. Communist countries like Cuba adopted these laws too. Is Stalin the only person to blame? Of course not, Communists around the world should have stood up to him, but they didn't.
That was because most communists didn´t disagree so strongly. A great deal of the movement was wrong on the issue at the time.


(2) He persecuted various religious groups, including the minorities, such as Buddhists, Muslims, and various Christians. This harsh state Atheism also continued through post-Stalin regimes.As others have said, the religious hierarchies of Russia were absurdly powerful and reactionary. The Church was also a center of anti-Soviet sentiment abroad and at home. What strikes me as whimsical is how Stalin is also criticized for having increased religious visibility during WWII. We can´t have it both ways.


(3) He was incredibly brutal towards a variety of national minorities after WWII-many like the Chechens and Tatars died in large numbers getting deported to Siberia. There's no materialistic reason to morally blame an entire ethnic group and punish them unconditionally, and such blunt state repression has no place in a Leftist society. I've seen some say these groups sided with the Nazis, but provide no materialist analysis of (a) why some sided with the Nazis, (b) why Stalin punished members who fought in the Red Army and neutral civilians alongside alleged "traitors", and (c) why it was a bad idea to pursue even "moderately" humane policies regarding these groups.Agreed. It was collective punishment and it was wrong.


(4) The policies of forced collectivization of agriculture created many deaths and widespread resentment in places like the Ukraine. Agricultural collectivization may be a good thing, but the way it was instituted in Russia was brutal and the famines that resulted hardly led to the liberation of the peasant class. On the contrary, it probably just increased their level of false consciousness. Granted, the USSR's famines were certainly no worse than famines in India under the English, but it was still a human tragedy.IMO, it would have been easier of collectivization was initiated sooner rather than later. As it turned out, Stalin gave a very tough answer to a very tough problem...one he contributed to by delaying, but one that was essentially inevitable if the USSR wanted to establish socialist relations and finally do away with reactionary modes of production. In addition to all that, a lot of decisions were made under fire, without full information, and we have to acknowledge that.


(5) Stalin's policies were great at building new steel factories, but led to horrible environmental effects and were frequently based on bad science.a.) Stalin´s fascination with Lysenko did not have much to do with "horrible environmental effects", and b.) environmentalism, as we know it, wouldn´t exist for two decades after Stalin died. You can´t apply concepts of our time to periods in which they didn´t exist.


(6) There is no excuse for his tendency to blatantly rewrite history, IE actually editing Trotsky out of various photographs.Yeah, I agree on that one, too.


(7) He famously cracked down on internal party opposition to his control. This, of course, would have been fine if Stalin were really this perfect proletarian Deus that his cult of personality implies, but considering the brutal mistakes of the aforementioned policies show that, in fact, he was not, and that "Party Unity" should not have been established by giving him absolute authority under his individual patronage.Yes, I agree, but Stalin actually lost a great deal of control during the purges. It turned into a free-for-all that no one was orchestrating. Also, the threat of internal subversion was also quite real...we can smirk at it almost a century later, but it wasn´t so laughable at the time. Lastly, I think the feeling that war with Germany was inevitable played into the purges.

But yeah, I think the purges were terrible and robbed the party of many good comrades.


I think "traditional" Marxist-Leninists like Castro have failed to thoroughly criticize the role of Stalin in "pioneering" many of the worst policies of the "international Left" of the 20th century, and have failed to criticize the party structure for instituting these mistakes. It is also clear that excessive bureaucracy and authoritarian centralism both made those mistakes harder to rectify, and caused them ultimately to contribute to the collapse of the USSR.Just about everything you mentioned, the Cuban Revolution avoided: Homosexuality, religion, the national question (although admittedly not as complicated an issue in comparison to the USSR´s nationalities), collectivization, environmentalism, historical honesty and integrity, democracy within and without the party...Cuba didn´t see the problems you pointed out. That didn´t come from nothing, it came from an honest and materialist analysis of the past, just what Fidel shows us in the OP. That is precisely what we need to aim for.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That was because most communists didn´t disagree so strongly. A great deal of the movement was wrong on the issue at the time.

Not all Communists thought this way-Lenin legalized it after all, and there were people who disagreed with Stalin on it.



As others have said, the religious hierarchies of Russia were absurdly powerful and reactionary. The Church was also a center of anti-Soviet sentiment abroad and at home. What strikes me as whimsical is how Stalin is also criticized for having increased religious visibility during WWII. We can´t have it both ways.
As I replied to Rafiq, it is true that the religious institutions often existed within a reactionary or conservative culture, but it still doesn't justify the extent of the repression. The fact is, Stalin persecuted Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Muslims alike to an extent which only (a) caused religious people around the world to mistrust domestic Communist movements (b) alienated religious proletarians at home and (c) punished religious figures who may or may not have actually been actively politically reactionary. I think one can and should try to make priests/imams/monks etc and the religious workers alike more socially progressive without resorting to the kinds of tactics that Stalin did, not only because they are impractical but because I think that they are also immoral.

I don't have a problem with him using faith to bring soldiers out to fight during WWII and build nationalism, although I wonder how much he favored particular churches over others. There's a reason religious narratives exist, and as a seminarian he probably understood their purpose quite well.



a.) Stalin´s fascination with Lysenko did not have much to do with "horrible environmental effects", and b.) environmentalism, as we know it, wouldn´t exist for two decades after Stalin died. You can´t apply concepts of our time to periods in which they didn´t exist.
Perhaps you're right about the environment and Lysenko, although I was under the impression that he contributed to the virgin lands program which led to a dust bowl. On a different topic though, the existence of Lysenkism does indicate that the authoritarianism in Stalin's USSR produced very serious inefficiencies in the nation's sciences.

As for environmentalism, it was a much earlier movement. Marx mentions sustainable forestry being better managed by the collective than private interests, and John Muir lived in the 19th century. Many other environmentalists were coming up at that time too around the world. Just because it wasn't a major theme of Worker's Parties around the world, it doesn't mean nobody was talking about it. And the negative effects of large scale industrialization had been known for some time.



Just about everything you mentioned, the Cuban Revolution avoided: Homosexuality, religion, the national question (although admittedly not as complicated an issue in comparison to the USSR´s nationalities), collectivization, environmentalism, historical honesty and integrity, democracy within and without the party...Cuba didn´t see the problems you pointed out. That didn´t come from nothing, it came from an honest and materialist analysis of the past, just what Fidel shows us in the OP. That is precisely what we need to aim for.Cuba avoided the perils of forced collectivization, but it still made some of the same old mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production

Castro is not Stalin of course, and Cuba is not Russia. He did avoid many of the mistakes, thankfully the worst ones. But the structural assumptions that the Cuban model was built on still allowed for some similar errors to occur. It is good that we broadly agree on many of the policy mistakes during that time period, but I think it's also important to recognize particular features of the structure which (1) allowed these problems to manifest and (2) allowed them to become such a problem.

