Stalin's Accomplishments

[B0LSHEVIK]

Im no Stalinoid, but his list of achievements is rather impressive. Top three off the top of my head:

1) Like it or not, Stalin stabilized the USSR. But in a twisted way, like Napoleon in 1799.

2) Vast industrialization and technological progress, at the expense of workers.

3) Again, like it or not, was the supreme commander against Hitler's wermacht. Big, big, very big accomplishment.

Are there any other ones I'm overlooking? Overestimating?

[thesadmafioso]

1) He only did so through co opting the industrialization policy of the Left Opposition, and in an incredibly blunt fashion at that. Had it been undertaken by those behind its formation, it surely would of been far less plagued by bureaucratic blunder and sheer blunt violence. We must not forget that this era was also associated with the murderous purges of Stalin, which according to official figures, figures which are almost certainly underestimates, led to over 600,000 executions and 1,500,000 imprisonments in the period between 1937-1938 alone. It is a massive understatement to compare the internal policy of Stalin to the relatively mild political suppression which characterized Napoleon's rule.

2) Once more, this would of been accomplished in a much more humane and effective manner if the policy of the Left Opposition had been allowed to be implemented by its creators, who would of focused on moving socialism forward without any deviations towards nationalism, personal power, or senseless political terror.

3) Stalin's incompetence led to the deaths of over 27 million Soviet citizens in the war. Of course, it cannot be said that this is entirely his fault if we consider WWII to be an unavoidable event, but his disastrous military strategy certainly didn't help reduce casualties any. If he had the foresight to crush fascism in its cradle, as Trotsky would have, this was a conflict which could of likely been avoided in its entirety. Had Stalin not clung so desperately to his nationalistic tendencies in the form of his policy of 'socialism in one country', fascism could of been defeated by a popular front of the SDP of Germany and the communists. Instead of doing this, Stalin actually allied himself with the German fascists in their efforts to assail the SDP, something I would hardly consider anti fascist. It also could of been smashed in Spain, leading to the creation of another revolutionary state in Europe. Even before this, if Stalin's horribly flawed approach to foreign policy could of been scraped in relation to the struggle in China circa 1927, it is very likely a socialist revolution along the lines of the Bolshevik Revolution could of come to power, further altering the shift of geopolitical power across the globe.

It should also not be forgotten that Stalin's ineptitude and unwillingness to heed intelligence reports warning him of Operation Barbarossa caused massive setbacks in the early stages of the war, as did his purges of much of the professional officers corps in the Red Army. He also initially did away with the proven structure of joint command between officers and political commissars, which only weakened the effectiveness of the Red Army in the opening of the war further.

So I would hardly say that Stalin is really worthy of praise in regards to his job combating fascism.


All in all, I would have to say that you are severely overestimating the so called 'achievements' of Stalin, many of which are either falsely attributed to him or are simply a fabrication.

[Aleenik]

To add to thesadmafioso's list.

4) He also made Communism look bad. He is a large part of the reason why when people think of Communism they think of a totalitarian society. His disgrace to the name of Communism can not and should not be forgotten. We all know the USSR wasn't Communist of course, but the misunderstanding of what Communism actually is, yes, has a lot to do with Capitalism, but it also has to do with people like Stalin.

[Nox]

- Greatest economic achievement in history (five year plans).
- Greatest agricultural achievement in history (collectivisation).
- Turned the USSR from a backward country into a world superpower.
- His industrialisation was a huge factor in the defeat of the Nazis.
- Added huge areas of Eastern Europe and the Balkans to the Soviet sphere of influence after WW2.

I can find some more for you if you'd like.

[The Man]

1) He only did so through co opting the industrialization policy of the Left Opposition, and in an incredibly blunt fashion at that. Had it been undertaken by those behind its formation, it surely would of been far less plagued by bureaucratic blunder and sheer blunt violence. We must not forget that this era was also associated with the murderous purges of Stalin, which according to official figures, figures which are almost certainly underestimates, led to over 600,000 executions and 1,500,000 imprisonments in the period between 1937-1938 alone. It is a massive understatement to compare the internal policy of Stalin to the relatively mild political suppression which characterized Napoleon's rule.

2) Once more, this would of been accomplished in a much more humane and effective manner if the policy of the Left Opposition had been allowed to be implemented by its creators, who would of focused on moving socialism forward without any deviations towards nationalism, personal power, or senseless political terror.

3) Stalin's incompetence led to the deaths of over 27 million Soviet citizens in the war. Of course, it cannot be said that this is entirely his fault if we consider WWII to be an unavoidable event, but his disastrous military strategy certainly didn't help reduce casualties any. If he had the foresight to crush fascism in its cradle, as Trotsky would have, this was a conflict which could of likely been avoided in its entirety. Had Stalin not clung so desperately to his nationalistic tendencies in the form of his policy of 'socialism in one country', fascism could of been defeated by a popular front of the SDP of Germany and the communists. Instead of doing this, Stalin actually allied himself with the German fascists in their efforts to assail the SDP, something I would hardly consider anti fascist. It also could of been smashed in Spain, leading to the creation of another revolutionary state in Europe. Even before this, if Stalin's horribly flawed approach to foreign policy could of been scraped in relation to the struggle in China circa 1927, it is very likely a socialist revolution along the lines of the Bolshevik Revolution could of come to power, further altering the shift of geopolitical power across the globe.

It should also not be forgotten that Stalin's ineptitude and unwillingness to heed intelligence reports warning him of Operation Barbarossa caused massive setbacks in the early stages of the war, as did his purges of much of the professional officers corps in the Red Army. He also initially did away with the proven structure of joint command between officers and political commissars, which only weakened the effectiveness of the Red Army in the opening of the war further.

So I would hardly say that Stalin is really worthy of praise in regards to his job combating fascism.


All in all, I would have to say that you are severely overestimating the so called 'achievements' of Stalin, many of which are either falsely attributed to him or are simply a fabrication.

Oh, you became a trottie. :laugh:...

Here are some achievements:

1) Attempted to create a Secret ballot democracy in the USSR
2) Defeated Nazis
3) Purged 650,000 traitors
4) Freedom of Religion in the USSR
5) Brought forth Lenin's ideas
6) Attempted to abolish the post of 'General-Secretary'

[Aleenik]

Oh, you became a trottie. :laugh:...

Here are some achievements:

1) Attempted to create a Secret ballot democracy in the USSR
2) Defeated Nazis
3) Purged 650,000 traitors
4) Freedom of Religion in the USSR
5) Brought forth Lenin's ideas
6) Attempted to abolish the post of 'General-Secretary'I find it sick that people consider 3) a positive. Don't agree with us? Watch out. We'll use scare tactics, put you in prison, a labor camp or kill you. Or any combination of those things. Yep, totally a positive. Not.

[The Man]

I find it sick that people consider 3) a positive. Don't agree with us? Watch out we might put you in a labor camp or kill you. Yep, totally a positive. Not.

Your not considering the material conditions of the society in the USSR. You must realize what Stalin, and the USSR was up against. Imperialism, Traitors (Such as Trotskyists who created Anti-Soviet propaganda in an attempt to defame them, and make them look evil.), Capitalism, and Fascism (Starting in 1939, I'm guessing his paranoia started.) I'm sure that if you had the entire world against you, and militaries were miles away from your capital ready to invade your country, and destroy it's foundations, you would be paranoid as well.

I'm surprised no one has brought up my favorite argument of 'Shtawlin killed 150 millun peoplez in Yokerainz!!!111"

[thesadmafioso]

Oh, you became a trottie. :laugh:...

Here are some achievements:

1) Attempted to create a Secret ballot democracy in the USSR
2) Defeated Nazis
3) Purged 650,000 traitors
4) Freedom of Religion in the USSR
5) Brought forth Lenin's ideas
6) Attempted to abolish the post of 'General-Secretary'

1) And given the atmosphere of absolute fear and chaos which he bred, how legitimate would this ballot even of been?

2) I already touched on this in great detail, he only did so after he passed up numerous opportunities to defeat Nazism in its early stages of growth.

3) You honestly consider the hundreds of thousands, likely millions, victims of Stalin to all of been traitors? How is that even possible? These figures are staggering to a point where you cannot simply write them all as being composed entirely of 'traitors'. That is nothing more than a crude vulgarization of history. This is just absolute nonsense and hardly warrants any serious consideration as a point of any validity.

4) Only in conjunction with a state sanctioned surge in nationalism which was used to bolster the war effort of the CCCP, and even then it was still incredibly preferential to the orthodox Russian church. Stalin still oversaw mass deportations of ethnic and religious groups as he saw fit and without any substantive justification. Perhaps you will recall the deportations of the tartar's, wherein the very people being deported at Stalin's order were proclaiming their unbridled admiration for his brilliance? Or maybe the physical Jewish state which Stalin had considered creating in central Asia.

I don't know if I would necessarily consider that to be 'freedom of religion'.

5) Stalin purged and murdered most all of Lenin's former associates, dismantled his NEP and the culture fostered by it, abandoned internationalism in the place of a theory of his own nationalistic mind, and wrecked the structure of the original Bolshevik party by replacing the robust system of democratic centralism with bureaucratic centralism. Most all of the policy pursued by Stalin had little to do with Lenin's ideas and often times it contradicted these ideas outright.

6) A rather futile and nominal move, given all of the effort which went into the construction of his personal cult of personality. His clout, at the point in time when he proposed this move, would not be stifled by this symbolic gesture.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, whoever you want didn't acheive anything outside of theoretical or political proposals/ideas. No single political figure can take credit for something a whole society did, like industrialization and collectivization or the defeat of German imperialism. Thus it is incorrect to say "Stalin did this and that, blah blah blah." What happened to materialist history? We should not be debating like bourgeois "great men" historians.

[thesadmafioso]

- Greatest economic achievement in history (five year plans).
- Greatest agricultural achievement in history (collectivisation).
- Turned the USSR from a backward country into a world superpower.
- His industrialisation was a huge factor in the defeat of the Nazis.
- Added huge areas of Eastern Europe and the Balkans to the Soviet sphere of influence after WW2.

I can find some more for you if you'd like.

Perhaps you should thank Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev for laying out the original plan of industrialization in their platform of opposition then? Oh wait, your beloved leader murdered them, didn't he?

This progress would of been achieved by these individuals if not for Stalin's violent intrusion, and it would of done so in a manner which would of been free of the bureaucratic hell fostered by Stalin and his blunt approach in its implementation. Perhaps without the forced labor camps relying upon political prisoners even.

And the Eastern Bloc pales in comparison to the thought of worldwide socialist revolution, something which would of received a much greater degree of support had Trotsky not been purged from the party, exiled, and then later murdered by an agent of the GPU.

[Per Levy]

Your not considering the material conditions of the society in the USSR. You must realize what Stalin, and the USSR was up against. Imperialism, Traitors (Such as Trotskyists who created Anti-Soviet propaganda in an attempt to defame them, and make them look evil.), Capitalism, and Fascism (Starting in 1939, I'm guessing his paranoia started.) I'm sure that if you had the entire world against you, and militaries were miles away from your capital ready to invade your country, and destroy it's foundations, you would be paranoid as well.

so that justifies the murder of over 650000 people many of whom were communists who fought in the russian civil war on the bolshevik side? oh "stalin was paranoid so its absoloutly fine to purge the bolshevik party". and of course trotskyists are all evil traitors who must be murdered. the purges in soviet russia(they didnt end there, spain comes to mind) are not to be celebrated. really, the man, you were much cooler when you were a syndicalist, and not so full of shit.

[Rooster]

Most of these things can be compared to the industrialisation and concentration of capital, including it's disregard for human cost. The same disregard that capital showed. The only thing that can be said to be an achievement is the concentration of control of production into the hands of a state to the extent that's never been seen before. The same concentration of power eventually ended up with restoration of capitalist relations proper. These list lack context and content.



3) You honestly consider the hundreds of thousands, likely millions, victims of Stalin to all of been traitors? How is that even possible? These figures are staggering to a point where you cannot simply write them all as being composed entirely of 'traitors'. That is nothing more than a crude vulgarization of history. This is just absolute nonsense and hardly warrants any serious consideration as a point of any validity.

It's also ridiculous that all of these people, many of whom were involved with the revolution, who worked hard to maintain it and fought in the civil war to defend it, could have been secretly plotting to carve up the USSR for the imperialists.

[Geiseric]

This thread has been done over and over. stalin did everything he did to keep the beuracracy in power, and to make sure he wasn't executed by the capitalists and fascists for being a communist leader. It was all done with little to no regard for the workers contrary to the industrialisation's initial planning. He and the 3rd international sold out thousands of foreign communists. War Communism was over and there was no reason for his rediculous demonstrations of power

[CHE with an AK]

It's disheartening that I can read the same anti-Stalinist arguments made by Glenn Beck - on a "revolutionary leftist" site featuring a hammer and sickle in the title bar.


:confused:

[mykittyhasaboner]

It's disheartening that I can read the same anti-Stalinist arguments made by Glenn Beck - on a "revolutionary leftist" site featuring a hammer and sickle in the title bar.

Please point out the arguments made here and then quote or link to Beck making the same arguments. i'm aware that some people criticize Stalin and the CCCP on here in a similar fashion, yet at the same time, some people criticize Stalin from a standpoint which at least i think is legitimate.

[thesadmafioso]

It's disheartening that I can read the same anti-Stalinist arguments made by Glenn Beck - on a "revolutionary leftist" site featuring a hammer and sickle in the title bar.


:confused:

Yeah, he is sort of a pillar of the anarcho-trotskyist conspiracy.

Seriously though, I was not aware that Glenn Beck supports internationalist socialist revolution and democratic centralism. I almost find that to be a bit out of character for someone of his political tendencies.

[Kosakk]

- Greatest economic achievement in history (five year plans).
- Greatest agricultural achievement in history (collectivisation).
- Turned the USSR from a backward country into a world superpower.
- His industrialisation was a huge factor in the defeat of the Nazis.
- Added huge areas of Eastern Europe and the Balkans to the Soviet sphere of influence after WW2.

I can find some more for you if you'd like.

- Greatest agricultural achievement in history (collectivisation).
- The agriculture in the USSR was a disaster.
In 1982, the agricultural output only covered 1/3 of what was expected in the 5 year plan for that period.

- His industrialisation was a huge factor in the defeat of the Nazis.
- How come the USSR needed the Land-Lease Act? Cause the US gave the USSR alot of equipment. Which was mainly used for deportations though.

[ColonelCossack]

Just so long as no one thinks he killed something ridiculous like 20 million people. He didn't. That would almost certainly have sparked a revolution at least by 1945, and even with its huge oil reserves the USSR would never have become the major superpower that it did.

[CHE with an AK]

Please point out the arguments made here and then quote or link to Beck making the same arguments.

...


sheer blunt violence.


over 600,000 executions and 1,500,000 imprisonments


senseless political terror.


Stalin's incompetence led to the deaths of over 27 million Soviet citizens in the war.


scare tactics, put you in prison, a labor camp or kill you.


The agriculture in the USSR was a disaster.

Word for word examples would take some time to track down, but the tone and terminology of parts of this propaganda Beck clip - matches the above ...

s88cfJjvFwY

[Rafiq]

Those things would have occurred regardless if Stalin was dead six feet under or still leader of the bolshevik party. The material conditions of Russia in 1924 (Isolated workers state) manifested the material conditions experienced by Stalin in the 1930's.

Stalin, on the other hand, symbolizes these experiences and conditions, and therefore is praised by many nationalists and Marxist Leninists.

I refuse to go by the whole "Everything was fine and Stalin screwed it up" line, because it's complete bullshit. Stalin was not an asshole for no reason. The USSR was doomed to a dark destiny regardless of whether he was around or not.

[thesadmafioso]

...

















Word for word examples would take some time to track down, but the tone and terminology of parts of this propaganda Beck clip - matches the above ...


s88cfJjvFwY

You do realize that I was citing direct figures on executions and imprisonments which came from official soviet records, right? I wasn't using some statistics I pulled off of Glenn Becks now defunct show.

So are we to criticize the Soviet Union under Stalin as being comparable to Glenn beck now? After all, according to your line of reasoning, their records support what Beck is saying.

[Kosakk]

...













Word for word examples would take some time to track down, but the tone and terminology of parts of this propaganda Beck clip - matches the above ...

s88cfJjvFwY


you missed "In 1982, the agricultural output only covered 1/3 of what was expected in the 5 year plan for that period." in your qoute of my post …

And that's from the book "1983" by Danish historian Rasmus Dahlberg.

I can agree I jumped to a conclussion with "The agriculture in the USSR was a disaster." without backing it up.

But, do you have any arguments against it?

[Gustav HK]

2) I already touched on this in great detail, he only did so after he passed up numerous opportunities to defeat Nazism in its early stages of growth.


What opportunities? AFAIK the SPD wasn´t pretty much open to collaboration with the KPD.



4) Or maybe the physical Jewish state which Stalin had considered creating in central Asia.


How is that bad? I haven´t heard of mass deportations of jews to the JAO.
Maybe it wasn´t the best place, but it certainly wasn´t anti-semitic.



5) Stalin purged and murdered most all of Lenin's former associates, dismantled his NEP and the culture fostered by it, abandoned internationalism in the place of a theory of his own nationalistic mind, and wrecked the structure of the original Bolshevik party by replacing the robust system of democratic centralism with bureaucratic centralism. Most all of the policy pursued by Stalin had little to do with Lenin's ideas and often times it contradicted these ideas outright.


Wait are you criticizing Stalin for ending NEP? But didn´t Trotsky want to end it already in 1924?

No, he didn´t abandon internationalism.

But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. - Stalin in "The Foundations of Leninism" http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm

How did he destroy democratic centralism?

How did his ideas contradict Lenins? Maybe you are thinking of Trotsky, not Stalin :{p

[thesadmafioso]

What opportunities? AFAIK the SPD wasn´t pretty much open to collaboration with the KPD.



How is that bad? I haven´t heard of mass deportations of jews to the JAO.
Maybe it wasn´t the best place, but it certainly wasn´t anti-semitic.



Wait are you criticizing Stalin for ending NEP? But didn´t Trotsky want to end it already in 1924?

No, he didn´t abandon internationalism.

But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. - Stalin in "The Foundations of Leninism" http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm

How did he destroy democratic centralism?