I don't endorse the "Big man" version of history, but I also don't endorse a version of history where we can ignore the individual either. The party and Stalin alike both had critical flaws that led to the problems of Stalinism. And it's also not at all a question as to whether or not Stalin was at the "apex" of the pyramid, and that his political critics faced a very visceral and existential danger to their lives even if he was not always the one directly responsible for instituting various economic policies or political purges. Anyone who was critical of these flaws could get sent to prison, exiled, executed, or booted from the party as counter-revolutionaries, etc, and this still happens in countries led by "Communist Parties". It doesn't even need to be at the behest of the leader. (http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=25669)Granted, Esteban Morales was not put in jail or killed, but he was still purged from the party unjustly because the system still operates in accordance with Cold-War style state socialism. I don't think Fidel Castro consciously designed Cuba with that in mind, but it's certainly the result of policies which he contributed to instituting. Of course, he was only following the dominant paradigms of the time (as much as any leader be they revolutionary or otherwise) but that paradigm itself still contained terrible flaws.

[manic expression]

Not all Communists thought this way-Lenin legalized it after all, and there were people who disagreed with Stalin on it.
Sure, it was legalized, but was there a general outburst of indignation when it was reversed? Again, I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying it was a representation of the movement as it was at the time...unfortunate but true.


As I replied to Rafiq, it is true that the religious institutions often existed within a reactionary or conservative culture, but it still doesn't justify the extent of the repression. The fact is, Stalin persecuted Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Muslims alike to an extent which only (a) caused religious people around the world to mistrust domestic Communist movements (b) alienated religious proletarians at home and (c) punished religious figures who may or may not have actually been actively politically reactionary. I think one can and should try to make priests/imams/monks etc and the religious workers alike more socially progressive without resorting to the kinds of tactics that Stalin did, not only because they are impractical but because I think that they are also immoral.Hold up one second. "The extent of the repression" was greatly because of the extent of the counterrevolutionary sentiment of religious institutions. And religious people around the world already mistrusted communism...anyway, by the 60's and 70's, many catholics in Latin America formed a strong ally of progressive forces, so I don't think you can say there was some universal decline in religious people supporting communism because of Stalin.

Of course, Stalin was quite strongly persuasive, to put it nicely, when it came to such matters, but the Soviet Union was trying to do in a few years what most modern societies had centuries to accomplish: secularization. 200 years on, we respect the efforts of the French Revolution to remove the influence of religion from French society, and they were arguably less courteous than Stalin was in the same process.


I don't have a problem with him using faith to bring soldiers out to fight during WWII and build nationalism, although I wonder how much he favored particular churches over others. There's a reason religious narratives exist, and as a seminarian he probably understood their purpose quite well.Not sure I can say much about that, haven't read enough about it.


Perhaps you're right about the environment and Lysenko, although I was under the impression that he contributed to the virgin lands program which led to a dust bowl. On a different topic though, the existence of Lysenkism does indicate that the authoritarianism in Stalin's USSR produced very serious inefficiencies in the nation's sciences.The Virgin Lands Campaign, IIRC, was Khrushchev's brainchild. It had great successes in the first year or so and then it went awry. At any rate, sure, I'll grant you that Lysenkism was absurd and its influence was due to the meddling of the CP in scientific affairs...but the USSR did send the first man to outer space in the history of mankind, which shows that the sciences were doing OK overall.


As for environmentalism, it was a much earlier movement. Marx mentions sustainable forestry being better managed by the collective than private interests, and John Muir lived in the 19th century. Many other environmentalists were coming up at that time too around the world. Just because it wasn't a major theme of Worker's Parties around the world, it doesn't mean nobody was talking about it. And the negative effects of large scale industrialization had been known for some time.We could go back to the Diggers and the Levelers in that case...but what I'm saying is that the US National Park system was just getting started at the time, and the USSR had to industrialize or die (basically)...and more generally human footprints weren't fully understood. Only later in the century did we get a full picture of the deterioration of the environment, and only later than that were policies enacted to do something about it. The USSR was hardly exceptional in what it was doing (unfortunate, perhaps, but that's what it was).


Cuba avoided the perils of forced collectivization, but it still made some of the same old mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_ProductionAgain, LGBT rights were not valued so highly in the revolutionary left at the time...nor anywhere else, for that matter. It was years before any LGBT movement actually formed. Once voices for homosexual rights became higher and clearer in Cuba, the government did an about-face, which I think shows a remarkable willingness to admit mistakes and remedy them.

But yes, it was deplorable and wrong. However, let's at least be honest with the way the movement was before getting all high and mighty. The latent homophobia that still pervades anarchist circles has the luxury of not being judged by history because they've never been in charge of anything since the 30's.


Castro is not Stalin of course, and Cuba is not Russia. He did avoid many of the mistakes, thankfully the worst ones. But the structural assumptions that the Cuban model was built on still allowed for some similar errors to occur. It is good that we broadly agree on many of the policy mistakes during that time period, but I think it's also important to recognize particular features of the structure which (1) allowed these problems to manifest and (2) allowed them to become such a problem.That's fair...but it's also a matter of what the structure faces in front of it. Had the Soviet Union not had a fascist Germany sitting on its front lawn, it would likely have acted differently. Had the Soviet Union been a halfway-industrialized country in 1921, it would inevitably have acted differently.


I don't endorse the "Big man" version of history, but I also don't endorse a version of history where we can ignore the individual either. The party and Stalin alike both had critical flaws that led to the problems of Stalinism. And it's also not at all a question as to whether or not Stalin was at the "apex" of the pyramid, and that his political critics faced a very visceral and existential danger to their lives even if he was not always the one directly responsible for instituting various economic policies or political purges. Anyone who was critical of these flaws could get sent to prison, exiled, executed, or booted from the party as counter-revolutionaries, etc, and this still happens in countries led by "Communist Parties". It doesn't even need to be at the behest of the leader. (http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=25669)Granted, Esteban Morales was not put in jail or killed, but he was still purged from the party unjustly because the system still operates in accordance with Cold-War style state socialism. I don't think Fidel Castro consciously designed Cuba with that in mind, but it's certainly the result of policies which he contributed to instituting. Of course, he was only following the dominant paradigms of the time (as much as any leader be they revolutionary or otherwise) but that paradigm itself still contained terrible flaws.Morales broke party discipline when he denounced the party in public. That would get you kicked out of any serious communist party on the face of the planet. He's still allowed to participate in Cuban politics, just not as a member of the PCC.

[Forward Union]

(3) He was incredibly brutal towards a variety of national minorities after WWII-many like the Chechens and Tatars died in large numbers getting deported to Siberia. There's no materialistic reason to morally blame an entire ethnic group and punish them unconditionally, and such blunt state repression has no place in a Leftist society. I've seen some say these groups sided with the Nazis, but provide no materialist analysis of (a) why some sided with the Nazis, (b) why Stalin punished members who fought in the Red Army and neutral civilians alongside alleged "traitors", and (c) why it was a bad idea to pursue even "moderately" humane policies regarding these groups.


While I completely agree with you, I thought I would explain the Crimean Tartar thing a bit. Because Crimea, was actually home to a Bizare Germanic kingdom called Theodoro, in the 1300s. The Crimean Tartars consider themselves the descendants of the Gothic tribes in Crimea (amongst other groups. The Goths used to fight the Tartars, but apparently integrated at some point), and Hitler had plans to rename Crimea "Gothia" and rebuild the old Gothic cities, with a superhighway from Berlin to Theotoro itself, some German linguists suggested that a Crimean Gothic Dialect may even have survived as a 'hausprach' in the region until 1945 (!). Soviet ethnologist Vozgrin said that "n all probability the [Crimean Goths'] decendents are the tartars of a series of villages in the Crimea, who are sharply deliniated from the inhabitants of neighboring villages by their tall height and other features characteristic of Scandinavians"

The Tartars were keen to work with the invading Nazis to undermine the Soviet military during the battles in the Crimean Peninsula. This lead to victimisation of the entire ethnic group as well as other Germanic peoples in Easter Europe (such as the Vilamovians) - they were deported to avoid disruption. An absolutely barbaric act, but one with a material explanation. These things would have happened without Stalin.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sure, it was legalized, but was there a general outburst of indignation when it was reversed? Again, I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying it was a representation of the movement as it was at the time...unfortunate but true.


According to Wiki, some international communists did denounce it. But you're right that clearly the Communist movement in general, not just Stalin, left much to be desired.



Hold up one second. "The extent of the repression" was greatly because of the extent of the counterrevolutionary sentiment of religious institutions. And religious people around the world already mistrusted communism...anyway, by the 60's and 70's, many catholics in Latin America formed a strong ally of progressive forces, so I don't think you can say there was some universal decline in religious people supporting communism because of Stalin.

Of course, Stalin was quite strongly persuasive, to put it nicely, when it came to such matters, but the Soviet Union was trying to do in a few years what most modern societies had centuries to accomplish: secularization. 200 years on, we respect the efforts of the French Revolution to remove the influence of religion from French society, and they were arguably less courteous than Stalin was in the same process.
Part of the problem with this viewpoint is that it implies a necessary, linear model of development where society needs to destroy religious institutions to a certain degree to develop. I don't think the USSR needed to forcefully secularize to modernize. Certainly many of the most "modernized" countries in the world today are incredibly religious. I think the issue of material modernization has more to do with the positive aspect of technological and scientific training than the negative aspect of attacking institutions which sanction metaphysical, idealist or even superstitious beliefs. You are right to say that some nations like the UK and France probably benefited from secularization, but many of the most successful Capitalist countries today are quite religious too, such as South Korea, the USA, and Qatar. India, Thailand and Iran are growing too despite the relative strength of religious institutions.

So I don't think Stalin needed to pursue the policies he did in this area to modernize the country. Even if one can see why some Socialists thought they might have needed to pursue such policies, IE the fact that religious institutions promote conservative or even reactionary cultural values in certain circumstances, we also can, in hindsight, see that there are more effective ways of dealing with that than the ones pursued by the USSR at the time. Even if the lamas, bishops, monks and imams were preaching overly conservative or reactionary ideas in certain areas, we must understand that this is because their institutions come out of an era of false consciousness.

As for the impact of anti-clericalism, it is true that religious people already mistrusted Communism, but historical experiences only added to that fear. There are examples well into the 60s of Catholics persecuting communists (or alleged communists) in places like Mexico, for instance. The Church was divided between liberation theologians and conservatives who were terrified of anything lefter than Richard Nixon.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131335/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canoa_%28film%29 (based on a true story, its an interesting movie to say the least)



The Virgin Lands Campaign, IIRC, was Khrushchev's brainchild. It had great successes in the first year or so and then it went awry. At any rate, sure, I'll grant you that Lysenkism was absurd and its influence was due to the meddling of the CP in scientific affairs...but the USSR did send the first man to outer space in the history of mankind, which shows that the sciences were doing OK overall.This is true-the USSR achieved great scientific strides in a short time, and it was certainly objectively no worse than the USA which had its own inefficiencies.



We could go back to the Diggers and the Levelers in that case...but what I'm saying is that the US National Park system was just getting started at the time, and the USSR had to industrialize or die (basically)...and more generally human footprints weren't fully understood. Only later in the century did we get a full picture of the deterioration of the environment, and only later than that were policies enacted to do something about it. The USSR was hardly exceptional in what it was doing (unfortunate, perhaps, but that's what it was).
I think this is a more legitimate argument than for his religious policies because there is a clearer correlation between rapid industrialization and environmental destruction, but I still don't necessarily think the USSR needed to do the extent of damage it did to develop as much as it did. In my own mind, this is a problem with Stalin's mindset-he and other leaders in the USSR wanted to develop the economic power of the State as quickly as possible, everything else be damned. There was certainly some justification behind such a policy, but the extent he took it to was too great.

I also feel that, though Stalin obviously has no individual blame as he was dead, he did create a system which is highly sclerotic and cumbersome and as such even when the environmental movement got bigger in the 70s it didn't seem like it really had any impact on the decision making of the party leaders.



Again, LGBT rights were not valued so highly in the revolutionary left at the time...nor anywhere else, for that matter. It was years before any LGBT movement actually formed. Once voices for homosexual rights became higher and clearer in Cuba, the government did an about-face, which I think shows a remarkable willingness to admit mistakes and remedy them.
This is true, and to Castro's credit he has shown a willingness to admit political mistakes in a way that I haven't seen from other leaders from the Cold-War era ML tradition. But I think some of these errors might have their origin in some of the core lines of thought endemic to that tradition (just like the mistakes of Anarchists, Trots, Maoists, even liberals/capitalists), though in saying that I'm not claiming to offer all the answers as to precisely what those systemic causes may be.