How did his ideas contradict Lenins? Maybe you are thinking of Trotsky, not Stalin :{p

The SPD may not of been entirely open to complete cooperation with the German communists, but that does not justify the unequivocal position of opposition which Stalin adopted. Political cooperation with them still could of created a massive barricade to the fascists and their rise to power.

As for the Jewish question, the very existence of that plan shows the biased and unbalanced nature of Stalin's supposed support for 'freedom of religion'. I never said that it was actually implemented to its original intent, just that it showed inequalities between the various religious elements of Soviet society.

Trotsky was a major architect of many of the components of the NEP, meaning he didn't want to dismantle it in the fashion which Stalin did. Though he did see the need for revision to many of its economic aspects as it was implemented and he witnessed certain imbalances in its progress.

I have already gone over in detail the manner in which Stalin abandoned internationalism, but you seem to of ignored all of the examples which I raised in that post.

He destroyed democratic centralism by abolishing the viability of open discourse in the party, by forcefully removing key figures of opposition to his rule from the political process, and eventually by purging any and all perceived threats to his personal dictatorship over the party.

The political course plotted by Stalin is in direct contradiction with the ideals of Lenin for all of the aforementioned reasons. He abandoned the party model and code of revolutionary conduct laid out by Lenin, democratic centralism, and he forsook the significance of internationalism to maintaining the course socialism in the Soviet Union.

[Nox]

- Greatest agricultural achievement in history (collectivisation).
- The agriculture in the USSR was a disaster.
In 1982, the agricultural output only covered 1/3 of what was expected in the 5 year plan for that period.

Stalin wasn't in power then, that was after the revisionist swine took over. After Stalin collectivised the agriculture, the grain yield doubled with roughly the same land area being used, in the space of a few years.


- His industrialisation was a huge factor in the defeat of the Nazis.
- How come the USSR needed the Land-Lease Act? Cause the US gave the USSR alot of equipment. Which was mainly used for deportations though.

Doesn't change anything, the USSR would have been destroyed if it weren't for his industrialisation, and his key decision to spread industry across the whole country not just in the west.

[Geiseric]

I don't think it was destined to shit, if it wasn't for Stalinist third international, the world revolution would have been won! So we can directly blame stalinism for what happened.

[Delenda Carthago]

His biggest achievement is that 60 years after his death, he is the #1 subject in any revolutionary converstation.

[B0LSHEVIK]

How come the USSR needed the Land-Lease Act? Cause the US gave the USSR alot of equipment.

Land-lease wasnt really a big factor until after Stalingrad in 43. And even then, it was the UK who gave the most war material.

[Gustav HK]

I don't think it was destined to shit, if it wasn't for Stalinist third international, the world revolution would have been won!

How? By Trotsky´s magic powers?

[Gustav HK]

He destroyed democratic centralism by abolishing the viability of open discourse in the party, by forcefully removing key figures of opposition to his rule from the political process, and eventually by purging any and all perceived threats to his personal dictatorship over the party.


Wasn´t Trotsky given freedom to speak out about his viewpoints under the debate in the 20ies?
Trotsky lost this debate, only a minority supported him, but he began to make his own faction, and thus broke the rules of AUCP(B).

Stalin did not have any "personal dictatorship" over the Party. The purges were against people who were a threat to the Party and the proletarian dictatorship.

[thesadmafioso]

Wasn´t Trotsky given freedom to speak out about his viewpoints under the debate in the 20ies?
Trotsky lost this debate, only a minority supported him, but he began to make his own faction, and thus broke the rules of AUCP(B).

Stalin did not have any "personal dictatorship" over the Party. The purges were against people who were a threat to the Party and the proletarian dictatorship.

Stalin manipulated the grounds upon Trotsky was allowed to speak freely to a great extent, and he worked quite extensively to lessen his ability to have any say in the course of the political direction of the party. He was feed misinformation by Stalin on a regular basis, even on the matter of the details behind Lenin's funeral, in a clever move which prevented Trotsky from being in attendance. This is but one of many examples which display the cold and brutally conniving approach which was taken by Stalin in the name of his own self glorification. Trotsky actually had a rather large base of popular support, it is just that much of it was purged from the party in the 20's and was replaced by new members which were admitted only as loyal adherents of Stalin. Had his political allies not been so meticulously repressed by Stalin and his endless scheming, he would not of one absolute leadership of the party.

That is absolute nonsense, you cannot tell me that the primary leaders of the original Bolshevik party were all a threat to the party and elements of counter revolution. As I pointed out previously, the massive scope of Stalin's purges simply do not allow for you to make this sort of fault ridden comment. The climate of the purges was one of mass hysteria, where thousands of individuals were convicted and tried of crimes for no apparent reason. Torture is quite good at getting false confessions too, I imagine.

[Gustav HK]

Yezhov and a lot of NKVD functionaries were punished for convicting innocents.


Not all of the "Old Bolsheviks" were sentenced to death or punishment under Stalin. Many died before (not because of Stalin), and some, like Kollontai, died a long time after.

[Gustav HK]

After the Great purges, that is.

[ColonelCossack]

You do realize that I was citing direct figures on executions and imprisonments which came from official soviet records, right?

Did you go to russia and look at them with your own eyes? Or did someone on TV tell you that the shit they were sprouting as from official soviet records? :glare:

[thesadmafioso]

Yezhov and a lot of NKVD functionaries were punished for convicting innocents.


Not all of the "Old Bolsheviks" were sentenced to death or punishment under Stalin. Many died before (not because of Stalin), and some, like Kollontai, died a long time after.

I never said that none of them survived the terrors of Stalin, just that many key figures did not. Namely Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and of course Trotsky. And don't fret over trying to defame their names with a bunch of revisionist history or what have you, I don't much feel like going into a detailed analysis of Stalin's show trials of the 1930's.

Just the fact that you have to phrase that sentence in that manner should raise some alarms though. "Well, at least Stalin didn't kill off all of the original Bolsheviks. Some died before he got the chance to, and a few were so non threatening that he didn't bother."

Not exactly an argument that I would consider compelling, really.


Did you go to russia and look at them with your own eyes? Or did someone on TV tell you that the shit they were sprouting as from official soviet records? :glare:

I got them out of a relatively unbiased book on the history of communism and I'm quite sure that the author probably looked at some official records in the process of compiling research for his book, as is a relatively standard norm when writing a history. But that is an infantile question regardless, it is not as if one has to empirically observe something for it to be true or for it to exist.

[Iron Felix]

It's futile to argue for Stalinism if you call yourself a communist. The Stalinist counter-revolution is a big part of why communism failed in the last century. Stalin's blunders during World War II lead to millions of unneccary deaths. Not only that, but he did nothing to stop the rise of fascism, but what's worse is that he helped Hitler purge Germany and Poland of communists. He sent hundreds of thousands of communists to their deaths, how can this be forgiven? He murdered most of the Bolsheviks from Lenin's time. And I'm not just talking about the famous old Bolsheviks, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Radek, Rykov, Rakovsky, Bukharin, Pyatkov, et cetera et cetera, but there were thousands more, thousands of anti-Stalinists that he murdered. How about the Spanish Civil War? Stalin purged Spain of communists and anarchists whom he denounced as treacherous trotskyites, leaving only feeble Stalinists who were unable to compete with Franco. If it wasn't for Stalin, the left would have won. He didn't even help with weapons, tanks, airplanes, he sold them at outrageous prices and basically confiscated the Republican treasury. What about the Chinese Civil War? His orders almost cost the communists victory.

Stalin's goal was to contain communism within the Soviet Union, otherwise his theory of Socialism in One Country would fail. To me, Stalin is not a communist. His policies took the power from the workers and invested it in the hands of bureaucracy, which was just another elite class. I don't know how you can classify him as a communist at all. The same is true with Mao to an extent, although his version of Stalinism is different but is as far away from communism as is Stalinism.

[North Star]

Stalin's victory in WWII was his most impressive accomplishment. On the issue of industrialization, let face the fact that other backward nations have industrialized rapidly. Rapid industrialization does not equal socialism. Let's look at South Korea, Japan. Though the command economies of Vietnam and China laid the basis for their economic growth, their greatest development was using market forces.

[ColonelCossack]

I got them out of a relatively unbiased book on the history of communism and I'm quite sure that the author probably looked at some official records in the process of compiling research for his book, as is a relatively standard norm when writing a history. But that is an infantile question regardless, it is not as if one has to empirically observe something for it to be true or for it to exist.

OK jeez man just asking

no need to be so edgy

anyway I wasn't really being serious :p

[thesadmafioso]

OK jeez man just asking

no need to be so edgy

anyway I wasn't really being serious :p

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be so abrupt. I'm not the best at reading sarcasm over the internet, at times.

[ColonelCossack]

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be so abrupt. I'm not the best at reading sarcasm over the internet, at times.

nah, it's cool. They smile on you.

[Geiseric]

The warrior king on india will not be threatened by aliens! WW2 Was won by the soviet people from their blood, not Stalin's brilliant military tactics! Shit, he let the nazis as close as halfway through poland.

[Nox]

Stalin's victory in WWII was his most impressive accomplishment. On the issue of industrialization, let face the fact that other backward nations have industrialized rapidly. Rapid industrialization does not equal socialism. Let's look at South Korea, Japan. Though the command economies of Vietnam and China laid the basis for their economic growth, their greatest development was using market forces.

That is true, but in one 5-year plan we're talking about growth of 200% and 300% in most if not all sectors of industry, and even 400+% growth in fields such as Electricity.

[CHE with an AK]

(Stalin) did nothing to stop the rise of fascism
This deserves a golden chutzpah award.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o284/mistytigergirl/Just%20Pics/Trophy.gif

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yezhov and a lot of NKVD functionaries were punished for convicting innocents.


Not all of the "Old Bolsheviks" were sentenced to death or punishment under Stalin. Many died before (not because of Stalin), and some, like Kollontai, died a long time after.


Not all. Only 1,100 of the 1,900 deputies of the 1934 Congress suffered in the purges.

Fucking moron, shit argument.:rolleyes:

[DarkPast]

That is true, but in one 5-year plan we're talking about growth of 200% and 300% in most if not all sectors of industry, and even 400+% growth in fields such as Electricity.

Percentages can be decieving. Much better would be a numerical comparison with contemporary countries of similar size. By numerical, I mean the raw numbers; percentages can be decieving - if there were very few factories then building even one new factory will register as a large percentage. For example, Montenegro managed to infinitely increase its industrial output just after WW2 - because it had no factories at all before the war. :)

[Gustav HK]

The purges were made by the whole Party-state apparatus, you could say by the whole people. It was not Stalins doing alone.

I believe that the historian J. Arch Getty remarked that the initiative to the purges wasn´t even taken by Stalin.
Com. Ismail knows more.

[thesadmafioso]

The purges were made by the whole Party-state apparatus, you could say by the whole people. It was not Stalins doing alone.

I believe that the historian J. Arch Getty remarked that the initiative to the purges wasn´t even taken by Stalin.
Com. Ismail knows more.

That's absolute revisionist history, Stalin as at the head of the push for the purges regardless of who officially suggested the measure. The whole of the Soviet people did not desire the sort of horrific political repression which was brought down upon them by Stalin's deformed bureaucratic state. If they had been allowed the political freedom of speech on matters of the politics of the party and had they not been coerced into adopting the line of Stalin, his rule would of been without a foundation entirely.

While I agree that it is dangerous to fall into the tendencies of bourgeois historical analysis and fall back on the great men of history sort of routine, Stalin still represented a movement in the party structure that led the Bolshevik Revolution down a path fraught with regression. Obviously certain conditions existed which should not of that led to his rise, but critique of Stalin can be implied to double as a critique of the shift in direction of which he was the leading figurehead.

[Gustav HK]

Didn´t the purges actually target the bureucracy?

Again, Yezhov and a lot of NKVD functionaries were punished for convicting innocents.

[Gustav HK]

Stalin said later to A.S. Yakovlev, "Yezhov was a rat; in 1938 he killed many innocent people. We shot him for that"

[thesadmafioso]

Didn´t the purges actually target the bureucracy?

Again, Yezhov and a lot of NKVD functionaries were punished for convicting innocents.

I suppose when bureaucrats failed to live up to the random figures for the 5 year plans which Stalin pulled out of thin air that they may of been targeted in some instances. But when you look at the absolutely staggering figures of imprisonments and executions, even using the official soviet records, it's hard to imagine that any facet of society was left entirely untouched.

Yeah, Stalin made a common tendency out of purging the very people he sent off to carry out his own policy. There are many comparable such stories out there. Just off the top of my head, I can recall a leading figure in the NKVD who was sent to Spain to break up the Anarchist and "Trotskyist" elements of the popular front against Franco who was purged upon returning to the Soviet Union. It was a fairly standard procedure of operation.

[Iron Felix]

Stalin's victory in WWII was his most impressive accomplishment. On the issue of industrialization, let face the fact that other backward nations have industrialized rapidly. Rapid industrialization does not equal socialism. Let's look at South Korea, Japan. Though the command economies of Vietnam and China laid the basis for their economic growth, their greatest development was using market forces.
WWII was won despite Stalin's policies. Because of Stalin we maybe lost an additional 20 million lifes. Stalin's conduct of the war was disastrous. We can argue about this more if you wish.


I suppose when bureaucrats failed to live up to the random figures for the 5 year plans which Stalin pulled out of thin air that they may of been targeted in some instances. But when you look at the absolutely staggering figures of imprisonments and executions, even using the official soviet records, it's hard to imagine that any facet of society was left entirely untouched.

Yeah, Stalin made a common tendency out of purging the very people he sent off to carry out his own policy. There are many comparable such stories out there. Just off the top of my head, I can recall a leading figure in the NKVD who was sent to Spain to break up the Anarchist and "Trotskyist" elements of the popular front against Franco who was purged upon returning to the Soviet Union. It was a fairly standard procedure of operation.
The Purges were began by Lenin in by '21. The point was to rid the Party of members that joined the Bolsheviks when their victory was certain, these were mostly members of the upper classes prior to the revolution. About 200,000 members were purged, but this meant only that they were expelled from the Party. No imprisonment, no torture, no executions. No other penalties other than expulsion from the party. This was done to prevent a counter-revolution from within the Party, although that came later on under the guise of Stalinism. Stalin's purges though, they were nothing but Stalin murdering any possible opponents. Stalin had no intention to give the people any freedom. This lead to millions of deaths, of innocent people. Of true communists.

And yes, Stalin later purged the ones who conducted his purges for him. Yagoda began the executions on Stalin's orders, when he accumilated too much power, Stalin had him and 3,000 of his NVKD supporters shot. Yagoda was replaced by Yezhov, who began the most brutal phase of Stalin's purges. When Yagoda accumilated too much power, he suffered the same fate. He was replaced by Beria, who probably poisoned Stalin as Stalin was planning to purge every remaining old Bolshevik, Beria, Mikoyan, Molotov etc, etc. When Stalin suffered a "stroke", Beria didn't allow for a doctor to be called for 12 hours. At the time, Stalin's personal physician was being tortued by the NVKD because he suggested that Stalin's poor health required him to rest more in bed. And someone dares praise this man?

What's ironic is that both Yezhov and Yagoda were executed by the same officer, a favorite of Stalin. Vasili Blokhin. This man executed tens of thousands of people with his own hands. His most famous act is the murder of 7,000 Polish PoWs with his own hands after Stalin's invasion of Poland. Under Stalin's secret order, for 28 straight nights, he shot 7,000 men in the skulll.




This deserves a golden chutzpah award.


Do you disagree? What did Stalin do when the Nazis came to power in Germany? He appeased Hitler by helping him execute communists in Germany. Then in Poland. What did he do about Franco? He crushed the communists and anarchists in Spain. What about East Germany? No fascists were purged, they were re-integrated into the system, unlike West Germany where they were purged.

Stalin's blunders did much for the fascists around the world. Until Hitler invaded Russia, that is.

[thesadmafioso]

The Purges were began by Lenin in by '21. The point was to rid the Party of members that joined the Bolsheviks when their victory was certain, these were mostly members of the upper classes prior to the revolution. About 200,000 members were purged, but this meant only that they were expelled from the Party. No imprisonment, no torture, no executions. No other penalties other than expulsion from the party. This was done to prevent a counter-revolution from within the Party, although that came later on under the guise of Stalinism. Stalin's purges though, they were nothing but Stalin murdering any possible opponents. Stalin had no intention to give the people any freedom. This lead to millions of deaths, of innocent people. Of true communists.

And yes, Stalin later purged the ones who conducted his purges for him. Yagoda began the executions on Stalin's orders, when he accumilated too much power, Stalin had him and 3,000 of his NVKD supporters shot. Yagoda was replaced by Yezhov, who began the most brutal phase of Stalin's purges. When Yagoda accumilated too much power, he suffered the same fate. He was replaced by Beria, who probably poisoned Stalin as Stalin was planning to purge every remaining old Bolshevik, Beria, Mikoyan, Molotov etc, etc. When Stalin suffered a "stroke", Beria didn't allow for a doctor to be called for 12 hours. At the time, Stalin's personal physician was being tortued by the NVKD because he suggested that Stalin's poor health required him to rest more in bed. And someone dares praise this man?

What's ironic is that both Yezhov and Yagoda were executed by the same officer, a favorite of Stalin. Vasili Blokhin. This man executed tens of thousands of people with his own hands. His most famous act is the murder of 7,000 Polish PoWs with his own hands after Stalin's invasion of Poland. Under Stalin's secret order, for 28 straight nights, he shot 7,000 men in the skulll.


Uh, you do realize that we are on the same side of this discussion, right? Perhaps you should direct your holy fire of history towards the actual Stalinists in this topic.

[Per Levy]

@iron felix: i agree with you wholeheartedly, except this part:


What about East Germany? No fascists were purged, they were re-integrated into the system, unlike West Germany where they were purged.

the fascists in westgermany wernt purged, they were actually used to build the west german state, just look at the history of the german secret service. the "bundes nachrichten dienst" was build completly on former agents of nazi germany(organisation gehlen). the same is true for the west german army, many generals and officers that were in the war were used to build up the army. not to mention that many former nazis became big figures in the politcs and economic affairs just look at hans martin schleier for that. and that is just scratching the surface.
im not saying that this wasnt the case in east germany, it was but not in this big scale as it was in the west, wich what i mean is that former nazis would become big figures in the politcs and so on.