Morales broke party discipline when he denounced the party in public. That would get you kicked out of any serious communist party on the face of the planet. He's still allowed to participate in Cuban politics, just not as a member of the PCC.I think that's one of my problems with the party model held by the "Orthodox" Left. If the party can fire you when you are whistleblowing on systemic party problems which need reform and public critique, you have a problem. The inability to hold a proper public debate on the way the party makes its decisions certainly seems to be the root of many mistakes made in the USSR during Stalin's rule. Policies like that damage party transparency and legitimacy, and allow harmful policies to expand and corrode the system. Party members will misuse their membership to gang up on those who expose their mistakes and corruption to the public. This is one of my criticisms of the modern model in the CCP and other modern countries claiming to be "Marxist Leninist"-their particular version of ML is as likely to offer the "conditions of its own negation" as Capitalism. It doesn't seem to be quite as bad in Cuba, but its still there

Now, I could understand why a party might have policies like that when it is fighting a civil war or after it has ruled a country for only a short period of time, but after a while there needs to be less forced centralization on the party members because such policies protect the corruption which Mr Morales was trying to talk about.


While I completely agree with you, I thought I would explain the Crimean Tartar thing a bit. Because Crimea, was actually home to a Bizare Germanic kingdom called Theodoro, in the 1300s. The Crimean Tartars consider themselves the descendants of the Gothic tribes in Crimea (amongst other groups. The Goths used to fight the Tartars, but apparently integrated at some point), and Hitler had plans to rename Crimea "Gothia" and rebuild the old Gothic cities, with a superhighway from Berlin to Theotoro itself, some German linguists suggested that a Crimean Gothic Dialect may even have survived as a 'hausprach' in the region until 1945 (!). Soviet ethnologist Vozgrin said that "n all probability the [Crimean Goths'] decendents are the tartars of a series of villages in the Crimea, who are sharply deliniated from the inhabitants of neighboring villages by their tall height and other features characteristic of Scandinavians"

The Tartars were keen to work with the invading Nazis to undermine the Soviet military during the battles in the Crimean Peninsula. This lead to victimisation of the entire ethnic group as well as other Germanic peoples in Easter Europe (such as the Vilamovians) - they were deported to avoid disruption. An absolutely barbaric act, but one with a material explanation. These things would have happened without Stalin.

Interesting, I didn't actually know this. I know the Cossacks were pro-fascist but I hadn't heard that about the Tatars. Anyhow, there may be a reasonable historical context, but I don't necessarily see it as a policy which is, in substance, any better than American internment of Japanese etc, except that the American internment system was more preemptive.

[Forward Union]

Cossacks were pro-fascist but I hadn't heard that about the Tatars. Anyhow, there may be a reasonable historical context, but I don't necessarily see it as a policy which is, in substance, any better than American internment of Japanese etc, except that the American internment system was more preemptive.

I'm not sure the Tartars were pro-fascist as a group, but as they were associated with Germanic peoples on ethnological grounds, and had a history of racial tension with the Ukranian settlers in Crimea. The Nazis set up "tartar national committees" which were used to undermine Soviet war efforts in Crimea, infiltrate the rear of the Red army etc. Because the Soviets couldn't distinguish between collaborators and civillians, they decided to deport them all out of Crimea while the conflict was ongoing [1] (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html) I'm not sure if, like the German Menonites in Crimea and Ukraine, they were also land owners. It's possible, perhaps likely. But the irony is that Hitler would have done away with the Tartars himself if he had managed to hold Crimea. I find the Tartar history, culture and language very interesting actually - a bizarre mix of east and west, a Turkic people with Germanic words so old their etymology is hard to trace, like Razn for "wooden beams".

Anyway the Ukrainian Menonites weren't really a problem for Stalin because Makhno dealt with them in advance.

[Struggle]

I agree that Stalin certainly made many mistakes, but a lot of the criticism I feel is based on assumption. Fidel probably knows no more than any other historian about Stalin. I also question whether purging the military was a mistake.

I believe, there must have been a serious reason for the Central Committee of the Soviet Union to authorize the purge of the military – otherwise, they would never have done so. It is easy to talk about purging the military being a mistake – but how do you know it was a mistake if the potential threat was suppressed and never allowed to show what would have occurred on behalf of the military otherwise?

I think it is ironic because, I feel if there had been a coup on behalf of the military had the Central Committee not purged the military, history would probably be judging Stalin and others in a negative way precisely because they didn’t purge the military.

[Rafiq]

Excuse me, it's not dishonest, and I'm well aware of the fact that religious institutions have misused their power in history. Of course religious institutions in reactionary societies develop reactionary beliefs and institutions, but demolishing cultural artifacts, banning religious institutions and imprisoning religious figures is no way to reform them or encourage the masses in general to hold more "enlightened" views. To Castro's credit, current Cuban policy towards the Catholic church and Santeria, for instance, is far more enlightened than Stalin's policies towards all religions in the USSR-Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Shamanism alike. The left can acknowledge the presence of reactionary beliefs in religion and pushing to reform the culture without taking a culturally insensitive and anti-pluralistic approach.

I will oppose the Bourgeois state that is the USSR, however, criticizing them for being "too harsh on religion" is the same as criticizing them for being to harsh on Nazi war criminals. Something I will not do.

Can you get this clear through your head? People were allowed to practice whatever they chose to, as long as it didn't interfere with others. The churches, mosques, and temples were treated just like the houses of Capitalists, Plutocrats, ect.

I hope you know on this website we are not too fond with Cultural conservativism, by the way. I see no reason why any culture should be preserved, since every culture is a product of the mode of production that of which is surrounding it. Socialism, or whatever the solution to capitalism is, will bring new cultures, better cultures.



Anyways, considering the CPSU became increasingly corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive under Stalin, the charge of autocratic behavior cuts both ways. For instance, Stalin's aforementioned ban on homosexuality or abortion was no less socially tyrannical than the Church's attempt to ban those same policies, but Stalin justified it by saying it was "bourgeois" not "sinful".



Well thank you, I'm well aware that Stalin was a representative of the Red Bourgeoisie, however, why don't you wrap this up and smoke it: Stalin allowed the Bourgeois Church to freely operate, along with the rest of the religious cult structures.

If anything I criticize that ^

Clearly a leader of the proletariat wouldn't allow for such to occure.

I rest my case.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I will oppose the Bourgeois state that is the USSR, however, criticizing them for being "too harsh on religion" is the same as criticizing them for being to harsh on Nazi war criminals. Something I will not do.

Monks and priests should be treated the same way as Nazis :confused: it's this kind of mindset that retarded the development of Communism in places like Latin America with a large but very religious proletariat. Should Martin Luther King Jr have been given the same treatment as Eichmann, simply because he was a Christian priest?



Can you get this clear through your head? People were allowed to practice whatever they chose to, as long as it didn't interfere with others. The churches, mosques, and temples were treated just like the houses of Capitalists, Plutocrats, ect.
Having a church, mosque or temple doesn't interfere with others. There are plenty of houses of worship where I live, but they have never "imposed" anything on me. However, if a bunch of angry atheists go with a bulldozer to demolish their community center, then those atheists are imposing something on the religious. As long as churches are not exploiting labor, imposing conservative cultural values through the law, or using the pulpit to defend or empower political reactionaries, they are in no way comparable to the "houses of Capitalists, Plutocrats etc".



I hope you know on this website we are not too fond with Cultural conservativism, by the way. I see no reason why any culture should be preserved, since every culture is a product of the mode of production that of which is surrounding it. Socialism, or whatever the solution to capitalism is, will bring new cultures, better cultures.
Cultural conservatism=/=a belief in cultural self determination. If Buddhist, Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities want to maintain monasteries, synagogues, churches and mosques for themselves, out of their own volition, there is no reason why the government should come in and destroy them.

Socialism might bring "better" cultures (whatever the fuck that means, cultural positivism is just as harmful as cultural conservatism), but cultural change should be an organic process not some paternalistic diktat imposed by an arrogant bureaucrat. If Christians abandon their churches, it should be of their own volition and not because the central government decided on their behalf to demolish those structures. If Christians see their Church as valuable to them, then it is wrong to decide on their behalf that their faith is worthless.



Well thank you, I'm well aware that Stalin was a representative of the Red Bourgeoisie, however, why don't you wrap this up and smoke it: Stalin allowed the Bourgeois Church to freely operate, along with the rest of the religious cult structures.

If anything I criticize that ^

Clearly a leader of the proletariat wouldn't allow for such to occure.

I rest my case.He demolished Buddhist monasteries, burned their texts and sent their monks to gulags, that's not allowing them to operate. He only went back after WWII and allowed religious institutions to reopen because the conditions which made them popular still existed. A leader of the proletariat, who is actually listening to authentically religious proletarians, would allow legitimately apolitical "religious cult structures" to continue. This is where liberation theologians offer useful contributions to the question of religion-they don't just dismiss it as pointless idealism that serves no social or personal/existential function.

[KurtFF8]

(Shouldn't this be in the history sub-forum? Considering it is about a historical subject and the interview itself took place back in 1992)

[Rafiq]

Socialism might bring "better" cultures (whatever the fuck that means, cultural positivism is just as harmful as cultural conservatism),

He demolished Buddhist monasteries, burned their texts and sent their monks to gulags, that's not allowing them to operate. He only went back after WWII and allowed religious institutions to reopen because the conditions which made them popular still existed. A leader of the proletariat, who is actually listening to authentically religious proletarians, would allow legitimately apolitical "religious cult structures" to continue. This is where liberation theologians offer useful contributions to the question of religion-they don't just dismiss it as pointless idealism that serves no social or personal/existential function.


Oh Damn, you are an Idealist.

Don't you realize cultures are nothing more than social constructions? nobody is asserting we should send in the tanks, of course if societies want, they could form communities and do whatever, however, it is most likely going to be rare, uncommon, and unattractive to most people.

How the fuck do you define culture? Because, hell, the culture, from where I have been (Middle East, USA, etc.) has changed a shit load, since fuedalism and or colonialism.

"Boo hoo he demolished buddhist monostaries", I'm not believing your bullshit, remember what they said about those oh so poor monks in tibet? Turned out they were a bunch of pedos and child rapists, slavers and reactionary fucks.

Maybe you should look up why those institutions were so heavily repressed, com-rade.

[manic expression]

Having a church, mosque or temple doesn't interfere with others. There are plenty of houses of worship where I live, but they have never "imposed" anything on me. However, if a bunch of angry atheists go with a bulldozer to demolish their community center, then those atheists are imposing something on the religious. As long as churches are not exploiting labor, imposing conservative cultural values through the law, or using the pulpit to defend or empower political reactionaries, they are in no way comparable to the "houses of Capitalists, Plutocrats etc".
I know what you're saying...but let me put it this way. Instead of you living near "houses of worship"...what if those same institutions had been actively part of an ultra-reactionary monarchy just a few months ago? Would that change the way you saw them?

In other words, you probably live in a society that is already, to a great extent (at least compared to 1917 Russia), secularized. The Bolsheviks, Stalin included, did not have that luxury. That's what colored much of the Soviet view towards organized religion in the 20's and 30's, and contributed to the heavy hand they used. It's fine if you disagree with the policies, but we should at least understand the background of it all.


He demolished Buddhist monasteries, burned their texts and sent their monks to gulags, that's not allowing them to operate. He only went back after WWII and allowed religious institutions to reopen because the conditions which made them popular still existed. A leader of the proletariat, who is actually listening to authentically religious proletarians, would allow legitimately apolitical "religious cult structures" to continue.
If you ask me, that's overly determinist. A leader of the proletariat doesn't inevitably, automatically do this or that when it comes to something like religion, IMO. Being determines consciousness, but decisions can be made within that consciousness...if that makes sense.

[Sir Comradical]

Having a church, mosque or temple doesn't interfere with others. There are plenty of houses of worship where I live, but they have never "imposed" anything on me. However, if a bunch of angry atheists go with a bulldozer to demolish their community center, then those atheists are imposing something on the religious. As long as churches are not exploiting labor, imposing conservative cultural values through the law, or using the pulpit to defend or empower political reactionaries, they are in no way comparable to the "houses of Capitalists, Plutocrats etc".

Religious institutions in backward countries are very much political institutions and therefore must be crushed. In Afghanistan on the eve of the April revolution, there were 30,000 proletarianised workers and 250,000 mullahs of the extremist kind. In Greece the Orthodox Church continues to own 1/3rd of all agricultural land, they still to this day don't pay tax and their priests are given state incomes. In India Hindu fanatics go on rampages murdering muslims & low caste people and they do so with the full support of influential religious leaders. The Russian empire was no different and the Soviet government was merely taking out the trash. I agree that bulldozing religious buildings is wrong, especially when they can be turned into warehouses.

[Robocommie]

I agree that bulldozing religious buildings is wrong, especially when they can be turned into warehouses.

Yeah, paternalistic "they must be crushed" anti-theist morons like yourselves are really going to help things out in places like Afghanistan. Certainly nothing is going to undermine those extremist mullahs, who rally people by claiming their religion is under attack, like simply attacking their religion outright. :rolleyes:

Why give a fuck about the rights of people to practice a religion or non-religion of their choice, in peace, when instead you can be an ultra-leftist hard man and make enemies needlessly at the same time?

[S.Artesian]

And when their religion says: women can't work; women shouldn't be educated; being seen with a man other than a relative is a crime...........? what then?

I mean, the thing that drove the mullahs to organize armed resistance to the pop-front Afghan government was when that government decreed equal education for females.

When their religion says women are prohibited from terminating a pregnancy?

Am I concentrating too much on women? Yeah, well maybe that's because, IMO, all religion is based on the subjugation of women.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And when their religion says: women can't work; women shouldn't be educated; being seen with a man other than a relative is a crime...........? what then?