[Dogs On Acid]

http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/mh/hd/dv/amewarexit.jpg

[Iron Felix]

Uh, you do realize that we are on the same side of this discussion, right? Perhaps you should direct your holy fire of history towards the actual Stalinists in this topic.
I wasn't directing my "holy fire" against you heh. I just have a tendency to go on rambling and forgetting the subject at hand.

@iron felix: i agree with you wholeheartedly, except this part:



the fascists in westgermany wernt purged, they were actually used to build the west german state, just look at the history of the german secret service. the "bundes nachrichten dienst" was build completly on former agents of nazi germany(organisation gehlen). the same is true for the west german army, many generals and officers that were in the war were used to build up the army. not to mention that many former nazis became big figures in the politcs and economic affairs just look at hans martin schleier for that. and that is just scratching the surface.
im not saying that this wasnt the case in east germany, it was but not in this big scale as it was in the west, wich what i mean is that former nazis would become big figures in the politcs and so on.
That might be so but my logic was this: After the Americans divided Germany(and it was without a doubt they who were most responsible), the West Germans had denazification forced on them. Many high-profile Nazis were not punished, I don't disagree. In fact, the Americans used many Nazi war criminals to build partisan groups and intelligence networks in Soviet-occupied territories. But, the middle classes were denazified. The West Germans were forced to confront their Nazi history and atone for it. The same is not true of East Germany. Stalin created this myth where the East Germans have ALWAYS been resisting Hitler and fascism, where they have been good communists and never supported Nazi atrocities. This allowed them to blame the West Germans for nazism and I think there was never a radical break with nazism in East Germany as in West Germany. In this myth East Germany was always "pure", and since they were already pure, there was no need to purify them.

[UknownRevolutionar]

Joseph Stalin didin'n win the NAZIS his army and the allies did. Stalin executed MILLIONS. He controled EVERYTHING in the OSSR. He wasn't better then Hitler.

[thesadmafioso]

I wasn't directing my "holy fire" against you heh. I just have a tendency to go on rambling and forgetting the subject at hand.


Alright, I just found it slightly odd that a quote which I penned was the jumping off point for an argument which was more or less what I was saying, though with a much greater degree of historical reference I must admit. Especially given the fact that there was a perfectly good post which I was responding to far more deserving of the effort.

[Red_Struggle]

Stalin was planning to purge every remaining old Bolshevik, Beria, Mikoyan, Molotov etc, etc. When Stalin suffered a "stroke", Beria didn't allow for a doctor to be called for 12 hours.

Source for any of this?


At the time, Stalin's personal physician was being tortued by the NVKD because he suggested that Stalin's poor health required him to rest more in bed. And someone dares praise this man?

Source?


His most famous act is the murder of 7,000 Polish PoWs with his own hands after Stalin's invasion of Poland. Under Stalin's secret order, for 28 straight nights, he shot 7,000 men in the skulll.

Uhh, you do realize that these Polish officers were either Nazi collaborators or were in positions of power during the Soviet-Polish war, which amounted to land grabs of other countrys' territory?


The rest of your post, I'm not going to bother debating the Civil war, the molotov-ribbentrop pact, etc. I've been in these debates before and I find them to be pointless and highly antagonistic. There are simply certain topics that leftist tendencies will never agree upon, and the controversy of Stalin is at the forefront.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stalin's victory in WWII was his most impressive accomplishment. On the issue of industrialization, let face the fact that other backward nations have industrialized rapidly. Rapid industrialization does not equal socialism. Let's look at South Korea, Japan. Though the command economies of Vietnam and China laid the basis for their economic growth, their greatest development was using market forces.

I'm not sure, comrade. The "command economy" of China in Mao's time wasn't centralized because there was a consensus that the Soviet model of Socialist Primitive Accumulation was too "centralized." Dengism arose because the lack of "centralization" resulted in not-so-rapid industrialization.


WWII was won despite Stalin's policies. Because of Stalin we maybe lost an additional 20 million lifes. Stalin's conduct of the war was disastrous.

You've downplayed the role of logistical leadership. Stalin's conduct leading to the war was disastrous (purges, too much good faith in diplomacy, etc.), but his conduct during the war was mainly one of logistics, and here he had quite a logistical knack (Stalin's Wars).

[Nox]

WWII was won despite Stalin's policies. Because of Stalin we maybe lost an additional 20 million lifes. Stalin's conduct of the war was disastrous. We can argue about this more if you wish.

How you can be so ignorant to think that explosion in industry caused by Stalin's collectivisation and five year plans wasn't one of the largest contributors to victory in WW2 is beyond me.

[thesadmafioso]

How you can be so ignorant to think that explosion in industry caused by Stalin's collectivisation and five year plans wasn't one of the largest contributors to victory in WW2 is beyond me.

You mean the plan of industrialization that Stalin stole from the Left Opposition of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev and that he blundered tremendously in the application of? So if I am correct, you are saying that Trotsky would of done just as well if not better than Stalin on the economic front of the second world war?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You mean the plan of industrialization that Stalin stole from the Left Opposition of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev and that he blundered tremendously in the application of? So if I am correct, you are saying that Trotsky would of done just as well if not better than Stalin on the economic front of the second world war?

Stalin's economic "Machiavellianism" in 1925 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-economic-machiavellianism-t157285/index.html)

[thesadmafioso]

Stalin's economic "Machiavellianism" in 1925 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-economic-machiavellianism-t157285/index.html)

Well that's nice, but it doesn't refute the fact that Stalin adopted the plan of the Left Opposition. Yes, Kamenev and Zinoviev did recently join Trotsky in opposition at this point after being previously opposed to him in the political realm, but that does not remove from the point that the positive advancements made under this period of industrialization were by no measure attributable to Stalin.

[Nox]

You mean the plan of industrialization that Stalin stole from the Left Opposition of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev and that he blundered tremendously in the application of? So if I am correct, you are saying that Trotsky would of done just as well if not better than Stalin on the economic front of the second world war?

No, you are the one who said that. I did not mention anything about Trotsky once.

[thesadmafioso]

No, you are the one who said that. I did not mention anything about Trotsky once.

I'm aware of that, I was merely extrapolating on the line of thought outlined in the post which I had quoted. By that logic, you are more or less admitting that Trotsky would of at least of been just as effective of a leader as Stalin throughout the course of WWII so far as economic policy is concerned.

[Gustav HK]

Stalin's purges though, they were nothing but Stalin murdering any possible opponents. Stalin had no intention to give the people any freedom. This lead to millions of deaths, of innocent people. Of true communists.

So they were all innocent? And all those, who were purged under Stalin were true communists?
You are not only accusing Stalin here, you are accusing the whole judiciary system of the USSR at that time.



He was replaced by Beria, who probably poisoned Stalin as Stalin was planning to purge every remaining old Bolshevik, Beria, Mikoyan, Molotov etc, etc. When Stalin suffered a "stroke", Beria didn't allow for a doctor to be called for 12 hours. At the time, Stalin's personal physician was being tortued by the NVKD because he suggested that Stalin's poor health required him to rest more in bed. And someone dares praise this man?

Mikoyan was a filthy revisionist. Maybe Stalin saw through him.

Maybe the same with Beria and Molotov (if what is stated is true).

Did that really happen with Stalins personal physician? And if yes, was it on Stalin´s order?




Do you disagree? What did Stalin do when the Nazis came to power in Germany? He appeased Hitler by helping him execute communists in Germany. Then in Poland. What did he do about Franco? He crushed the communists and anarchists in Spain.


How did he help Hitler execute communists in Germany and Poland?
He send help including soldiers to the Spanish Republic.
I believe groups like the anarchists and trotskyist in Spain were seen as splitting the anti-fascist movement there, and thus helping Franco.

[Gustav HK]

I believe Stalin thought, that the USSR wasn´t ready for collectivization and ending NEP already around 1925.

[Gustav HK]

BTW what about Trotskys millitarization of labour? Wasn´t it quite bureucratic and undemocratic?

[thesadmafioso]

BTW what about Trotskys millitarization of labour? Wasn´t it quite bureucratic and undemocratic?

The Red Army under Trotsky embodied the ideal of workers democracy and the principles democratic centralism without fault, it fits neither of those libelous defamations. He openly promoted a focus on merit in regards to promotions within the workers and peasants which made up this class army of the proletariat; advancement and influence was there for those with the means to properly use it those who were best outfitted to turn the organization into the most effective organ of class warfare as possible. This same principle would of been carried on in the creation of his labor armies, with competition and material rewards promoting progress and merit in a responsible manner fitting to the economic stage of development which the RSFSR then found itself in.

Over a fifth of the Red Army under Trotsky was even composed of workers, meaning that it was as close as it could possible be to the interest and aims of the proletariat, as it literally their army. I would hardly think this structure to be deserving of any such critique.

Also, when Trotsky originally proposed the idea of the implementation of labor armies, it was in the midst of the civil war. The nature of this conflict took a sever toll on the state of the economy of the RSFSR, thus calling for more drastic measures to be implemented to ensure its recovery and the creation of a stable platform for future growth.

When the first labor army was deployed in the Urals, it was even supported by both Lenin and Stalin. The idea was hardly stirred much controversy at the time due to the context of the historical situation of which the revolution was faced. If anything, I would say this idea was actually the opposite of the bureaucracy due to its dynamic and reinvigorating approach to the economic crisis with which the revolution was faced with at the time. It was a dynamic force which sought to combat over centralization and stagnation. If it had been applied in full, it would of revitalized the decimated industrial sector of the economy and the effect which it would of had on the economic expansion which the NEP would later attempt to foster would surely of been significant.

Source: Robert Service "Trotsky A Biography"

[electro_fan]

Joseph Stalin didin'n win the NAZIS his army and the allies did. Stalin executed MILLIONS. He controled EVERYTHING in the OSSR. He wasn't better then Hitler.

actually i misread the post, forget it

[Thirsty Crow]

Your not considering the material conditions of the society in the USSR. You must realize what Stalin, and the USSR was up against. Imperialism, Traitors (Such as Trotskyists who created Anti-Soviet propaganda in an attempt to defame them, and make them look evil.), Capitalism, and Fascism (Starting in 1939, I'm guessing his paranoia started.) I'm sure that if you had the entire world against you, and militaries were miles away from your capital ready to invade your country, and destroy it's foundations, you would be paranoid as well.

The criticism aimed at the ruling bureaucracy, thought of as a class or caste or whatever, were not "anti-soviet" propaganda (Trotsky personally called for an unconditional defense of USSR), and could only be called so by cynics whose class interest in fact favours such a substitution (my privilege=soviets).
Also, you sound like an idiot whining about how the Opposition tried to make the ruling class look evil. Evil? Well, here's another charge, they not only succumbed to fascism (remember, the old guard of the Bolsheviks turned out to be Fascists) but also to metaphysical moralism!

Also, nope, USSR didn't have the whole world against it on the eve of WW2. Remember Popular Front? Remember the alliance with bourgeois states? Remember the wholesale support for the bourgeoisie evident in the counter-revolutionary role played by the Comintern controlled CP of Spain?

Yeah, you're full of bullshit. Most despicably, you support mass murder following the logic of the suppression of free criticism.

[Nox]

I'm aware of that, I was merely extrapolating on the line of thought outlined in the post which I had quoted. By that logic, you are more or less admitting that Trotsky would of at least of been just as effective of a leader as Stalin throughout the course of WWII so far as economic policy is concerned.

That isn't relevant. We're talking about Stalin not Trotsky, I don't care how well you think Trotsky could have done, we're talking about how well Stalin did do.

[Iron Felix]

Source for any of this?



Source?



Uhh, you do realize that these Polish officers were either Nazi collaborators or were in positions of power during the Soviet-Polish war, which amounted to land grabs of other countrys' territory?


The rest of your post, I'm not going to bother debating the Civil war, the molotov-ribbentrop pact, etc. I've been in these debates before and I find them to be pointless and highly antagonistic. There are simply certain topics that leftist tendencies will never agree upon, and the controversy of Stalin is at the forefront.
Дело врачей. Doctor's Plot. Stalin was planning another "Great Purge". This one was going to be basically another Jewish Pogrom. The only reason it didn't happen is because Stalin died. The victims of this one would be the remaining Old Bolsheviks and Jews. Be already began making preparations. In 1949 he arrested 13 Jews, writers, poets, etc. etc. They were tortured and isolated for 3 straight years before they were charged, and then executed. This incident is called the Night of the Murdered Poets in English. Maybe there is a Wikipedia article on this but I don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source. The end result would have been the purging of anyone from the old days that he didn't kill already, plus deportations of Jews in 2 waves, first "Pure blood" Jews and then the "half-breeds". Huge camps for these Jews were already opening.

Nazi collaborators? Stalin was a Nazi-collaborator. Who invaded Poland? Stalin and Hitler. Stalin annexed the East, Hitler the west. The Poles that were murdered weren't Nazi-collaborators, they were anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Polish PoWs.

PoWs. Prisoners of War. Stalin had Beria murder every single member of the Polish Officer corps that they captured.

[Red_Struggle]

Дело врачей. Doctor's Plot. Stalin was planning another "Great Purge". This one was going to be basically another Jewish Pogrom. The only reason it didn't happen is because Stalin died. The victims of this one would be the remaining Old Bolsheviks and Jews. Be already began making preparations.


This is bullshit. You don't even need to look up so-called "Stalinist" works to be able to debunk this, and since it's no secret that you took one look at the wikipedia article on the Doctor's Plot and only cited part of the article, I'll bring out what you conveniently left out.

One of the Doctor's sons claimed he published letters in Istochnik (http://www.vestnik.com/issues/2000/0314/koi/erenburg.htm that provided evidence of a planned deportation of Jews, but the letters were actually calling for the creation of a Jewish newspaper.

Gennady Kostyrchenko, a researcher on Stalin's supposed anti-semitism, claims that there is more evidence against the existence of plans for deportation that there is for them: http://monderusse.revues.org/index59.html

Not only that, but many of the accused admitted their guilt, such as Fefer and Teumin. Others pleaded "party guilty" and Lozovsky, Markish, Shimeliovich, and Bregman refused to plead to anything. The defendants were allowed to make lengthy statements and cross-examine eachother. Even the author of "Stalin's Secret Pogrom" admits this. The trial was geared towards combatting Zionism and nationalism, not Jews as a whole.

And have you ever heard of Birodhizan, or was this all based on anti-semitism too?: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/30/the-soviet-jews-zionism-israel/



In 1949 he arrested 13 Jews, writers, poets, etc. etc. They were tortured and isolated for 3 straight years before they were charged, and then executed. This incident is called the Night of the Murdered Poets in English.

The innocent writers and poets you are speaking of, such as Fefer (a former Bundist) ,Kvitko, Markish, and Bergelson who opposed the October revolution and fled in 1920-1921. They initially returned where they propagated nationalism insde the Soviet Union. Lovosky was expelled twice for hostility towards the Bolsheviks. The accused had a past history of nationalist and Zionist activity. It was no secret.



Stalin was a Nazi-collaborator.

Lol


The Poles that were murdered weren't Nazi-collaborators, they were anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Polish PoWs.

Some say otherwise: http://red-channel.de/books/katyn1.htm

"After the official inclusion of the territory captured by Poland in 1920 into the USSR, the Polish prisoners of war automatically become citizens of the USSR. By decision of court, it was named illegal for the NKVD to detain and force these soldiers to work. Therefore, most soldiers and petty officers were all released into civilian life as citizens of the USSR. However, there was a group of people that could not be released. These were those charged with crimes against the non-Polish and Polish population in the newly liberated areas as well as for war crimes against the USSR. This group comprised members of Poland's military and governmental elite, gentry, landlord and manufacturers. There were plenty of war crimes committed by these people, such as the mass execution of Soviet prisoners of war in 1920 and active support for diversionary and terrorist groups against the USSR. It was decided to keep these individuals, numbering more than 20,000, in detention camps of the NKVD until a Special Commission of the NKVD examined their cases and decided upon a sentence for them." - Katyn Detective

[thesadmafioso]

That isn't relevant. We're talking about Stalin not Trotsky, I don't care how well you think Trotsky could have done, we're talking about how well Stalin did do.

Yes, we are talking about how well Stalin did. But as he was working off of a crude interpretation of a plan which was not his own, I find it fitting to make mention of those behind its original conception. As it was Trotsky and not Stalin who devised the concept of mass industrialization, it is only fitting to touch on how Stalin deviated from this framework and how it would of been accomplished by its mastermind.

I don't care if you don't care how well Trotsky would of done, it is still a relevant point of discussion.

[Iron Felix]

Lozovsky was a Bolshevik since 1901. Bregman was beaten so much he fell into a coma. Shimeliovich was a revolutionary that fought in the Russian Civil War for the Bolsheviks. He was beaten as bad as Bregman, he was carried to court in a stretcher. These men were beaten, tortured and isolated for 3 years. If you asked them to confess to being Napoleons and Popes they would have done so. Maybe Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Radek, Rakovsky, Rykov, etc, etc. were guilty too? Or maybe they were beaten until they confessed to false crimes?

All these "zionist agents" were rehabilated by Kruschev. He called the trials a farce. Lozovsky was re-admitted into the party. He was the General Sectetary of the Profintern, deputy people's commissar for foreign affairs and the chairmain of the Sovinformburo. Kruschev admitted these men were innocent.

" Therefore, most soldiers and petty officers were all released into civilian life as citizens of the USSR" released? They were deported from their Polish homes into the Ukraine, Byelarus and Russia. The Polish PoWs and the intelligentsia were executed to pacify Stalin's new conquest. There is no point in arguing this, Stalin's actions in Poland can be easily described as a genocide.

[Red_Struggle]

Stalin's actions in Poland can be easily described as a genocide.

I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously :laugh::laugh:

[thesadmafioso]

I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously :laugh::laugh:

Really? This was a salient and frightful enough concept to Stalin, given the fact that he actively attempted to cover up the massacre of Polish military officers at the hands of the NKVD by playing them off as Nazi atrocities.

Not that I've any affection for the reactionary Polish government of the time or its military, but the mass executions undertaken by Stalin's secret police forces were simply brutish.