I mean, the thing that drove the mullahs to organize armed resistance to the pop-front Afghan government was when that government decreed equal education for females.

When their religion says women are prohibited from terminating a pregnancy?


Education is a superior response, for ethical and practical reasons. Of course they believe reactionary things, they were all raised in a remote, very rural, tribal society. You can't change that at gunpoint on behalf of "the people" because "the people" believe such things because of their social/historical context, not just because some "eeeevil" mullah is tricking them with his metaphysics. If religious people are committing actual crimes based on their beliefs, then arrest them for those actual crimes. Don't just assume that they will all end up committing such crimes in defense of their reactionary beliefs, otherwise you are liable to overreach and cause even more blow-back. You can give people the freedom to be a Mullah, this doesn't mean you can't later arrest him for beating up girls who go to school or women who work.



Am I concentrating too much on women? Yeah, well maybe that's because, IMO, all religion is based on the subjugation of women.What do you base that on? :confused: That's a huge over-generalization. There are any number of reasons why religion exists, it's more than just a little reductionist to assume the repression of women was the only one.

[S.Artesian]

Quote:
Am I concentrating too much on women? Yeah, well maybe that's because, IMO, all religion is based on the subjugation of women.
What do you base that on? :confused: That's a huge over-generalization. There are any number of reasons why religion exists, it's more than just a little reductionist to assume the repression of women was the only one.You think? Ummh......look at the status of women in the major religions of the world, the practical, social treatment of women, throughout history, where these religions dominated without the secular opposition generated by a demand for women in the social labor force.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism.... you know that for Orthodox Jews, of course, women are "unclean" because they menstruate, and consequently, touching a woman's hand during a commercial transaction-- like if a teenage woman buys something and attempts to pay directly, the shopkeeper will point to the counter and tell her to leave the money there, as she may be menstruating?

Christianity, Islam? Any better? How about Hinduism? Buddhism? Tough to reconcile egalitarianism of those beliefs with the practice of female infanticide isn't it?

Doesn't mean you automatically go in and blow up mosques and cathedrals, but only a fool isn't prepared to do just that when the reaction starts.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I didn't say religion wasn't used to justify sexism, just that it's absurd to say that it is the main basis of religion. Blaming the sexism of society on the religion or religious sexism on society alike is a chicken or egg argument. You're making a weak argument by correlation, it's much more complicated than just saying "Well, religious societies have reactionary values, therefore religion must necessarily be the cause."

Clearly, religions often encourage reactionary values. But it's not like the reactionary values within the religion were invented by the prophets out of nothing either, or were merely accepted by the religious because they happen to be stupid or credulous people. Religions often function as a way to pass values on from one generation to another, and in that respect they will act as a conduit for a variety of beliefs, including some reactionary ones but also including some which may be perfectly radical, too.

Consider the fact that some religions, ie Buddhism do not place much if any emphasis on the superiority of one gender over the other, for instance. Other religions, especially pagan religions, had matriarchal systems or matriarchal and patriarchal systems existing side by side. Meanwhile, philosophers like Confucius and Aristotle created perfectly secular sexist structures. So it's not like religion is necessarily sexist and secularism isn't.

[S.Artesian]

How many fucking pagan religions are practiced by what percentage of the population of the world?

Come on, get real. You don't think sexual repression, degrading women, controlling women is fundamental to the major religions of the world? Then you haven't been paying attention.

Besides, let's get back to Fidel's apology for Stalin dressed up in his acknowledging of "mistakes."

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How many fucking pagan religions are practiced by what percentage of the population of the world?


Um, enough to be worth mentioning? There are tens of millions of tribals in India (and some low-castes perhaps), Southeast Asia, other parts of Asia like Siberia, Africa, and the Americas. Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism too adopted elements of local ethnic religions and perpetuated their practices too.

I don't know why a Marxist of all people would take such a dismissive tone towards some of the most socioeconomically isolated and peripheral people.


Come on, get real. You don't think sexual repression, degrading women, controlling women is fundamental to the major religions of the world? Then you haven't been paying attention.
I'd like to see your theological argument behind Buddhism being based on the oppression of women. Or is Buddhism not a major world religion? Anyways, the fact that religious texts contain gender chauvinism does not mean that it isn't the "Base" of religions as you stated, or as you state here a "fundamental" feature. Is gender repression frequent within religion? Of course, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing that religion does, or that any religious person will necessarily be more sexist than they otherwise would have been were they not religious.

You are operating with a highly reductionist notion of what religion is. I don't know where you get your idea, except maybe some broad generalizations. Religion is much more complicated of a phenomena than you are presenting it.

[Tim Finnegan]

And when their religion says: women can't work; women shouldn't be educated; being seen with a man other than a relative is a crime...........? what then?

I mean, the thing that drove the mullahs to organize armed resistance to the pop-front Afghan government was when that government decreed equal education for females.

When their religion says women are prohibited from terminating a pregnancy?

Am I concentrating too much on women? Yeah, well maybe that's because, IMO, all religion is based on the subjugation of women.
I would re-phrase that as "all established religion is based on the protection of the status quo", which allows rather more nuance, while still acknowledging the undeniable role of religion in sustaining patriarchy. Reducing it down to "religion = patriarchy" is an unfair slight against those denominations that genuinely do pursue egalitarian, or at least relatively egalitarian gender politics, while at the same time going altogether too easy on those denominations (which are, at least at present, a large majority) who also turn their hand to the defence of racial supremacy, class society, the state, and so and so forth. Religious institutions are, first and foremost, ideological institutions, so its only to be expected that they reproduced the hegemonic ideology in all respects.

Perhaps your position is based on the role of religion in oppressing women in the First World, where it has lost most of its social function apart from a bastion of patriarchy? (Although, even then, I think its important to take into account the religious persecution and suppression of queer people of all genders.) [Edit: Not that I'm trying to suggest some provincialism on your part, of course, I'm just wondering if perhaps a higher exposure to one particular facet of religions role as a legitimiser of the status quo has overshadowed other facets which are less significant in your direct experience.]

[S.Artesian]

My position is based on the role of religion throughout history including that of the Greeks and Romans which held women to be inferior.

Would you call Hinduism a "first world" religion? How do you rate it on the egalitarian scale?

You consider Islam to be a "first world" religion?


There's only one world. The notion of different "worlds" is nonsense.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

My position is based on the role of religion throughout history including that of the Greeks and Romans which held women to be inferior.


This sounds a little Eurocentric. Even if the Greeks and the Romans wee the place to start such an analysis, what makes you think that religion was the cause of Greek and Roman sexism? Surely, it contributed, or perpetuated it, but it was not the origin. On the contrary, the material and social conditions in general of ancient Greece were the origins, the religion merely reflected and internalized those conditions. As I pointed out, Aristotle had perfectly secular reasons for why women were inferior, while on the other hand religion was on a few occasions one of the few places in these ancient societies where women could often find an amount of social power in the role of priestesses, etc.



Would you call Hinduism a "first world" religion? How do you rate it on the egalitarian scale?
Hinduism is arguably the world's most diverse religion. Some Hindus and Hindu texts are very chauvinist, some are less so and others not at all. So establishing any one particular level of "gender egalitarianism" in Hindu religion is impossible.



You consider Islam to be a "first world" religion?
Islam is a diverse religion too, not all sects are as focused on gender issues as others. In fact Islam probably represented progress for women in some areas.

I'd be more worried about Salafi Islam, or other hardline political and social philosophies than Islam in general.



There's only one world. The notion of different "worlds" is nonsense.There's only "one world" when you've educated yourself about how other people in other parts of the world live differently, and why they do. Until then, there's only your little world which you assume also accurately describes everyone else out there. Knowing that all people on some level are similar is no excuse for such a broad reductionism.


You also haven't shown how Buddhism represses women. I'd like to see this, because this is a very radical argument you're making that all major world religions are based on sexism. If Buddhism was based on the imposition of a patriarchal system on society, this would be a breakthrough on scholarship on the Buddhist religion and you should offer it up. Otherwise, perhaps you should stop saying it is the "base" of or "fundamental" to "major world religions".

[S.Artesian]

This sounds a little Eurocentric. Even if the Greeks and the Romans wee the place to start such an analysis, what makes you think that religion was the cause of Greek and Roman sexism?

First, it just flat out ignorance to call consideration of the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome "eurocentrism" since there was no notion of Europe at that time. You are referring to a social construct of Europe, not its geographic one, and such a social construction did not exist in those times.

Secondly, where did I ever say any religion was the cause of sexism. I said they were organized around the subjugation of women, mechanisms for suppressing women; they functioned as part of those mechanisms. But I never said any religion caused sexism. More than a mere technical detail, no?




Surely, it contributed, or perpetuated it, but it was not the origin. On the contrary, the material and social conditions in general of ancient Greece were the origins, the religion merely reflected and internalized those conditions. As I pointed out, Aristotle had perfectly secular reasons for why women were inferior, while on the other hand religion was on a few occasions one of the few places in these ancient societies where women could often find an amount of social power in the role of priestesses, etc.No shit. However, since I never claimed religion caused sexism, irrelevant.


Hinduism is arguably the world's most diverse religion. Some Hindus and Hindu texts are very chauvinist, some are less so and others not at all. So establishing any one particular level of "gender egalitarianism" in Hindu religion is impossible.Religion is not texts. The criticism of religion is not the criticism of texts. How are women treated in and by the social role that religion plays in the reproduction of the society?


Islam is a diverse religion too, not all sects are as focused on gender issues as others. In fact Islam probably represented progress for women in some areas.See above.



There's only "one world" when you've educated yourself about how other people in other parts of the world live differently, and why they do. Until then, there's only your little world which you assume also accurately describes everyone else out there. Knowing that all people on some level are similar is no excuse for such a broad reductionism.
What does this have to do with anything? Completely irrelevant. Says nothing about the modern, ideological constructions of "first world, second world, third world." Not to put too fine a point on it.



You also haven't shown how Buddhism represses women. I'd like to see this, because this is a very radical argument you're making that all major world religions are based on sexism. If Buddhism was based on the imposition of a patriarchal system on society, this would be a breakthrough on scholarship on the Buddhist religion and you should offer it up. Otherwise, perhaps you should stop saying it is the "base" of or "fundamental" to "major world religions".OK, until I dig up the evidence, subjugation of women it fundamental to the major world religions, with the exception of Buddhism which is currently under investigation. How's that?

Can we go back to Fidel and Stalin now and perhaps you can tell us how Fidel's welcoming the pope back to Cuba was a step forward and not an accommodation to an institution that, while NOT CAUSING, slavery certain facilitated, participated in modern slavery, protect fascists and Nazis, has been an enemy of working class revolution since the 19th century, was and remains a major financial operation and landlord... etc. etc. You know all that stuff that has to do with class struggle.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

First, it just flat out ignorance to call consideration of the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome "eurocentrism" since there was no notion of Europe at that time. You are referring to a social construct of Europe, not its geographic one, and such a social construction did not exist in those times.

Secondly, where did I ever say any religion was the cause of sexism. I said they were organized around the subjugation of women, mechanisms for suppressing women; they functioned as part of those mechanisms. But I never said any religion caused sexism. More than a mere technical detail, no?


I think starting with the consideration of Greece and Rome is eurocentric not because Greece and Rome were a part of the "West" at the time the way "Westerners" think about it, but because the traditional view of European scholars is to see Greece and Rome as the quintessential civilizations and the start of all reasonable analysis.

As for your second point, you said sexism is the "base" of religion. You didn't really explain in any detail what you meant by that statement. Anyways, no religion was not organized around the subjugation of women either. Again, it may be a feature of some or most religions to varying degrees, but it's not necessarily a feature of all religions and it occurs differently in all faiths, and it's not something which is a static feature of the religion either.



Religion is not texts. The criticism of religion is not the criticism of texts. How are women treated in and by the social role that religion plays in the reproduction of the society?
Religion is more than just textual or oral information, sure, but it's an essential part of the topic. As for the second part of the question, I already answered that-it depends on the Hindus in question. For instance, traditionally Tantric Hinduism is much more egalitarian, which can be seen in such figures as the 19th Century Bengali saint Ramakrishna. On the other hand, traditional Brahminical Hindus can be quite misogynistic.



OK, until I dig up the evidence, subjugation of women it fundamental to the major world religions, with the exception of Buddhism which is currently under investigation. How's that?
Except Buddhism isn't the only religion that does not see the oppression of women as fundamental. Buddhism was only a particularly good example of a religion which did not focus theologically on gender normative differences (although patriarchal structures can be found to varying degrees in some Buddhist sects too, depending on local social conditions, just as much as any institution). Jainism suffered a sectarian divide over whether women could be ordained as Sadhus, and post-reformation protestant Christianity has been moving towards gender equality for some time. Some Muslim women too who don't feel at all like their religion is necessarily patriarchal and live perfectly liberated lives as women Muslims. It all depends on various social, regional and historical contexts. It is important to view the gender relations, among other things, of various religions in a historical, textual and social context all at once. Making blanket statements like "religion is based on sexism" or whatever isn't particularly thoughtful analysis.