[Binh]

Lozovsky was a Bolshevik since 1901.

There were no Bolsheviks in 1901. You must mean he was a member of the RSDLP.

[Iron Felix]

I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously :laugh::laugh:
Stalin deported about 300,000 Polish citizens to Siberia during the 39-41 time-period, probably more than half died in slave-like conditions. Is this not genocide? Of course it's not, if Stalin did it.

We must praise and hail the tyrant, because he called himself a communist! No, this monster who ravaged my people I will criticize at every turn.

[Red_Struggle]

Stalin deported about 300,000 Polish citizens to Siberia during the 39-41 time-period, probably more than half died in slave-like conditions. Is this not genocide? Of course it's not, if Stalin did it.

We must praise and hail the tyrant, because he called himself a communist! No, this monster who ravaged my people I will criticize at every turn.


So....are you actually going to cite your sources for any of these claims or are you just going to glance at Wikipedia and post whatever fits your preconceived opinion of the USSR?
Seriously, if you're going to make claims of genocide, you better be able to back them up, which you obviously cannot do.

[Iron Felix]

You want me to cite common facts? Want me to cite the holocaust? The Katyn massacre? No one except for Stalinists their ilk denies what I said. Stalinist repressions, executions, torture, everywhere where Stalin had power are a fact.

Almost 30 million Soviet citizens spent some time in forced labour camps, over 2 million died because of the horrible conditions. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, engineered by him to prevent dissent and nationalism, at least 7 million victims. Mass deportations, of Germans, Poles, Chechens, Tatars, Ingush, these can be classified as genocidal as well. All of the Chechens and Ingushs were deported to central Asia, those who didn't consent were shot on sight and burned alive in their villages. About half of them died on their way from hunger and cold. Do you want sources for these crimes? My "preconceived" views of the USSR? I was born in the USSR. Both of my grandfathers died in Stalin's concentration camps, both fought the Germans in the Great Patriotic War. My family is a victim of Stalin's crimes.

But of course the pseudo-Stalinist Hoxhaist hacks will defend Stalin. Much good came from him, right? Let us ignore the millions of innocent people that lost their lifes to his policies.

[CHE with an AK]

You want me to cite common facts?
It is "commonly" said that Columbus 'discovered' a continent ... that already had 15 million people on it. "Common" wisdom, is not the best indicator of truth in most instances. In fact, sadly, it is often intentionally upside down or inverted from truth.




Katyn massacre?
I love how in American history in particular, when the white settlers gunned down the Native indians they are listed as "battle"s, but whenever the Native indians fought back and won, they would name it a "massacre". Wording is funny in that way.




Stalinist executions, torture,
How many people would you estimate that Stalin personally executed in his entire life? (take a rough guess)
How many people would you estimate that Stalin personally tortured in his entire life? (take a rough guess)




forced labour camps
Later you use "concentration camps", so do you mean the same places interchangeably, or different camps for "labour" and others for "concentrating" (whatever the hell that means)?




Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine
Interesting, so Stalin himself had the power to control the weather? Well, at least you didn't use the silly title 'Holdomor'.




My "preconceived" views of the USSR? I was born in the USSR
Were you born while Stalin was still alive? When were you born?




Both of my grandfathers died in Stalin's concentration camps
Are these the same as the gulags, or are you talking about something different?
What camps were they in?
What did they die from?
What were they sentenced there for doing?
I'm genuinely curious ...




both fought the Germans in the Great Patriotic War.
So would it be accurate under your utilized vernacular to say that your grandpa's fought "under Stalin"?
Hypothetically, if they decided after a battle to shoot 50 Poles on their own, could we then say that Stalin murdered 50 Poles?




My family is a victim of Stalin's crimes.
Would it be fair to say that they are also a beneficiary of Stain's successes or policies? Are you selective in that all the bad is Stalin's fault, and all the good is not his fault? How come the "great man theory" only seems to be used by left-com's for the negative, but not the positive? (This is more rhetorical, not at you specifically)

[Red_Struggle]

YouBoth of my grandfathers died in Stalin's concentration camps, both fought the Germans in the Great Patriotic War. My family is a victim of Stalin's crimes.

I second Che with an AK's question. What was their sentence?


I'm going to ignore the ad hominem attack. You're not worth getting upset over.

[thesadmafioso]

It is "commonly" said that Columbus 'discovered' a continent ... that already had 15 million people on it. "Common" wisdom, is not the best indicator of truth in most instances. In fact, sadly, it is often intentionally upside down or inverted from truth.




I love how in American history in particular, when the white settlers gunned down the Native indians they are listed as "battle"s, but whenever the Native indians fought back and won, they would name it a "massacre". Wording is funny in that way.




How many people would you estimate that Stalin personally executed in his entire life? (take a rough guess)
How many people would you estimate that Stalin personally tortured in his entire life? (take a rough guess)




Later you use "concentration camps", so do you mean the same places interchangeably, or different camps for "labour" and others for "concentrating" (whatever the hell that means)?




Interesting, so Stalin himself had the power to control the weather? Well, at least you didn't use the silly title 'Holdomor'.




Were you born while Stalin was still alive? When were you born?




Are these the same as the gulags, or are you talking about something different?
What camps were they in?
What did they die from?
What were they sentenced there for doing?
I'm genuinely curious ...




So would it be accurate under your utilized vernacular to say that your grandpa's fought "under Stalin"?
Hypothetically, if they decided after a battle to shoot 50 Poles on their own, could we then say that Stalin murdered 50 Poles?




Would it be fair to say that they are also a beneficiary of Stain's successes or policies? Are you selective in that all the bad is Stalin's fault, and all the good is not his fault? How come the "great man theory" only seems to be used by left-com's for the negative, but not the positive? (This is more rhetorical, not at you specifically)

Even if we just examine the records kept by the Soviets themselves, we are still looking at millions of executions and deaths. No, Stalin himself did not physically kill these people, but his actions as General Secretary resulted in this outcome.

None of what you said refutes the fact that Stalin is directly responsible for millions of deaths, you are just avoiding the brunt of the question here. The political climate of totalitarian fear which was engineered by Stalin led to conditions wherein the institutions of political repression as wielded by Stalin and his cronies was allowed to proliferate. He recklessly led the revolution into an era of mass purges and senseless imprisonment wherein truth was equal to the party line of the time. The correlation between the political course as charted by Stalin and the massive loss of human life which occurred under his regime is simply undeniable from a materialist standpoint.

[Azula]

It is wrong to talk about Stalin's accomplishments, but what we could talk about is the achievements of the USSR in 1922-1956.

Look what Socialism achieved:

Electrification

Industrialisation in 10 years

Total liquidation of illiteracy

From agricultural development country to superpower

All with their own resources, without foreign imperialism. Ín fact, the USSR helped the other socialist nations with resources and scientific aid.

[ComradeOm]

Later you use "concentration camps", so do you mean the same places interchangeably, or different camps for "labour" and others for "concentrating" (whatever the hell that means)?Soviet authorities themselves used the terms interchangeably. 'Concentration camp' was the preferred term in the early 1930s but was later dropped in favour of the blander 'labour camp'. So, for example, in a July 1930 letter to Molotov and Kaganovich, Stalin was able to instruct them to "remove [peasants who advocate leaving the kolkhozy] and send them to a concentration camp [kontslager]". Emphasis in original

[Azula]

Soviet authorities themselves used the terms interchangeably. 'Concentration camp' was the preferred term in the early 1930s but was later dropped in favour of the blander 'labour camp'. So, for example, in a July 1930 letter to Molotov and Kaganovich, Stalin was able to instruct them to "remove [peasants who advocate leaving the kolkhozy] and send them to a concentration camp [kontslager]". Emphasis in original

It wasn't like the Soviets used gas chambers. The first concentration camps were just... camps concentrating people.

[Susurrus]

I love how in American history in particular, when the white settlers gunned down the Native indians they are listed as "battle"s, but whenever the Native indians fought back and won, they would name it a "massacre". Wording is funny in that way.

Well this is the white invaders gunning down people, so I should think the use of massacre is justified..

[Arlekino]

http://www.genocid.lt/centras/lt/207/a/
I posted this before about gulags. Please have a look those pictures you can see it was not that bad. Lithuanians' even had own churches, schools, own community. Yes it was hard work but their constructed cities. BAM Train railway.

[Susurrus]

http://www.genocid.lt/centras/lt/207/a/
I posted this before about gulags. Please have a look those pictures you can see it was not that bad. Lithuanians' even had own churches, schools, own community. Yes it was hard work but their constructed cities. BAM Train railway.

Are you sure that's not a kolkhoz?

[Triple A]

Stalin has many achievments like:
Empowerement of the NKVD
More gulags
Throw fellow revolutionaries under the bus( Greece and Spain are two examples)
Katyn(no not for planting trees)
Delusion and what some might call purges of traitors
Imperialism
Arrest and murder of everyone who didnt agree

A wonderfull men indeed.

[Azula]

Stalin has many achievments like:
Empowerement of the NKVD
More gulags
Throw fellow revolutionaries under the bus( Greece and Spain are two examples)
Katyn(no not for planting trees)
Delusion and what some might call purges of traitors
Imperialism
Arrest and murder of everyone who didnt agree

A wonderfull men indeed.

The NKVD were necessary in order to protect the gains of the Revolution.

See above.

The USSR could not risk a war with Europe over Spain, and neither with the USA in the 1940's.

Katyn: Justified.

Any objective evidence that Stalin was delusional?

The Soviet Union was Anti-imperialist. It liberated all of East and Central Europe from Imperialism.

There were probably a couple of innocent people arrested, but the Soviet Union was surrounded by Imperialist states. It had to be authoritarian.

[Arlekino]

Well you can call kolzhoz or labour camps, but they are was deported from Lithuania to gulags in those times. Well some my relatives had been in send to Archangels as well the story about such as horrors is about labour camps seems little undermining. My aunt told me she had to chopping trees with not nice conditions, cold and locals called always her fascist and she was ashamed about that. The problems was always with the locals or with official party members always pointed finger on her "She is Kulak or something like that" She been accused with her husband some corroboration with the Germans but she always tried to not to talk much. She and her husband was taken night time and she told me the only they could take one bag with them and on the train.

[Triple A]

The NKVD were necessary in order to protect the gains of the Revolution.

See above.

The USSR could not risk a war with Europe over Spain, and neither with the USA in the 1940's.

Katyn: Justified.

Any objective evidence that Stalin was delusional?

The Soviet Union was Anti-imperialist. It liberated all of East and Central Europe from Imperialism.

There were probably a couple of innocent people arrested, but the Soviet Union was surrounded by Imperialist states. It had to be authoritarian.


NKVD is necessary? all powerfull secret polices executing everyone suspect of the slightest disagreeement is the biggest revolutionary tool we have.

Yes because europe would get past several states to war the biggeest country of the time because of spain. You aint explain why letting greece communist fighters be massacred was "necessary".

Arresting and killing thousands of officers and communist party members because you suspect everyone is aking a plot against you is very delusional.

Finland, besarabia,... perfect examples of anti imperialism. Is like killing someone and then justify saying that that person would die anyway, one day.

Cuba is next to as imperialist as it gets and isnt as close to authoritarian as Soviet Union was.

[CHE with an AK]

My aunt told me she had to chopping trees with not nice conditions, cold and locals called always her fascist and she was ashamed about that ...
She been accused with her husband some corroboration with the Germans
1. Chopping down trees is hard work no matter the conditions. Doing it in the cold of Northern Europe/Asia even more so. However, I would rather do that than be killed for treason or locked in the hole in a US prison for life.

2. So if your aunt really did corroborate or work with the Germans (during WWII?), do you think sentencing her to chop trees was justified? In fact, one could claim that it was lenient, as most nations simply execute people who collaborate with the enemy during a war.

[Azula]

NKVD is necessary?

Yes. Everyone wanted to destroy the Soviet government. Poland and Japan bribed military commanders and politicians. The western democracies egged Germany against USSR.


Yes because europe would get past several states to war the biggeest country of the time because of spain

UK and France were about to attack the USSR in 1940 - over Finland.


You aint explain why letting greece communist fighters be massacred was "necessary".

The USA had the nuclear bomb. The Soviet Union didn't have it.


Arresting and killing thousands of officers and communist party members because you suspect everyone is aking a plot against you is very delusional.

Most of them were probably just people with very flawed ideas that they believed were good. But the ideas would have spelled the end of the USSR.


Finland, besarabia,... perfect examples of anti imperialism. Is like killing someone and then justify saying that that person would die anyway, one day.


Bessarabia, Finland, the Baltic States and West Belarus provided the USSR with a shield to meet the German onslaught in 1941.

I think they should have annexed all the countries they liberated in 1944-1945. The Soviet Union was supposed to become a one-world government.


Cuba is next to as imperialist as it gets and isnt as close to authoritarian as Soviet Union was.

Cuba is probably the most Anti-imperialist country in the world. They are blockaded by a superpower, but have nevertheless aided other developing nations, both with troops in their liberation struggles and with food and doctors.

[Red_Struggle]

The NKVD were necessary in order to protect the gains of the Revolution.

They were indeed necessary, but it's also true that Stalin was wary of the vast amount of power the NKVD held in its hands. see: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/All30iv.htm

[Arlekino]

Well Stalins era was many are not guilty send to gulags. So I am not sure did they did or not, and anyway I would not wish dig the past. Some more stories told me from other people for example my best friend dad was send for 7 years into gulags, he died long time ago but interesting now Lithuania want to pay compensations for deportees and of course my friend tried to claim this compensation when I asked did she get money and how much? She told me she could not get it because he did crime against Jews.
I always questioned myself well do we really want hotels for Nazis not we don't so I am on Stalin's side, when question about whom nothing to do with crime and been deportees I am against Stalin. Is another side Lithuania was capitalist fascist state backward country education only could gain rich people landlords and poverty.

[Iron Felix]

It is "commonly" said that Columbus 'discovered' a continent ... that already had 15 million people on it. "Common" wisdom, is not the best indicator of truth in most instances. In fact, sadly, it is often intentionally upside down or inverted from truth.

From a European point of view, surely he discovered it(if you forget that the Scandinavians had begun settling it earlier. This is however irrelevant.


I love how in American history in particular, when the white settlers gunned down the Native indians they are listed as "battle"s, but whenever the Native indians fought back and won, they would name it a "massacre". Wording is funny in that way.
Comparing American genocide of Indians to the execution of
20,000 unarmed prisoners, primarily most of Poland's military talent Stalin could lay his hands on, in order to weaken any possible future anti-imperialist/anti-Stalinist resistance, eh? Perhaps you are mistaken to what incident "Katyn massacre" refers, maybe you thought it was some sort of military engagement? I do not blame you, I am not sure how famous this incident is outside of Eastern Europe.


How many people would you estimate that Stalin personally executed in his entire life? (take a rough guess)
How many people would you estimate that Stalin personally tortured in his entire life? (take a rough guess)

Personally? Probably none. He had his lackeys do it for him. Before the revolution, when he was robbing banks, he'd "supervise from afar"(Trotsky's words)while his lackeys lobbed grenades at civilians. Even then he wasn't getting his hands dirty.

How many people would you estimate Stalin personally executed in his life?


Later you use "concentration camps", so do you mean the same places interchangeably, or different camps for "labour" and others for "concentrating" (whatever the hell that means)?
Concentration camps, labour camps, by these terms I mean the Russian gulags, the forced labour, penal labour camps, whatever. A good description of these is found in Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, he was sent to a gulag and was treated as a regular slave for 8 years because he wrote to an old friend a letter that contained anti-Stalin comments, basically calling him a dictator. Such a sentence also carried a life in exile in the remote parts of Russia, Siberia, Central Asia, et cetera, et cetera. Khruschev lifted this the exile on political prisoners when he took power. The book is very interesting, it exposes the Stalinist forced labour camp/concentration camp system. Alexander Isayevich won a nobel prize for it. Here is a torrent, it's open domain, no copyright restrictions. (http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6078728/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn_-_The_Gulag_Archipelago)


Interesting, so Stalin himself had the power to control the weather? Well, at least you didn't use the silly title 'Holdomor'. Weather? The famine was a consequence of Stalin's mismanagement of collectivisation, no one disputes that, and many argue, with much evidence, it was also Stalin's intention to cause this famine, in order to suppress Ukrainian Nationalism. Either way, the death of millions by hunger that could have been easily prevented(Stalin blocked relief on purpose, and any peasant that tried to escape from Ukraine because he didn't want to starve to death was caught and sent back, such peasants number at 200,000. Ukraine's borders were completely closed. )isn't "silly". This famine, easily a genocide, was a product of Stalin's actions.


Were you born while Stalin was still alive? When were you born?1983, but why ask?


Are these the same as the gulags, or are you talking about something different?
What camps were they in?
What did they die from?
What were they sentenced there for doing?
I'm genuinely curious ...
Yes, gulags. My Father's father was captured as a PoW, he fought since 41. When he was liberated he was sent to a forced labour camp, where he died. Probably from starvation, over-working or such. Many Soviet PoWs suffered this fate, first living as slaves in Hitler's camps, then when liberated by their comrades, in Stalin's. My Mother's Father was a political officer, later a political prisoner. He too perished in forced labour camp. "what were they sentenced there for doing?". Only several percent of the millions in these camps were sentenced for real crimes like theft, rape, and such, my friend.


So would it be accurate under your utilized vernacular to say that your grandpa's fought "under Stalin"?
Hypothetically, if they decided after a battle to shoot 50 Poles on their own, could we then say that Stalin murdered 50 Poles?
My grandfathers fought for Russia, for the Ukraine, Belerus and the rest of the Soviet peoples. But under Stalin, of course, he was the chief of the Red Army. There's a difference between an execution carried out by a band of soldiers without orders, and an execution of 20,000 innocent Poles that was authorized by the Politburo, authorized by a decree signed by Stalin and Beria. These are the Stalinist crimes I speak against, those decreed directly by him. Of others I have not spoken, so why mention such hypothetical scenarios?


Would it be fair to say that they are also a beneficiary of Stain's successes or policies? Are you selective in that all the bad is Stalin's fault, and all the good is not his fault? How come the "great man theory" only seems to be used by left-com's for the negative, but not the positive? (This is more rhetorical, not at you specifically) If rotting in a forced labour camp for no reason is a benifit, sure. These are the benifits granted by Stalin. Famine, torture, execution. Stalin's collectivisation was a failure, carried out inefficiently and causing millions of deaths. By your arguments, we could paint Hitler as a saint for his restoration of the German Empire(until it was again brought down by the mischievous Jews, of course, no?).

[Azula]

My grandfathers fought for Russia, for the Ukraine, Belerus and the rest of the Soviet peoples. But under Stalin, of course, he was the chief of the Red Army. There's a difference between an execution carried out by a band of soldiers without orders, and an execution of 20,000 innocent Poles that was authorized by the Politburo, authorized by a decree signed by Stalin and Beria. These are the Stalinist crimes I speak against, those decreed directly by him. Of others I have not spoken, so why mention such hypothetical scenarios?

Weren't those Poles officers?

[Rooster]

There's an elephant in the room here that no one is discussing.

Were the means of production held in common?

[Azula]

Yes.

[Red_Struggle]

My Father's father was captured as a PoW, he fought since 41. When he was liberated he was sent to a forced labour camp, where he died. Probably from starvation, over-working or such. Many Soviet PoWs suffered this fate, first living as slaves in Hitler's camps, then when liberated by their comrades, in Stalin's. My Mother's Father was a political officer, later a political prisoner. He too perished in forced labour camp.

Ok, but you're going to have to go into more detail. It's very true that the conditions in the camps were unfavorable (although pharaceuticals were introduced in the late 40s, early 50s for what its worth), but are material conditions during and following the war the fault of a single individual too? And what year did he die? Where was he stationed? You already stated you don't know the cause of death, which I find somewhat odd, so do you at least know the year that he died?

Anyways, here are a few book sources covering returning Soviet POWs:

"In 1942, as in 1941, great numbers of servicemen escaped from encirclements, either in entire groups or individually. Officers were at once dispatched to special NKVD concentration camps. And since the position in July-August 1942 was that much more critical, Stalin went even further. Officers who had been in enemy-occupied territory for any length of time and had not served with the partisans, and who were now in the NKVD's special camps, should be given the chance 'to take up arms to prove their loyalty to the motherland'. Special assault rifle battalions were to be formed of precisely 929 such officers for use in the most active parts of the front." - Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 461

"Yes, at the end of World War II, Stalin incarcerated returning Soviet prisoners of war, but now we know that most of them were released quickly after routine processing in temporary camps." - The Future Did Not Work by J. Arch Getty, Book Review of The Passing of an Illusion by Franois Furet [March 2000 Atlantic Monthly]

"Prisoners of war joined the Germans largely because they had a choice of doing that or starving; of 5.1 million captured by May 1944, over 3 million had died in German hands." - Thurston, Robert W. "On Desk-Bound Parochialism, Commonsense Perspectives, and Lousy Evidence: A Reply to Robert Conquest." Slavic Review 45 (1986), 241.

[Rooster]

Yes.

How do you explain then, how capitalism was restored with no real change? How can you change from one mode of production with no huge change in society, ie; a revolution? Even Napoleon couldn't do that. You say that revisionism caused the USSR to change to a capitalist state, yes? How did that come about? Through reforms? Can society be changed through reforms and revision? Are you secretly a social democrat?

Does the idea of the ends justifying the means? In this case, what did it accomplish? Full blown capitalism.

[Susurrus]

How do you explain then, how capitalism was restored with no real change? How can you change from one mode of production with no huge change in society, ie; a revolution? Even Napoleon couldn't do that. You say that revisionism caused the USSR to change to a capitalist state, yes? How did that come about? Through reforms? Can society be changed through reforms and revision? Are you secretly a social democrat?

Does the idea of the ends justifying the means? In this case, what did it accomplish? Full blown capitalism.


Not to mention the fact that the workers had no actual control over the means of production, the state did.

[Iron Felix]

Yes.
No. The bureaucratic class, created by Stalin, simply replaced the old ruling classes. The workers had no control over the means of production, this is the core of socialism. This is precisely why the Soviet Union was never a socialist republic, it was neither socialist nor a republic, but a party dictatorship at first, then just dictatorship and party dictatorship again.


Ok, but you're going to have to go into more detail. It's very true that the conditions in the camps were unfavorable (although pharaceuticals were introduced in the late 40s, early 50s for what its worth), but are material conditions during and following the war the fault of a single individual too? And what year did he die? Where was he stationed? You already stated you don't know the cause of death, which I find somewhat odd, so do you at least know the year that he died?

"Unfavorable". Read the damn book, then you can speak about gulags. Until then I won't discuss them with you. "fault of a single individual too". Oh, so the holocaust wasn't the fault of a single individual? Can we excuse Stalin because he wasn't the one gassing the Jews, Roma, handicaps, homosexuals or because he wasn't the one chaining millions of PoWs and using them as slave labour? Your argument doesn't hold when you realize that all these crimes of Stalin we are discussing were decreed by Stalin, the orders signed by Stalin, and in most cases, thought of by Stalin.

This is the plight of the Communist movement. Defending the so-called "communist states"(these "states" weren't communist simply because communism is stateless, and they weren't socialist either because much like the Soviet Union, the means of production weren't controlled by the workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat was never achieved, what was achieved was the dictatorship of the party, and then, dictatorship of Stalin and finally the dictatorship of the party again. Some socialism.)is morally bankrupt, we(some of us, not all) attack capitalism yet defend the Stalinist model which is in more opposition to communism and socialism than capitalism. Stalinism wasn't better than capitalism, it was worse. The capitalists exploit you, the Stalinists torture, execute and imprison you.

[Nox]

No. The bureaucratic class, created by Stalin, simply replaced the old ruling classes. The workers had no control over the means of production, this is the core of socialism. This is precisely why the Soviet Union was never a socialist republic, it was neither socialist nor a republic, but a party dictatorship at first, then just dictatorship and party dictatorship again.

By saying that, you're not criticising Stalin, you're criticising the Vanguard Party system.

EDIT: He actually tried to get rid of the role of General Secretary.



"Unfavorable". Read the damn book, then you can speak about gulags. Until then I won't discuss them with you. "fault of a single individual too". Oh, so the holocaust wasn't the fault of a single individual? Can we excuse Stalin because he wasn't the one gassing the Jews, Roma, handicaps, homosexuals or because he wasn't the one chaining millions of PoWs and using them as slave labour? Your argument doesn't hold when you realize that all these crimes of Stalin we are discussing were decreed by Stalin, the orders signed by Stalin, and in most cases, thought of by Stalin.

He killed 640,000 traitors.


This is the plight of the Communist movement. Defending the so-called "communist states"(these "states" weren't communist simply because communism is stateless, and they weren't socialist either because much like the Soviet Union, the means of production weren't controlled by the workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat was never achieved, what was achieved was the dictatorship of the party, and then, dictatorship of Stalin and finally the dictatorship of the party again. Some socialism.)is morally bankrupt, we(some of us, not all) attack capitalism yet defend the Stalinist model which is in more opposition to communism and socialism than capitalism. Stalinism wasn't better than capitalism, it was worse. The capitalists exploit you, the Stalinists torture, execute and imprison you.

He killed 640,000 traitors.

[CleverTitle]

Hey folks.

Just popping in to remind you that these threads are still really dumb.

That is all.

[CHE with an AK]

Perhaps you are mistaken to what incident "Katyn massacre" refers
No, I'm fully aware of what it was - and in its full context understand why it was done. This was a time in warfare when Russia's allies/enemies had no qualms at fire bombing or nuking entire cities and killing 100,000 people in one night.

It was only painted as a "massacre" of "innocents" by the Nazi's 3 years later in a chutzpah-esque Goebbels-propaganda move.




How many people would you estimate Stalin personally executed in his life?
To be safe I'd say from 0-20.
Tortured, to be safe I'd say 0-5 (depending on how you define "torture")
So hey, the capitalists are only 19,999,999-19,999,980 off their usual total when they say "Stalinnz killed 20 millllions!!1!"




A good description of these is found in Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago ... The book is very interesting, it exposes the Stalinist forced labour camp/concentration camp system. Alexander Isayevich won a nobel prize for it.
:laugh: Maybe you aren't aware what I think of that racist, fascist, lying, imperialist, right-wing revisionist piece of shit Solzhenitsyn and his idiotic fictional propagandist book ... see my posts in this thread below ...


http://www.revleft.com/vb/life-ussr-t159755/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/life-ussr-t159755/index.html)





1983, but why ask?
So you are a 28 year old, repeating 2nd/3rd hand stories passed down by Ukrainian and Belarusian anti-Soviet relatives. That is what I figured. Makes sense and is predictable really.




sent to a forced labour camp, where he died. Probably from starvation, over-working or such.
Or he could have probably died from the cold, disease, illness from the Nazi camps, a tree fell on him, a Russian dancing black bear from the local carnival ate him etc





Only several percent of the millions in these camps were sentenced for real crimes like theft, rape, and such
Theft and rape aren't the only "real crimes". Treason, espionage, etc during war time is also one. Also, trying to restore unfettered capitalism once parts of it have been broken down on the socialist way to full communism is also a crime imo.




the workers had no actual control over the means of production, the state did.
You can't go "state-less" while others do not. Even Marx understood the "state-less" part comes at the very end of the path, once the whole world is communist.

[Azula]

How do you explain then, how capitalism was restored with no real change? How can you change from one mode of production with no huge change in society, ie; a revolution? Even Napoleon couldn't do that. You say that revisionism caused the USSR to change to a capitalist state, yes? How did that come about? Through reforms? Can society be changed through reforms and revision? Are you secretly a social democrat?

Does the idea of the ends justifying the means? In this case, what did it accomplish? Full blown capitalism.

It began slowly from Kruschev's days, and then the Kosygin reforms, and then into Glasnost and Perestroika. You cannot introduce capitalist mechanics into a socialist society.

I believe that the CPSU focused too much on raising living standards, and not enough to raise the consciousness of the working class.

Maybe a Soviet Cultural Revolution should have been an idea?

Or at least one or two more 1937 purges.

[Red_Struggle]

Read the damn book

Lol...no, I am not going to read a book written by an anti-semetic, Czarist fuckwit. Despite the harsh conditions in the GULAG, Solzhenitsyn apparently made it ten years in one of them. It's too bad, really...:rolleyes:

[Susurrus]

it began slowly from kruschev's days, and then the kosygin reforms, and then into glasnost and perestroika. You cannot introduce capitalist mechanics into a socialist society.



and the NEP?

[Nox]

and the NEP?

The NEP was necessary given the circumstances.

[Red_Struggle]

The NEP was necessary given the circumstances.

And the NEP did not privatize anything that was recently nationalized.

[Susurrus]

And the NEP did not privatize anything that was recently nationalized.

But it as undeniably capitalistic in a "socialist" system.

[thesadmafioso]

Stalinist's defending the NEP, I can't help find that rather odd given the fact that Stalin dismantled most every aspect of it upon ascending to power.

Also, the basis for the NEP was engineered by Trotsky about a year before it was introduced and supported by Lenin. Much like the left opposition plan for industrialization that Stalinist's love to defend as their own.

[Nox]

But it as undeniably capitalistic in a "socialist" system.

It was necessary given the circumstances.

When you've just been through a long civil war, the economy is in an awful state, and the peasants are starting to hate you, it is necessary.

[Azula]

Stalinists defending the NEP, I can't help find that rather odd given the fact that Stalin dismantled most every aspect of it upon ascending to power.

Also, the basis for the NEP was engineered by Trotsky about a year before it was introduced and supported by Lenin.

The NEP was the correct line for the 1922-1927 period.

We should be able to adapt after the circumstances. The NEP did not lead into the dismantling of the Soviet Union, like Glasnost did.

[Nox]

Stalinist's defending the NEP, I can't help find that rather odd given the fact that Stalin dismantled most every aspect of it upon ascending to power.

Also, the basis for the NEP was engineered by Trotsky about a year before it was introduced and supported by Lenin. Much like the left opposition plan for industrialization that Stalinist's love to defend as their own.

It was no longer necessary by the time Stalin came into power.

And there is a huge difference between having an idea and putting it into practice.

[Susurrus]

Or he could have restored power to the soviets and appeased the people that way. But whatever.

[thesadmafioso]

The NEP was the correct line for the 1922-1927 period.

We should be able to adapt after the circumstances. The NEP did not lead into the dismantling of the Soviet Union, like Glasnost did.

Oh, I see. So it was the correct line until Stalin decided that it wasn't. Well that makes sense then.


It was no longer necessary by the time Stalin came into power.

And there is a huge difference between having an idea and putting it into practice.

Uh, do you recall the state of the agricultural markets in the Soviet Union circa 1927? I would hardly say they were ripe for mass collectivization.

I know, putting an idea into practice when you have someone like Stalin obstructing your path forward can be quite challenging. From what I've read on the matter, it involves a good deal of exiles, show trials and assassination attempts.

[Nox]

Or he could have restored power to the soviets and appeased the people that way. But whatever.

This is where you have to think realistically.

The peasants were dirt poor and their lives and land were ravaged by War Communism and the Civil War itself. They hated the Bolsheviks for that. Why the hell would 'restoring the power to the soviets' change any of that?

[Susurrus]

This is where you have to think realistically.

The peasants were dirt poor and their lives and land were ravaged by War Communism and the Civil War itself. They hated the Bolsheviks for that. Why the hell would 'restoring the power to the soviets' change any of that?

Because it would have given power to the peasants, thus making a revolt unnecessary while keeping power out of the hands of the whites.

[Nox]

I know, putting an idea into practice when you have someone like Stalin obstructing your path forward can be quite challenging. From what I've read on the matter, it involves a good deal of exiles, show trials and assassination attempts.

Oh come on...

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6606/8439418.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/8439418.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[gendoikari]

The peasants were dirt poor and their lives and land were ravaged by War Communism and the Civil War itself. They hated the Bolsheviks for that. Why the hell would 'restoring the power to the soviets' change any of that?

um .... what? you do remember that whole, power in the hands of the people thing being centric to socialist thinking right? the DOTP ring any bells? it doesn't stand for Dictatorship over the proletariat ...

[Susurrus]

Oh come on...

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6606/8439418.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/8439418.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

If you're going to knock Trotsky, do it right:
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq6m9imSER1qhl197o1_500.jpg

[thesadmafioso]

Oh come on...

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6606/8439418.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/8439418.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

What is it with this new trend of arguing through pictorial evidence and points?

[Nox]

um .... what? you do remember that whole, power in the hands of the people thing being centric to socialist thinking right? the DOTP ring any bells? it doesn't stand for Dictatorship over the proletariat ...

You're criticising the Vanguard Party system itself rather than criticising Stalin.

[gendoikari]

You're criticising the Vanguard Party system itself rather than criticising Stalin.

My point still stands.

[thesadmafioso]

You're criticising the Vanguard Party system itself rather than criticising Stalin.

You're not even defending the Vanguard Party, your defending the cult of Stalin's personality and bureaucratic centralism. The Vanguard structure is suppose to be an advance force of politically conscious workers and their sympathizers, one which is designed to storm a revolutionary path forward for a society. It is not an force to be co opted for oppurtunistic individual political gain.

The Vanguard Party is not something to be taken as an excuse to make for any blows taken against the fundamental concept of democratic centralism or workers democracy. You are more or less taking standard Stalinist positions and forwarding them under the facade of a Leninist concept.

[Nox]

My point still stands.

There are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and the Vanguard Party is no exception to this. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, who the hell argues against a Vanguard Party these days? Idealists thats who. If you're going to be realistic then a Vanguard Party is the only option.

[thesadmafioso]

There are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and the Vanguard Party is no exception to this. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, who the hell argues against a Vanguard Party these days? Idealists thats who. If you're going to be realistic then a Vanguard Party is the only option.

I concur entirely, perhaps you should actually defend the proper Leninist concept of vanguardism then?

[Susurrus]

There are advantages and disadvantages to everything, and the Vanguard Party is no exception to this. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, who the hell argues against a Vanguard Party these days? Idealists thats who. If you're going to be realistic then a Vanguard Party is the only option.

No, the Vanguard Party is only useful as an organizational tool to reach the revolution, after which it must be disbanded in favor of direct democracy. If there is an extraordinary circumstance like the Civil War it may be allowed to have some powers, but only for as long as the war is waged, after which the power must be fully given to the people in the form of soviets or other form of direct dmocracy.

[gendoikari]

No, the Vanguard Party is only useful as an organizational tool to reach the revolution, after which it must be disbanded in favor of direct democracy.

^^ That.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

who the hell argues against a Vanguard Party these days? Idealists thats who. If you're going to be realistic then a Vanguard Party is the only option.

You must be living in a fantasy world.

What makes you think a system that originated in an under-developed superpower nearly 100 years ago and failed, would be a good idea for any of the advanced western or backwards small nations?

You've literally brought no facts or evidence to the table here, you're just labelling opponents to your vicious brand of Stalinism as 'idealists'.

Well fucking send me to the Gulag for being idealistic. Even being idealistic, some of us have more worked out strategies than your 'STALINNNNNNN'-oid postings suggest.

[Iron Felix]

Now I see. I'm arguing with idiots. Perhaps I should be killed too, let's make that 640,001 traitors. After all, dissent is treason yes? Stalinist arguments could be easily used to justify the holocaust too, or any other genocide. The Jews were traitors! They backstabbed the Germans in 1918! No? Good bye, I see no point in arguing with people that advocate genocide, torture and execution of innocents and political dissedents.

Communists supporting a dictator and his personality cult. Is this not irony? Perhaps not really communists then, this conclusion is only logical. Don't answer.

[No_Leaders]

Doesn't matter what his accomplishments were. That's like saying Hitler, or (insert said authoritarian hack) did this and this to stabilize his country. Countries are man made borders created in conjunction with the Nation State. Now if Stalin has created self running communes where people were able to freely and collectively decide on things then i'd say sure he did make some astounding accomplishments.

[Zealot]

I think Stalins biggest accomplishment was gaining the blueprints for nuclear weapons, although it would be better if they never existed in the first place. In my opinion, this was one of the only things holding America back from becoming a tyrannical fascist superpower. They had plans to use nuclear weapons in a variety of places prevented only by the fact they didn't want a global nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

[Iron Felix]

Holding America back from becoming a tyrannical fascist superpower? Surely you jest. America was a tyrannical superpower, perhaps not fascist, but it still supported many fascist regimes, in Latin America, Portugal, Spain.