Can we go back to Fidel and Stalin now and perhaps you can tell us how Fidel's welcoming the pope back to Cuba was a step forward and not an accommodation to an institution that, while NOT CAUSING, slavery certain facilitated, participated in modern slavery, protect fascists and Nazis, has been an enemy of working class revolution since the 19th century, was and remains a major financial operation and landlord... etc. etc. You know all that stuff that has to do with class struggle.You, me and Fidel all know what the Catholic church has done historically, but many in the Catholic community might not. It is a much better idea to educate the people on the actions of the Church and have them make up their own mind about whether they want to continue in the Church or not. If they still want to be Catholic knowing all that, then there is probably something that you don't understand which keeps them bound to that tradition. Deciding for the Catholic working class "on their behalf" that their religion is reprehensible and then forcing this decision upon them won't change their views, it will simply make a large portion feel even more sympathy with their church. Nor will it do anything at all to help bring the hundreds of millions of deeply Catholic working class people outside of Cuba towards the Communist movement. Repression of religion just causes discontent and mistrust towards the State.

You also fail to acknowledge the possibility of religious institutions being reformed, just like any other institution out there. If religions absorb the sexist values of their society and perpetuate them, there's really no reason to think that the reverse isn't also true, that it can absorb egalitarian notions too.

[Tim Finnegan]

My position is based on the role of religion throughout history including that of the Greeks and Romans which held women to be inferior.

Would you call Hinduism a "first world" religion? How do you rate it on the egalitarian scale?

You consider Islam to be a "first world" religion?


There's only one world. The notion of different "worlds" is nonsense.
Well, firstly, I was just using the colloquial terminology, not offering some sub-Maoist delineations. Inaccurate, granted, but hardly the core of my point.
Secondly, I wasn't suggesting that non-Western religions were particularly gender egalitarian, but that their role as the ideological buttress of the status quo was not limited to patriarchy; just look at Indian, were the Hindu establishment has long played a role in defending the caste system, and of defending the subjugation of indigenous regional populations. The defence of patriarchy may be the one commonality that "core" and "peripheral" (if that's any better?) religious institutions have, but I think that says more about the poor record of the core regions in advancing gender egalitarianism, than any unique relationship that patriarchy has with religious institutions, or of any intrinsic characteristic of religious practice.
Established (or quasi-established) religious institutions, as the ideological megaphones of the ruling class, will embody every form of oppression upon which that class bases itself. Patriachy is not unique in that regard, it's simply the breed of oppression which seems to be the most widely and deeply embedded in human society, and as such the hardest to shift.

[S.Artesian]

You, me and Fidel all know what the Catholic church has done historically, but many in the Catholic community might not. It is a much better idea to educate the people on the actions of the Church and have them make up their own mind about whether they want to continue in the Church or not. If they still want to be Catholic knowing all that, then there is probably something that you don't understand which keeps them bound to that tradition. Deciding for the Catholic working class "on their behalf" that their religion is reprehensible and then forcing this decision upon them won't change their views, it will simply make a large portion feel even more sympathy with their church. Nor will it do anything at all to help bring the hundreds of millions of deeply Catholic working class people outside of Cuba towards the Communist movement. Repression of religion just causes discontent and mistrust towards the State.

You also fail to acknowledge the possibility of religious institutions being reformed, just like any other institution out there. If religions absorb the sexist values of their society and perpetuate them, there's really no reason to think that the reverse isn't also true, that it can absorb egalitarian notions too.

I'll deal with this, because the other parts of your post are just subjectivist or relativist baloney---"Some Muslim women too who don't feel at all like their religion is necessarily patriarchal and live perfectly liberated lives as women Muslims." --- boy, that's a beaut.


It is a much better idea to educate the people on the actions of the Church and have them make up their own mind about whether they want to continue in the Church or not.

This is idealist nonsense. A) You don't know if anyone is being "educated on the actions of the Church" B) You can certainly educate people about the actions of the Church without inviting the pope to preach a sermon on the dignity of man while he represents an institution that has willfully participated in and protect child abuse, slavery, etc C) The "opening to the Church" was taken for specific material reasons under specific material conditions-- political and economic reasons. Had nothing to do with educating anybody... as a matter of fact the "embracing" the pope, allowing him credence as something other than what he is is an act of gross social mis-education.

Right. I do not believe religions can be reformed. I don't think "liberation theology" offers any future etc etc etc.

And your last statement about "absorbing sexist values"-- these values don't infiltrate religion by osmosis-- they represent necessary components of religion as a social organization, and as a mechanism for accumulating wealth.. as a racket.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'll deal with this, because the other parts of your post are just subjectivist or relativist baloney---"Some Muslim women too who don't feel at all like their religion is necessarily patriarchal and live perfectly liberated lives as women Muslims." --- boy, that's a beaut.


Wow, what a convenient way to dismiss an argument. The point is that you are painting with a broad brush, and you can't defend these overly broad generalizations you are making. If you disagree with the idea that religion is not a culturally or personally relative phenomenon it would be nice to see an argument. And if you want to make the claim that Islam and especially Hinduism don't posses different practices between various regions or sects, again, that would be a fairly significant claim that does not fit with reality. I would rather have Sufis deciding women's policy than Salafis, for instance, and I already mentioned the distinction between Brahminical Hindus and more heterodox sects like Tantrics.



This is idealist nonsense. A) You don't know if anyone is being "educated on the actions of the Church" B) You can certainly educate people about the actions of the Church without inviting the pope to preach a sermon on the dignity of man while he represents an institution that has willfully participated in and protect child abuse, slavery, etc C) The "opening to the Church" was taken for specific material reasons under specific material conditions-- political and economic reasons. Had nothing to do with educating anybody... as a matter of fact the "embracing" the pope, allowing him credence as something other than what he is is an act of gross social mis-education.


I did not say his trip had anything to do with teaching. What I was saying was that education separate from the religious institutions can teach the history, and then people can chose of their own volition to go see the Pope when he visits. Cuba has a secular education system separate from the seminaries and church pulpits to offer a contrasting narrative from the Catholic one, and in that context the Pope can visit Cuba. Then people can make up their own minds.



Right. I do not believe religions can be reformed. I don't think "liberation theology" offers any future etc etc etc.

And your last statement about "absorbing sexist values"-- these values don't infiltrate religion by osmosis-- they represent necessary components of religion as a social organization, and as a mechanism for accumulating wealth.. as a racket.

You failed to prove either of these statements. As I've said, there's no reason to believe that sexism is a necessary part of religion any more than any other set of social values are a necessary part of religion, and there's no reason to believe that you cannot have a religion that mostly or categorically rejects the necessity of gender roles.

As for your lack of a belief in the notion that religions can be reformed, there is really no reason to think this either. History proves this argument wrong, considering religious institutions have changed substantially in the past 500 years. They abandon values and adopt new ones all of the time.