The Soviet Union didn't gain "blueprints", and obviously Stalin didn't either. The intelligence spied from the Americans by the GRU and like was useful because it allowed our nuclear physicists to avoid dangerous tests. Beria and Kurchatov(a brilliant Soviet nuclear physicist that is called the Father of the Soviet nuclear program(responsible for the first nuclear plant in the world, first nuclear submarine and first nuclear surface ship, I believe)considered all intelligence as possibly unreliable, everything was re-tested. You can't deride the Soviet Nuclear program as a theft of American designs.

[Die Neue Zeit]

By the time the H-bomb was developed, nuclear espionage wasn't as much a priority. The Soviets found the American designs for their H-bomb to be somewhat unreliable.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anyway, a recent book was published on the GULAG system:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kewLQwngUSkC&printsec=frontcover
http://globalcomment.com/2011/stephen-barnes-new-light-on-the-gulag/ (review)


Barnes’ research shows that 18 million prisoners passed through the Gulag, with 5.2 million incarcerated at its peak. However, the camps weren’t designed to kill or destroy; they were the last opportunity for the ‘enemies of the state’ to become rehabilitated. About 20 percent of the prisoners returned home each year, with releases reaching 0.5 million in some years. Although high, the total of those who died is far below estimates—Barnes’ statistics show about 1.6 million died in the principal thirty years of camp existences. Rather than being just ‘work to death’ penal institutions, the camps had cultural activities, correction programs and their own economic organization. Prisoners shaped their own society.

[Rodrigo]

Search for:



Viktor Ilyukhin’s letter to Vladimir Putin

Ludo Marten's Another view of Stalin

Sidney and Beatrice Webb's Soviet Communism: A New Civilization

Para a História do Socialismo (Portuguese website with lots of sources COMPLETELY REFUTING THIS ANTI-STALIN BULLSHIT with proper Marxist analysis)

The Red Comrades Documentation Project

Long Live the Universal Contribution of Comrade Joseph Stalin, posted on December 20, 2009 on The Marxist-Leninist website.




I'll continue the list this afternoon. ;D

[socialistjustin]

1.6 million is still a horrific number. Obviously it was no Disneyland if that many died in just 30 years.

[Collectorgeneral]

Despite the massive losses in human life during his rule, If the soviet union were ruled by someone else at the time, then I fear that my country would have resembled the small german town of Jamel.

[Rooster]

Anyway, a recent book was published on the GULAG system:


Rather than being just ‘work to death’ penal institutions, the camps had cultural activities, correction programs and their own economic organization. Prisoners shaped their own society. http://books.google.ca/books?id=kewLQwngUSkC&printsec=frontcover
http://globalcomment.com/2011/stephen-barnes-new-light-on-the-gulag/ (review)

Kinda odd that that's mentioned, like it's supposed to alleviate the whole problem with the camps ("rather than being just..."). I hope the author knows that in most prisons they have their own cultural activities, correction programs and economic organisation minus of course the 1.6 million dead in 30 years.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Despite the massive losses in human life during his rule, If the soviet union were ruled by someone else at the time, then I fear that my country would have resembled the small german town of Jamel.

Your country? What about your fucking class?:crying:

What sort of class analysis is that, to say that the fortunes of a country the size of a fucking continent depended on the actions of ONE man?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Rodrigo]

Search for:

Kurt Gossweiler's Zur Rolle Stalins und zum Anteil des Chruschtschow-Revisionismus an der Zerstörung der Sowjetunion. (On the role of Stalin ... etc)

Douglas Tottle's Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard.

Grover Furr's texts and books about Stalin. :thumbup:

[Rodrigo]

Your country? What about your fucking class?:crying:

What sort of class analysis is that, to say that the fortunes of a country the size of a fucking continent depended on the actions of ONE man?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I agree with you, there's no State or country led by a single man, but I also think it was not what he tried to say. USSR accomplishments didn't depend just on Stalin, but the fact HE was there (and not petty-bourgeois, opportunist, Bonapartist, Menshevik and Japan-Germany-collaborator Leon Trotsky) had a meaning; Stalin, or any other president or general-secretary, was the representative of a bunch of ideas and actions of a specific group in the party. We shall not forget that the contradictions of class struggle (still existing in post-revolutionary socialism) are also reflected inside the party, creating an internal struggle between different political-ideological lines. That is, Stalin represented one of these lines inside the Communist Party of Soviet Union; thus, the fact Stalin was elected, and not people defending other lines, had a specific meaning for the party. The accomplishments of the 30's and 40's depended on the victory of this specific line, represented by Stalin.

[Rodrigo]

...There was theoretical contribution as well. :)


Briefly About Disagreements in the Party (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1905/05/x01.htm) (May 1905)

The Agrarian Question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm) (March 1906)[/URL]

[URL="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/11/14.htm"]The Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/29.htm) (November 14, 1906)

Anarchism or Socialism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm) (December 1906 - January 1907)

The Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm) (April, 1924)

Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm) (November 19, 1924) [Alternate Translation (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/trotskyism.htm)]

The October Revolution & the Tactics of the Russian Communists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/12.htm) (December 1924)

Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm) (January 25, 1926)

The National Question and Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm) (March 18, 1929)

Dialectical and Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm) (September 1938)

Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm) (June 20, 1950)

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm), (February-September 1952)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with you, there's no State or country led by a single man, but I also think it was not what he tried to say. USSR accomplishments didn't depend just on Stalin, but the fact HE was there (and not petty-bourgeois, opportunist, Bonapartist, Menshevik and Japan-Germany-collaborator Leon Trotsky) had a meaning; Stalin, or any other president or general-secretary, was the representative of a bunch of ideas and actions of a specific group in the party. We shall not forget that the contradictions of class struggle (still existing in post-revolutionary socialism) are also reflected inside the party, creating an internal struggle between different political-ideological lines. That is, Stalin represented one of these lines inside the Communist Party of Soviet Union; thus, the fact Stalin was elected, and not people defending other lines, had a specific meaning for the party. The accomplishments of the 30's and 40's depended on the victory of this specific line, represented by Stalin.

You lost me when you described Trotsky as petty bourgeois yet supporting a Marxist ideology, supporting BOTH a far eastern autocracy and a European Nazi dictatorship.

There was only one ideological line within the CPSU: the Marxist-Leninist, Bolshevik one. Lenin saw to that. To call the petty maneouvering between Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev et al 'struggles' is to demean the nature of the word.

Don't really think that the period of the 30s-40s, with so, so many deaths, can really be called a 'victory' for anything.

[Rooster]

...There was theoretical contribution as well. :)


Briefly About Disagreements in the Party (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1905/05/x01.htm) (May 1905)

The Agrarian Question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm) (March 1906)

The Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/11/14.htm) (November 14, 1906)

Anarchism or Socialism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm) (December 1906 - January 1907)

The Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm) (April, 1924)

Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm) (November 19, 1924) [Alternate Translation (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/trotskyism.htm)]

The October Revolution & the Tactics of the Russian Communists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/12.htm) (December 1924)

Concerning Questions of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm) (January 25, 1926)

The National Question and Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm) (March 18, 1929)

Dialectical and Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm) (September 1938)

Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm) (June 20, 1950)

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm), (February-September 1952)

Isn't the canonical ML line that Stalin introduced no new ideological advancements?

[Rodrigo]

Isn't the canonical ML line that Stalin introduced no new ideological advancements?

The works I posted were not ideological advancements?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The works I posted were not ideological advancements?

I would say some of those works, particularly the first angry little polemic, are actually dross.

[Rodrigo]

You lost me when you described Trotsky as petty bourgeois yet supporting a Marxist ideology, supporting BOTH a far eastern autocracy and a European Nazi dictatorship.

Trotskyism is not Marxist ideology nor Bolshevism. It's pseudo-Marxism; the own Trotsky's writings and opportunism prove it. And his collaboration with Germany and Japan was well exposed by Grover Furr, but there's a topic for that already, so let's not go deep into this question in this present topic.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1717924&postcount=60

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1718144&postcount=73


There was only one ideological line within the CPSU: the Marxist-Leninist, Bolshevik one.
In every party of the world there's an internal struggle between different groups, because this is a reflection of class struggles happening "outside" the party. For example, Trotskyism was a different ideological line. Marxist-Leninists were Lenin and Stalin, but not Trotsky and Zinoviev.


Don't really think that the period of the 30s-40s, with so, so many deaths, can really be called a 'victory' for anything
That means you're for the old known liberal pacifism, the bourgeois and reformist denial of revolutionary violence and transformation of the struggle for socialism into a peaceful, parliamentary struggle. Ah, if things were that easy... The continuation of class war during the first phase of communism led to criminal fights against socialism in USSR, with consequently imprisonment, execution or exile of traitors, capitalists, kulaks and opportunists disguised as leftists, like Leon Traitrosky, oops... Trotsky. :cool:

[thesadmafioso]

Trotskyism is not Marxist ideology nor Bolshevism. It's pseudo-Marxism; the own Trotsky's writings and opportunism prove it. And his collaboration with Germany and Japan was well exposed by Grover Furr, but there's a topic for that already, so let's not go deep into this question in this present topic.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1717924&postcount=60

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1718144&postcount=73


In every party of the world there's an internal struggle between different groups, because this is a reflection of class struggles happening "outside" the party. For example, Trotskyism was a different ideological line. Marxist-Leninists were Lenin and Stalin, but not Trotsky and Zinoviev.


That means you're for the old known liberal pacifism, the bourgeois and reformist denial of revolutionary violence and transformation of the struggle for socialism into a peaceful, parliamentary struggle. Ah, if things were that easy... The continuation of class war during the first phase of communism led to criminal fights against socialism in USSR, with consequently imprisonment, execution or exile of traitors, capitalists, kulaks and opportunists disguised as leftists, like Leon Traitrosky, oops... Trotsky. :cool:

I love it when Stalinist's speak of collaboration with Germany as if it were something they were free of...

Do you not recall the non aggression pact that your glorious leader Stalin signed with Nazi Germany? As in, the physically solidified agreement which your beloved leader made with a fascist state? Or perhaps you will recall Stalin's front with the Nazi's in the 1930's which was designed to decimate the German SDP, even in the face of the rising threat of fascism to the working class of Germany?

Oh, of course you don't, why would you, given the fact that Trotsky was busy doing all sorts of counter revolutionary things with the fascists at the time. I mean, sure, you had to fabricate all of those details out of the thin air of opportunism to serve your immediate political purposes, but close enough, right?

I must cede this point though, you are most correct in your assertion of Stalin's continuation of class warfare in the post revolutionary period of his thermidorian reaction.

It is a shame that it was the working class he was set on making war with though, as opposed to the every expanding caste of the party bureaucracy. Also a shame it led to an absolute culture of political paranoia and fear that wrongfully took the lives of hundreds of thousands who had the misfortune to either be apolitical, too political, or actual revolutionists in Stalin's Russia, which isn't exactly something that I think Marx had in mind.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Stalin was a busy guy. Single handedly defeating nazism and all.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

I would like to add that if Stalin did not have won the Nazis, I would not even exist as a Greek,so he somehow saved the Greeks.This is his greatest accomplishement in my opinion.

[Siggon]

Stalin's main mistakes were creating a cult of personality, and abandoning the NEP. He rushed Socialism, and he could have carried out his plans differently, but his intentions were still good, and with the prosperity of the Russian people at heart. He also had a love for Jews, despite the trends of his time. If he and Trotsky had settled their differences, or if he allowed himself to be Trotsky's 2nd-in-command in a Trotskyite system, maybe things would work out a little better, as Trotsky was more rounded, and he was especially skilled in the art of military command.

Stalin is incomparable to Hitler... Stalin had good intentions; Hitler was plain evil.

[#FF0000]

america and western eruope have the highest living standards in the world lol yay capitalism oh wait a minute

[thesadmafioso]

I would like to add that if Stalin did not have won the Nazis, I would not even exist as a Greek,so he somehow saved the Greeks.This is his greatest accomplishement in my opinion.

Maybe if Stalin would have stood against the rise of fascism in the 1930's by actually supporting the popular fronts which emerged against it across the continent, he wouldn't of needed to squander the lives of 27 million Soviet soldiers in the process of doing so.

Also, who cares about your Greek nationality? What of your class?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would like to add that if Stalin did not have won the Nazis, I would not even exist as a Greek,so he somehow saved the Greeks.This is his greatest accomplishement in my opinion.

Stalin did not 'win'. The millions of faceless Red Army soldiers 'won', if that's what you can call it after Leningrad, the Holocaust and all those who died fighting the Nazis.

I have a name for opinions such as yours in my head, the only thing stopping me from typing it out is that it would certainly invoke an infraction for impoliteness. :thumbdown:

[Kornilios Sunshine]

I would like to add that if Stalin did not have won the Nazis, I would not even exist as a Greek,so he somehow saved the Greeks.This is his greatest accomplishement in my opinion.
No actually this(my) post is an answer for Greek nazi-nationalists that hate Stalin.

[Smyg]

Stalin did not 'win'. The millions of faceless Red Army soldiers 'won', if that's what you can call it after Leningrad, the Holocaust and all those who died fighting the Nazis.

I have a name for opinions such as yours in my head, the only thing stopping me from typing it out is that it would certainly invoke an infraction for impoliteness. :thumbdown:

Indeed. The Soviet people and the Soviet army defeated fascism. Sitting in Moscow and sending out moderately successful commands does not equal fighting Nazis.

[thesadmafioso]

Indeed. The Soviet people and the Soviet army defeated fascism. Sitting in Moscow and sending out moderately successful commands does not equal fighting Nazis.

Yeah, Stalin showed brilliant military leadership when he sat around his quarters stricken by surprise and incapable of command as the Nazi war machine rolled through Eastern Europe. I would certainly term his inability to issue any sort of uniform order of retreat deserving of the term 'moderately successful', despite the massive setbacks it caused for the Red Army in the early stages of the war.

But beyond that, Stalin was quite good at employing generals who would simply march their soldiers over mine fields to clear them and in shooting deserters en masse. To briefly quote Trotsky on the matter, "armies are not built on fear".

How anyone can take Stalin seriously as a military commander is well beyond me, really.

[tir1944]

Yeah, Stalin showed brilliant military leadership when he sat around his quarters stricken by surprise and incapable of command as the Nazi war machine rolled through Eastern Europe. I would certainly term his inability to issue any sort of uniform order of retreat deserving of the term 'moderately successful', despite the massive setbacks it caused for the Red Army in the early stages of the war.

But beyond that, Stalin was quite good at employing generals who would simply march their soldiers over mine fields to clear them and in shooting deserters en masse. To briefly quote Trotsky on the matter, "armies are not built on fear".

How anyone can take Stalin seriously as a military commander is well beyond me, really.
Utter nonsense.Soldiers marching over minefields to clear them...:rolleyes:
You're mixing up the Red Army and Iranian Basij Militia.

Stalin stayed in Moscow even when the fascist beasts were just 10 miles away from the city center and he gave a powerful speech at the Red Square, demonstrating to the Soviet people that there's still hope,that the fascist invaders will be destroyed.

[thesadmafioso]

Utter nonsense.Soldiers marching over minefields to clear them...seriously,aren't you ashamed of yourself for writing such rubbish.:rolleyes:
You're mixing up the Red Army and Iranian Basij Militia.

Stalin stayed in Moscow when the fascist beasts were 10 miles away from the city center and gave a powerful speech,he demonstrated to the Soviet people that there's still hope,that the fascist invaders will be destroyed.

"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there."- Gregory Zhukov.

So, you are seriously trying to dispute a fact admitted and recognized by such a leading figure in the army you are defending in this regard? Or was Zhukov just a Trotskyist plant bent of sabotaging Stalin's revolution?

Oh, he stayed in the capital and gave a speech, how brave of dear leader Stalin.

Trotsky was known to fight on the front lines of the Russian Civil war, stirring disorderly retreating troops into tremendously motivated counter offensives. He would traverse the vast fronts of the war in a train specially designed for the purpose, rousing and and even fighting with the troops of the Red Army throughout the course of the civil war.

But Stalin decided to stay in a city that may of been captured, how courageous of him.

[tir1944]

"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there."- Gregory Zhukov.

So, you are seriously trying to dispute a fact admitted and recognized by such a leading figure in the army you are defending in this regard? Or was Zhukov just a Trotskyist plant bent of sabotaging Stalin's revolution?

Oh, he stayed in the capital and gave a speech, how brave of dear leader Stalin.

Trotsky was known to fight on the front lines of the Russian Civil war, stirring disorderly retreating troops into tremendously motivated counter offensives. He would traverse the vast fronts of the war in a train specially designed for the purpose, rousing and and even fighting with the troops of the Red Army throughout the course of the civil war.

But Stalin decided to stay in a city that may of been captured, how courageous of him.

Hey,i have edited my first post shortly before you replied to it,for "aesthetic" purposes.Sorry for the confusion.

But i think that you're being unfair.I don't know where that quote is from,but you presented it as if "sending soldiers to clear up the minefields with their bodies(!)" was the everyday modus operandi of the Red Army.
I've never heard of this quote of Zhukov before,so please say where exactly is it from what exactly is it referring to (and in what context)...

[RED DAVE]

Another one of Stalin's great accomplishment:

The [Jewish] Doctors Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot)

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

1.6 million is still a horrific number. Obviously it was no Disneyland if that many died in just 30 years.Let's see: 30 years is very roughly 10 thousand days. So:

1,600,000/10,000 is 160/day; let's say 150. Now, imagine how we would be freaking out if 150 prisoners a day died in US detention camps.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

Hey,i have edited my first post shortly before you replied to it,for "aesthetic" purposes.Sorry for the confusion.

But i think that you're being unfair.I don't know where that quote is from,but you presented it as if "sending soldiers to clear up the minefields with their bodies(!)" was the everyday modus operandi of the Red Army.
I've never heard of this quote of Zhukov before,so please say where exactly is it from what exactly is it referring to (and in what context)...

It's largely irrelevant, as this is a widely documented historical fact. But this particular quote was in a letter to General Eisenhower from 1945.

And it did seem to be a rather common occurrence, as was the practice of brutally slaughtering any retreating soldiers. Stalin's army was more a dull shade of grey with a poorly applied coat of red over it than anything else, with its bourgeois system of ranking, its absolute disregard for the lives of soldiers, and the dominant role which patriotism had in its structure.

Long gone under Stalin were the days of political commissars running units in proper conjunction with trained military commanders, the days without rank and hierarchy, and the days where the Red Army knew what exactly it was that it was fighting for. Instead, it became a cruel and inhumane thrasher of human life, one designed to spread Russian nationalism as opposed to fighting in the international socialist struggle.

[#FF0000]

stalin is responsible for everything good that happened under him

stalin is not responsible for anything bad that happened under him

gooba geeba gunga

[tir1944]

And it did seem to be a rather common occurrence, as was the practice of brutally slaughtering any retreating soldiers.I am not so sure about this.Can you really claim something like that on the basis of one quote?
Also,when and where exactly were any retreating soldiers "brutally slaughtered"?



Stalin's army was more a dull shade of grey with a poorly applied coat of red over it than anything else, with its bourgeois system of ranking, its absolute disregard for the lives of soldiers, and the dominant role which patriotism had in its structure.Please explain how come and in what way was the RKKA rank system "bourgeois" and explain in what way did "patriotism have a dominant role in its structure".Thank you.



Long gone under Stalin were the days of political commissars running units in proper conjunction with trained military commanders, the days without rank and hierarchy, and the days where the Red Army knew what exactly it was that it was fighting for.What exactly are you talking about? At what time did RKKA not have hierarchy?
Also,are you saying that WW2 Red Army soldiers didn't really know what exactly they were fighting for?



Instead, it became a cruel and inhumane thrasher of human life, one designed to spread Russian nationalism as opposed to fighting in the international socialist struggle.Sure...:confused:

[Rodrigo]

Do you not recall the non aggression pact that your glorious leader Stalin signed with Nazi Germany?

If there wasn't this pact --which was not an alliance, so we can't say it was collaboration ;)-- USSR would have lost the war. The military development in this period was very high, and that was important on the defeat of the Nazis. But, wait, weren't the Nazis "friends of Stalin"? Oops... :rolleyes:


Stalin's front with the Nazi's in the 1930's which was designed to decimate the German SDP, even in the face of the rising threat of fascism to the working class of Germany?

What "front with the nazis"? The Popular Front was AGAINST nazis and fascists.


It is a shame that it was the working class he was set on making war with though, as opposed to the every expanding caste of the party bureaucracy. Also a shame it led to an absolute culture of political paranoia and fear that wrongfully took the lives of hundreds of thousands who had the misfortune to either be apolitical, too political, or actual revolutionists in Stalin's Russia, which isn't exactly something that I think Marx had in mind.

You know what is a shame? Seeing leftists vomiting this Cold War stupid anticommunist propaganda on a leftist forum. :glare:

[RED DAVE]

You know what is a shame? Seeing leftists vomiting this Cold War stupid anticommunist propaganda on a leftist forum. :glare:What's really a shame is seeing a junior-grade Stalinist/Maoist march in here with all the old bullshit and think he is going to get a free hand.

Time to learn that an ice pick is not an appropriate tool of social change.

RED DAVE

[tir1944]

Cool story bro.:cool:
Can you point out that "old bullshit"?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You know what is a shame? Seeing leftists vomiting this Cold War stupid anticommunist propaganda on a leftist forum. :glare:

Which is the 'stupid propaganda' bit? The hundreds of thousands of deaths? The paranoia? Stop trying to re-write history.

[#FF0000]

Hey I'm no fan of Stalin but you seriously can't fault him for the Molotov-Ribbentrop thing. I mean honestly the Russians were lucky they fared as they did when the Eastern Front opened up the way it did.

And go on all you want about the T-34 and glorious industrialization and shit but what saved Europe was the fact that Hitler was a consummate moron who was more concerned with propaganda victories e.g. Stalingrad, Leningrad and hardly even bothered to take out Russia's entire fucking oil supply in the Urals, which he could've done without a problem.

[tir1944]

"Russia's entire fucking oil supply" was,at that time,concentrated primarily around Baku,Azerbaijan and not in the Urals.
Hitler tried to take these oilfields but failed:
Link:" Fall Blau" on Wikipedia

Also,do you really think that Hitler could have reached the Urals in 1942?:confused:

[Rodrigo]

Which is the 'stupid propaganda' bit? The hundreds of thousands of deaths? The paranoia? Stop trying to re-write history.

The hundreds of thousands of created "deaths by Stalin", with the help of statistical fallacies by the anticommunists Robert Conquest, William Hearst and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The paranoia of well known US propaganda films from the period of Cold War.

Stop YOU being a repeater of anticommunist lies. You would be well-received in a forum for capitalist liberals.

[eyeheartlenin]

Quoting Red Struggle: "Not only that, but many of the accused admitted their guilt, such as Fefer and Teumin"

Itsik Fefer, who was a Soviet patriot, and, as a man of his time, a supporter of Stalin, was tortured, so, of course, he admitted his "guilt." At one point, Fefer was meeting with some friend of the USSR from the West. Fefer kept his hands under the table during the entire meeting, since all Fefer's fingernails had been pulled out, the day before.

All the murdered Yiddish writers, who are commemorated as a group each year, their only crime was to have been members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAF), and, for some of them, like the poet Fefer and the actor Shlomo Mikhoels (who founded Goset, the State Jewish Theater, in Moscow), to have traveled to the West to raise support for the war effort of the USSR.

Mikhoels himself was a fervent supporter of Stalin; in his reminiscences of his visit to the US during WW2, he wrote that the "Trotskyites" and "fascists" (in the US) were acting together against the USSR. That statement (which is completely fictional, since Cannon's SWP fought fascists in the streets) could only have come from a convinced Stalinist. It cannot be stressed enough that the Soviet Jewish public figures who were put to death for no real reason, except for their earlier travels or ties with the West in connection with the work of the JAF, were among Stalin's supporters, because in the USSR in the 1940's that is what patriotism meant. And it is obviously a measure of the insanity of brutally repressive Stalinist rule, that Stalin's own supporters were not spared.

[thesadmafioso]

I am not so sure about this.Can you really claim something like that on the basis of one quote?
Also,when and where exactly were any retreating soldiers "brutally slaughtered"?

I'm not claiming it on the basis of one quote, I'm claiming it on the basis of widely accepted historical fact. I was simply pointing out the fact that even the leading marshals of the Red Army recognized this fact. You are honestly just grasping for any pitiful excuse to defend your fragile image of your beloved Stalin at this point, and it is becoming more sad than anything else.

No historical legitimacy can be found in your counter points, as none exists! I don't care if you are sure of it or not, I care for the truth of the matter. And that would appear to be quite separate from what you do or do not believe, as your crude process of thought doesn't seem capable of registering any information which can be even vaguely read as insulting towards your Stalin.

Arguing with uninformed Stalinist's is simply infuriating. You take issue with the most obvious and apparent historical facts, all in the name of the defense of a reactionary cult of personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270

Demanding that I provide you with information and direct sources for information which should be assumed to be mutually understood in a discussion of this level is simply annoying, really.


Please explain how come and in what way was the RKKA rank system "bourgeois" and explain in what way did "patriotism have a dominant role in its structure".Thank you.

Stalin instituted an official officer corps to the Red Army, he introduced bourgeois hierarchy to its structure and thus deprived it of its revolutionary spirit. Cold uniformity in defense of Russian nationalism replaced the heart and zeal which once motivated the Red Army to victory in its efforts to defend socialism.

Stalin was incredibly chauvinistic and an overtly favored Russian interests over those of the Soviet Union, and the effect of this can be visibly seen in its effect on the Red Army of the era. This force was transformed into one designed to promote Russian interests over the interests of international socialism, thus it took on a dominant role in its structure.

In addition to this, Stalin did place quite the emphasis on patriotism in his propaganda campaigns throughout the Second World War. Defense of the motherland completely overtook the defense of international socialist revolution in the Stalinist propaganda machine. I would say that qualifies as being rather nationalistic.


What exactly are you talking about? At what time did RKKA not have hierarchy?
Also,are you saying that WW2 Red Army soldiers didn't really know what exactly they were fighting for?

Sure...:confused:


As regards discipline in the army, this must be the discipline of people who are bound together by one and the same firm revolutionary consciousness – consciousness of their socialist duty. This will not be a discipline based on orders from above, a discipline enforced by the officer’s stick, but fraternal, conscious, revolutionary discipline.

This was the manner in which the Red Army operated under Trotsky throughout the civil war, in an epoch where its fighting efforts were driven out of a determination to uphold and defend the socialist cause. This stands in opposition to Stalin's army, which fought fascism only when it suited Stalin's interests and which served socialism only when it was Stalin's socialism.

During the Russian Civil War, when the Red Army was lead by Trotsky, it was without the bureaucratic hierarchy typical of the capitalist army.


What "front with the nazis"? The Popular Front was AGAINST nazis and fascists.


No, everything about this statement is fraught with either historical revisionism (to be expected of a Stalinist though, I suppose) or unrequited ignorance of the matter.

In the 1930's, Stalin issued no revolutionary orders to the Communist Party of Germany and ignored the concept of them joining with the Germany SDP in a front against the Nazi fascists. Instead, he brutishly demanded they take up a position of feckless opposition to the German SDP, something also being undertaken by the Nazi's. Thus, he more or less forced the German communists of the 1930's into a de facto front with the Nazi's.

Stalin also choose not to break this truce at any point, as he put up no resistance to the Nazi's when they liquidated the German Communist Party, in line with the norms of the capitalist foreign policy of the time.


You know what is a shame? Seeing leftists vomiting this Cold War stupid anticommunist propaganda on a leftist forum. :glare:

Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin predated the Cold war by well over a decade.

That is a fine bit of arithmetic indeed.

[tir1944]

I'm not claiming it on the basis of one quote, I'm claiming it on the basis of widely accepted historical fact.A "fact" substantiated by one quote.



You are honestly just grasping for any pitiful excuse to defend your fragile image of your beloved Stalin at this point, and it is becoming more sad than anything else. Cool story bro.:cool:



Arguing with uninformed Stalinist's is simply infuriating. You take issue with the most obvious and apparent historical facts, all in the name of the defense of a reactionary cult of personality.
Demanding that I provide you with information and direct sources for information which should be assumed to be mutually understood in a discussion of this level is simply annoying, really.I know of Order no. 227.
What you failed to do though,is to provide evidence for "mass slaughters of retreating soldiers".


Stalin instituted an official officer corps to the Red ArmyDoes that mean that the officer corps in "Pre-Stalin" time wasn't "official",or am i not getting your point?


...he introduced bourgeois hierarchy to its structure and thus deprived it of its revolutionary spirit.How was the RKKA hierarchy "bourgeois"? In what way?



Cold uniformity in defense of Russian nationalism replaced the heart and zeal which once motivated the Red Army to victory in its efforts to defend socialism. Obviously it was of course a Russian,and not a Soviet Army.Am i right?


Stalin was incredibly chauvinistic and an overtly favored Russian interests over those of the Soviet UnionCool,if only you could provide evidence now.


This force was transformed into one designed to promote Russian interests over the interests of international socialism, thus it took on a dominant role in its structure. Interesesting.Substantiate this claim,please.How and in what way did it promote exclusively Russian(!) interests?



In addition to this, Stalin did place quite the emphasis on patriotism in his propaganda campaigns throughout the Second World War. Defense of the motherland completely overtook the defense of international socialist revolution in the Stalinist propaganda machine.The defence of the Socialist Motherland was objectively the defense of international socialist revolution.This is just common sense.



This was the manner in which the Red Army operated under Trotsky throughout the civil war, in an epoch where its fighting efforts were driven out of a determination to uphold and defend the socialist cause. This stands in opposition to Stalin's army, which fought fascism only when it suited Stalin's interests and which served socialism only when it was Stalin's socialism. Interesting opinion...sure,you didn't provide any evidence but still,it sounds cool.



During the Russian Civil War, when the Red Army was lead by Trotsky, it was without the bureaucratic hierarchy typical of the capitalist army. They didn't have offices,clerks and written order in 1910s? Or am i not getting you?
How about elaborating on this "bureaucratic hierarchy" in the Army? What are its main characteristics? In what way was "Stalin's" Red Army different than "Bronstein's" one in regards to hierarchy?

[thesadmafioso]

A "fact" substantiated by one quote.

Cool story bro.:cool:

I know of Order no. 227.
What you failed to do though,is to provide evidence for "mass slaughters of retreating soldiers".

Does that mean that the officer corps in "Pre-Stalin" time wasn't "official",or am i not getting your point?

How was the RKKA hierarchy "bourgeois"? In what way?

Obviously it was of course a Russian,and not a Soviet Army.Am i right?

Cool,if only you could provide evidence now.

Interesesting.Substantiate this claim,please.How and in what way did it promote exclusively Russian(!) interests?

The defence of the Socialist Motherland was objectively the defense of international socialist revolution.This is just common sense.

Interesting opinion...sure,you didn't provide any evidence but still,it sounds cool.

They didn't have offices,clerks and written order in 1910s? Or am i not getting you?
How about elaborating on this "bureaucratic hierarchy" in the Army? What are its main characteristics? In what way was "Stalin's" Red Army different than "Bronstein's" one in regards to hierarchy?

Do your own meticulous research on these matters if you like, I'll not submit my time or efforts to such nonsensical degrees of expectation when dealing with such well known history.

Whatever evidence I provide you simply ignore or demand more, it's a clever yet useless strategy of 'debate', if you can even say as much about it.

[tir1944]

All in all,you pretty much don't have any real evidence to substantiate your claims.
Nice try though.

[thesadmafioso]

All in all,you pretty much don't have any real evidence to substantiate your claims.
Nice try though.

I really don't feel like providing you with a detailed (and very well cited, as such would apparently be necessary) history lesson at the moment, as the efforts would quite obviously be lost on someone of your faulty and ill formed disposition.

Why should I go digging through the archives of the internet and through my personal stock of reference material just to hear the same tired demands of further 'evidence'? This is as futile as arguing religion with a zealot of mysticism, and that metaphor is certainly intentional in all of its extended meaning and detail.

[tir1944]

Sorry,but it was up to you to provide evidence for your claims.
The fact that "you don't feel like it" is irrelevant.
Your claims and "theories" are (for now at least) still unsubstantiated and can be,IMO,freely disregarded.
After all,a debate is a debate-it requires sources.

[thesadmafioso]

Sorry,but it was up to you to provide evidence for your claims.
The fact that "you don't feel like it" is irrelevant.
Your claims and "theories" are (for now at least) still unsubstantiated and can be,IMO,freely disregarded.
After all,a debate is a debate-it requires sources.

There is a time to demand sources, and there is a time to accept basic references to points in history without making a fuse for the sake of facilitating further discourse. This situation clearly falls under the later category, as the only sources you would to refute these rudimentary claims would essentially have to be overtly Stalinist in their origination.

I've no issue with providing citation where citation is due, but you are merely acting in a most infantile fashion by persisting on with these baseless demands of supplementation for the most well known historical facts. It's not a bloody theory that Stalin slaughtered retreating soldiers from the front, I've already linked you to orders issued by Stalin himself on the matter. I quoted you a damned Soviet Marshall who bragged of marching soldiers over mine fields, it's not a theory that such happened. Pull your head out of the muck of Stalinist history and simply examine the actual material state of the Soviet Union under Stalin's maniacal hand and maybe this will all make sense to your deluded and falsely propagated mind.

[tir1944]

There is a time to demand sources, and there is a time to accept basic references to points in history without making a fuse for the sake of facilitating further discourse.This is nothing but cheap demagoguery.
I simply asked you to provide evidence for your claims (most of which are news to me even though i think i do have some knowledge of recent history).
And that's something you're still refusing to do.



I've no issue with providing citation where citation is due, but you are merely acting in a most infantile fashion by persisting on with these baseless demands of supplementation for the most well known historical facts.Well-known facts? How come? I mean,if they're so well known you would certainly be able to easily provide evidence for these "well known" facts,right?



It's not a bloody theory that Stalin slaughtered retreating soldiers from the front, I've already linked you to orders issued by Stalin himself on the matter.Yes,it is theory,fantasy actually.
Quote me the relevant part from O.227 which says that "retreating(!) soldiers should be slaughtered"?
Give me one,just one,historical example where retreating soldiers were indeed,as you say,slaughtered.
It shouldn't be too hard,since these are,of course,known facts.



I quoted you a damned Soviet Marshall who bragged of marching soldiers over mine fields, it's not a theory that such happened.It is also not the definite proof that such things were indeed the modus operandi of RKKA.

[thesadmafioso]

This is nothing but cheap demagoguery.
I simply asked you to provide evidence for your claims (most of which are news to me even though i think i do have some knowledge of recent history).
And that's something you're still refusing to do.

Well-known facts? How come? I mean,if they're so well known you would certainly be able to easily provide evidence for these "well known" facts,right?

Yes,it is theory,fantasy actually.
Quote me the relevant part from O.227 which says that "retreating(!) soldiers should be slaughtered"?
Give me one,just one,historical example where retreating soldiers were indeed,as you say,slaughtered.
It shouldn't be too hard,since these are,of course,known facts.

It is also not the definite proof that such things were indeed the modus operandi of RKKA.

I never said that any of this would be difficult, merely that it would be time consuming and ultimately futile due to the hold which Stalinist propaganda and history has over your mind. You will reject any premise I put forth which runs counter to your religion or 'tendency' as you might prefer to call it, thus it is not worth my time or effort.

Obviously Order 227 was not literally going to be worded in that fashion, but what exactly is it that you think these penal battalions set out to do? Where they to hand out flowers to the retreating soldiers of the Red Army who were being marching to certain death as a result of Stalin brutal approach to warfare?

It is for reasons like such that it would be utterly useless to attempt to reason with you. I would not attempt to use scientific analysis in an argument with a zealot of religion, and I can hardly see how this situation is much different.

[tir1944]

I never said that any of this would be difficult, merely that it would be time consuming and ultimately futile due to the hold which Stalinist propaganda and history has over your mind. You will reject any premise I put forth which runs counter to your religion or 'tendency' as you might prefer to call it, thus it is not worth my time or effort.
How about you substantiate just one or two of your original claims,and then we'll see..



Obviously Order 227 was not literally going to be worded in that fashion, but what exactly is it that you think these penal battalions set out to do? Where they to hand out flowers to the retreating soldiers of the Red Army who were being marching to certain death as a result of Stalin brutal approach to warfare?
Your contemplations are very interesting,but they aren't of any value to this debate.
You stated something (a "well known fact" for that matter!) which you now can't (or don't want to?) prove!
Sorry,but your "stories" are (for now)-still just fiction(not to use harsher words).



It is for reasons like such that it would be utterly useless to attempt to reason with you. I would not attempt to use scientific analysis in an argument with a zealot of religion, and I can hardly see how this situation is much different.
Cool story bro,very convincing.
Way to debate history!

[CommieTroll]

2) I already touched on this in great detail, he only did so after he passed up numerous opportunities to defeat Nazism in its early stages of growth.

Have you considered the Soviets weren't militarily ready to fight of a Nazi onslaught? And doesn't the end justify the means?

[tir1944]

I already touched on this in great detail, he only did so after he passed up numerous opportunities to defeat Nazism in its early stages of growth.
As in when (what year ) for example?

[Rooster]

As in when (what year ) for example?

Such as the policy of Social Fascism in the early 30s?

[Paul Cockshott]

Such as the policy of Social Fascism in the early 30s?

But it is speculative hindsight to suggest that other policies pursued by the soviet government could have prevented the rise of fascism in Germany.

[Invader Zim]

Search for:


Ludo Marten's Another view of Stalin




Why would anybody want to read that trash? Have you actually bothered to read it? I once made that error. As I recall it was one of the worst researched books I have ever encountered. As I recall it contained not a single primary and the research of secondary literature was little better. There was one chapter in which something like 3/4 of the references were to a single book, by the equally inept Stalinist propaganda pusher Doug Tottle.

[Misanthrope]

More Stalin fetishism, really revleft?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The hundreds of thousands of created "deaths by Stalin", with the help of statistical fallacies by the anticommunists Robert Conquest, William Hearst and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The paranoia of well known US propaganda films from the period of Cold War.

Stop YOU being a repeater of anticommunist lies. You would be well-received in a forum for capitalist liberals.

So how many people were executed/died in Gulags in the 1930s show trial period?

[Invader Zim]

So how many people were executed/died in Gulags in the 1930s show trial period?

It is impossible to know.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2234247&postcount=49

But as I quoted in the above post:

"executions and deaths in Gulag camps 1937-1939 can be legitimately estimated between 0.8 and 3.6 million."

Steven Rosefielde, 'Documented Homicides and Excess Deaths: New Insights into the Scale Killing in the USSR During the 1930s', Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1997), p. 322.

I'm sorry, not exactly a 'ball park' figure but likely as good as you're going to get.

[Rodrigo]

In the 1930's, Stalin issued no revolutionary orders to the Communist Party of Germany and ignored the concept of them joining with the Germany SDP in a front against the Nazi fascists.

When Marxist-Leninists created the Popular Front against fascism and Nazism, they were "capitulationists" and "traitors of the working class". When they didn't create, they made "a front with the Nazis" and were "traitors of the working class". Beautiful rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty from the Trots. Nobody knew Hitler would make a coup d'état. In 1933 they got majority on the parliament (later dissolved by them). The nazis got most support of German people because of Goebbels and primarily after the coup of the nazis, with Franz von Papen's plan to make Hitler the new chancellor.

According to my search for the main groups who supported the Nazis:

The young, new voters and those who previously had not voted. There was a four million increase in the electorate between 1928-30 and the Nazi message had a strong appeal to the young and particularly women
Protestant middle-class voters, who had traditionally voted for the DNVP, the DVP or the DDP. They lost confidence in the Weimar Republic with the onset of the “Great Depression” and were fearful of spreading communist influence. One in three of the new Nazi supporters were former conservatives and one in four were former liberals.
Nazi support was strongest in the Protestant and rural areas of Northern and Eastern Germany e.g. Schleswig-Holstein, Pomerania and East Prussia. A Protestant voter was twice as likely to support the Nazis then his Catholic counterpart.
Conservative older voters who believed Hitler would restore the traditional values of the German past e.g. order and discipline.
Although the party did not do as well among the working class, it still managed to capture a significant vote with 40% of its vote coming from this source.

These political and economical circumstances in Germany, which were sadly unseen by most Soviet people, led to Hitler's rise to power. Communists had only 10% of votes and even allying with the social-democrats they would be a minority, either in the Reichstag or in the German society as a whole. The lack of a more powerful propaganda against Nazism was much more intense to the failure of German communists at that time than the lack of unity with social-democrats; there was also Papen's support for Hitler and his persuasion of Hindenburg. The "Parliamentary struggle" couldn't save the communists (and I doubt it could anywhere, anytime).

An efficient anti-Nazi front at that time should be military, but if you think that was the duty of the Comintern: it would be inciting a civil war within Germany and forcing a revolution with the use of military force. What if a capitalist does the same thing? IMPERIALIST! FASCIST! etc. That's "Bonapartism", not communism. (Napoleon Bonaparte spread the revolution by the tip of the bayonet) As seen before, communists had little support in Germany and the Weimar Republic; so a probably armed insurrection, even against Nazis, would certainly be used against the KPD, begging to be expelled from the Parliament, Goebbels would strengthen control over German people's opinions and it wouldn't change anything at all.

What's of most importance? Is it not true that the Popular Front was created to defeat fascism? The Soviets did not defeat the fascists and Nazis, indeed?
When the Popular Front was created, Trots were the first to criticize it. "Two weights, two measures", uh?


Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin predated the Cold war by well over a decade.

Trotsky's criticism was partially correct, but also with lots of nonsense. It's wrong to consider anything happening in USSR was explained by Stalin, or anything in any country explained by the head of State, political leader, prime-minister, etc.

Trotsky was utilized and loved by anticommunism later. "The Revolution Betrayed", for example, is a shame to communism: anti-Stalin propaganda with anti-Marxist stances and capitalist points-of-view, specially regarding the collectivization of land, supporting the kulaks. :bored:

It's funny how a lot of people are complaining of "tendency war" in some topics. What about the topics and commentaries dismissing Marxism-Leninism and demoralizing Stalin? No accusation of "tendency war" if it's something against Stalin, but if it's something against Trotsky, Luxemburg, Khruschev, an anarchist, Bukharin, etc.........RUN, BLOODY TOTALITARIAN BUREAUCRATIC STALINIST! (liberal parrots on action) STICKS AND STONES ARE COMING!

[Rodrigo]

So how many people were executed/died in Gulags in the 1930s show trial period?

http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html

[thesadmafioso]

How about you substantiate just one or two of your original claims,and then we'll see..


Your contemplations are very interesting,but they aren't of any value to this debate.
You stated something (a "well known fact" for that matter!) which you now can't (or don't want to?) prove!
Sorry,but your "stories" are (for now)-still just fiction(not to use harsher words).


Cool story bro,very convincing.
Way to debate history!

Your of no value to the working class or its movement! You are an absolute fool incapable of the most basis discussions of history!

But you know what, just so you will shut up about sources, here are just a handful.

From Robert Service's "A History of Modern Russia" (A bourgeois historian with horribly flawed conclusions, yes, but his ability to compile facts from the soviet archives shouldn't be called into question on those grounds)

On the introduction of bourgeois practices to the military: "Epaulettes were restored to uniforms. The practice of saluting superiors was restored." pg. 279

On Russian chauvinism in the military: "The Russian nation was encouraged to believe that it was fighting for its Motherland (and fatherland: propagandists used the terms indiscriminately), and that this included not only Russia but the entire USSR." pg 283

"The brutal policies before 1941 had induced permanent hatred of Stalin among most non-Russians...For such conscripts, talk of the Soviet Motherland was a disguised way of advocating Russian Imperialism" pg. 284

"Propagandists who had portrayed Germans as honorary Russians during the two years of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty came to treat the entire German people as the enemy" pg. 284 (What ever happened to international class struggle?)

From "Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar" by Simon Sebag Montefiore

On order 270: "The commissars...were to conduct 'ceaseless struggles against cowards, panic-mongers, and deserters'" pg. 378 (The inner quotes being Stalin's own words from a radio address on July 3rd of 1941, and before you ask that bit of info is from the same page)

"...He [Stalin] approved NKGB order No. 246 that stipulated the destruction of the families of men who were captured, and now he made this public in his notorious Order No. 270....These measures ruined the lives of millions of innocent soldiers and their families." pg. 379

The exact wording of the order, as personally written by Stalin: "I order that anyone who removes his insignia...and surrenders should be regarded as a malicious deserter whose family is to be arrested as a family of a breaker of oath and betrayer of the Motherland. Such deserters are to be shot on spot....those who prefer to surrender are to be destroyed by any available means while their families are to be deprived of all assistance." pg. 379

And before you start screaming about capitalist propaganda, I'm only citing bits of information taken directly from Soviet archives, I've been sure to exclude any actual bourgeois analysis. These works all have extensive biographies including a wide array of sources, collections which include primary sources.



Have you considered the Soviets weren't militarily ready to fight of a Nazi onslaught? And doesn't the end justify the means?

Perhaps they should of encouraged class war over war in the bourgeois sense which applies only the national lens then, in a fashion which would of been a true Marxist approach to the question.


As in when (what year ) for example?

From "The Red Flag: A History of Communism" by David Piestland

On the Stalinist approach to fronts against fascism with the Social Democrats (or social fascists, as your leader termed them): "At a time when the radical right, especially the Nazis, were going from strength, the Communists' [Stalinists] fire, puzzlingly for many, directed against the moderate left, not the right" pg. 186

This policy began in 1928, and it was enforced on every communist party recognized by Moscow.

[Rodrigo]

Why would anybody want to read that trash? Have you actually bothered to read it? I once made that error. As I recall it was one of the worst researched books I have ever encountered. As I recall it contained not a single primary and the research of secondary literature was little better. There was one chapter in which something like 3/4 of the references were to a single book, by the equally inept Stalinist propaganda pusher Doug Tottle.

Now Douglas Tottle is a dirty communist pushing "Stalinist propaganda"? I lol'd. Have you ever read Douglas Tottle's book? Instead of propaganda, he has arguments based on much more reasonable facts.

Clarence J. Munford (1935-), Professor of Black Studies and History at the University of Guelph strongly praised Tottle's book, writing that:
Douglas Tottle exposes the fraudulent charge of famine-genocide made against the USSR . . . Skillfully Tottle traces the labyrinthine history of the "evidence" — documentary and photographic — on its convoluted passage from Nazi publications to the Hearst press to the misfounded "scholarship" of such present-day Kremlinologists as Robert Conquest. Tottle' s sharp and engagingly written investigation is useful and intelligent. The author makes an important contribution by exposing the ways and wiles of anti-communist propaganda.
David Whitefield (1931–2007), a Professor of History at the University of Calgary also praised Tottle, writing that



For almost 70 years the study of the Soviet Union has been trapped in a sea of distortion, lies and propaganda. While this has not always been one-sided, its overall effect has been to stimulate fear, suspicion and danger of war. In the present age of new thinking about the history of socialism in the USSR, it remains necessary to deal with it and disperse at least the worst of the lies. Tottle's book demonstrates clearly the viciousness surrounding the theory of the Ukrainian genocide and hopefully will open the way to genuine study of the Ukrainian road to socialism.

[thesadmafioso]

When Marxist-Leninists created the Popular Front against fascism and Nazism, they were "capitulationists" and "traitors of the working class". When they didn't create, they made "a front with the Nazis" and were "traitors of the working class". Beautiful rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty from the Trots. Nobody knew Hitler would make a coup d'état. In 1933 they got majority on the parliament (later dissolved by them). The nazis got most support of German people because of Goebbels and primarily after the coup of the nazis, with Franz von Papen's plan to make Hitler the new chancellor.

According to my search for the main groups who supported the Nazis:

The young, new voters and those who previously had not voted. There was a four million increase in the electorate between 1928-30 and the Nazi message had a strong appeal to the young and particularly women
Protestant middle-class voters, who had traditionally voted for the DNVP, the DVP or the DDP. They lost confidence in the Weimar Republic with the onset of the “Great Depression” and were fearful of spreading communist influence. One in three of the new Nazi supporters were former conservatives and one in four were former liberals.
Nazi support was strongest in the Protestant and rural areas of Northern and Eastern Germany e.g. Schleswig-Holstein, Pomerania and East Prussia. A Protestant voter was twice as likely to support the Nazis then his Catholic counterpart.
Conservative older voters who believed Hitler would restore the traditional values of the German past e.g. order and discipline.
Although the party did not do as well among the working class, it still managed to capture a significant vote with 40% of its vote coming from this source.

These political and economical circumstances in Germany, which were sadly unseen by most Soviet people, led to Hitler's rise to power. Communists had only 10% of votes and even allying with the social-democrats they would be a minority, either in the Reichstag or in the German society as a whole. The lack of a more powerful propaganda against Nazism was much more intense to the failure of German communists at that time than the lack of unity with social-democrats; there was also Papen's support for Hitler and his persuasion of Hindenburg. The "Parliamentary struggle" couldn't save the communists (and I doubt it could anywhere, anytime).

An efficient anti-Nazi front at that time should be military, but if you think that was the duty of the Comintern: it would be inciting a civil war within Germany and forcing a revolution with the use of military force. What if a capitalist does the same thing? IMPERIALIST! FASCIST! etc. That's "Bonapartism", not communism. (Napoleon Bonaparte spread the revolution by the tip of the bayonet) As seen before, communists had little support in Germany and the Weimar Republic; so a probably armed insurrection, even against Nazis, would certainly be used against the KPD, begging to be expelled from the Parliament, Goebbels would strengthen control over German people's opinions and it wouldn't change anything at all.

What's of most importance? Is it not true that the Popular Front was created to defeat fascism? The Soviets did not defeat the fascists and Nazis, indeed?
When the Popular Front was created, Trots were the first to criticize it. "Two weights, two measures", uh?



Trotsky's criticism was partially correct, but also with lots of nonsense. It's wrong to consider anything happening in USSR was explained by Stalin, or anything in any country explained by the head of State, political leader, prime-minister, etc.

Trotsky was utilized and loved by anticommunism later. "The Revolution Betrayed", for example, is a shame to communism: anti-Stalin propaganda with anti-Marxist stances and capitalist points-of-view, specially regarding the collectivization of land, supporting the kulaks. :bored:

It's funny how a lot of people are complaining of "tendency war" in some topics. What about the topics and commentaries dismissing Marxism-Leninism and demoralizing Stalin? No accusation of "tendency war" if it's something against Stalin, but if it's something against Trotsky, Luxemburg, Khruschev, an anarchist, Bukharin, etc.........RUN, BLOODY TOTALITARIAN BUREAUCRATIC STALINIST! (liberal parrots on action) STICKS AND STONES ARE COMING!

I don't even know where to begin with this mess honestly. I just dealt with another crazed zealot of the Church of Stalin on the matter of historical revisionism, so pardon me if I'm not as thorough on this go.

I never said Stalin directly supported the Nazi's, just that his flawed analysis of the "third stage" led to some serious tactical miscalculations that led to alliances in the late 20s and early 30s (whether intentional or not) with fascists. And you can't really ignore the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact either, nor can you simply whitewash over Stalin's conciliatory approach to the western powers before and during WWII.

As for your baseless and fraudulent slander of Trotsky's position on the emergence of the Kulaks, I would direct you to one excerpt (of many, I should add) by Trotsky expressing quite the opposite stance. This particular bit being from "The Revolution Betrayed"


The scattered character of the peasant economy, inherited from the past, was aggravated by the results of the October Revolution. The number of independent farms rose during the subsequent decade from 16 to 25 million, which naturally strengthened the purely consummatory character of the majority of peasant enterprises. That was one of the causes of the lack of agricultural products. A small commodity economy inevitably produces exploiters. In proportion as the villages recovered, the differentiation within the peasant mass began to grow. This development fell into the old well-trodden ruts. The growth of the kulak far outstripped the general growth of agriculture. The policy of the government under the slogan “face to the country” was actually a turning of its face to the kulak. Agricultural taxes fell upon the poor far more heavily than upon the well-to-do, who moreover skimmed the cream of the state credits. The surplus grain, chiefly in possession of the upper strata of the village, was used to enslave the poor and for speculative selling to the bourgeois elements of the cities. Bukharin, the theoretician of the ruling faction at that time, tossed to the peasantry his famous slogan, “Get rich!” In the language of theory that was supposed to mean a gradual growing of the kulaks into socialism. In practice it meant the enrichment of the minority at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

This next excerpt on the matter being from the "Platform of the Joint Left Opposition" of 1927, just to provide supplemental historical context and backing to this point.


The advancement of horseless and toolless farm properties into the lower stratum of the middle peasantry is going on extremely slowly. At the present date there remain in the entire Union 30 to 40 per cent of horseless and toolless properties, and the bulk of these fall into the group of the peasants who sow very little land.

The distribution of the essential means of production in the Northern Caucasus is as follows: To 50 per cent of the weakest proprietors, belong 15 per cent of the means of production. To the middle group, constituting 35 per cent of the proprietors, belong 35 per cent of the essential means of production. And to the highest group, constituting 15 per cent of the proprietors, belong 50 per cent of the means of production. The same picture of the distribution of the means of production is to be observed in other regions (Siberia, the Ukraine, etc.).

This record of inequality in the distribution of land sown and of means of production is confirmed by an unequal distribution of the reserves of grain among the different groups of peasant proprietors. On April 1, 1926, 58 per cent of all the surplus grain in the country was in the hands of 6 per cent of the peasant proprietors. [8]

The renting of land assumes larger and larger proportions every year. The renting proprietors are, in the majority of cases, the peasants who sow a lot of land and who own means of production. In the immense majority of cases, the fact that the land is rented is concealed in order to avoid payment of tax. The peasants who sow little land, lacking tools and animals, work the land for the most part with hired tools and hired animals. The conditions both of renting land and of hiring tools and animals amount almost to slavery. Side by side with extortion in kind, money usury is growing.

The continuous splitting up of peasant properties does not weaken but strengthens the process of class differentiation. The machines and credits, instead of serving as levers for the socialization of agriculture, generally fall into the hands of the kulaks and the well-off and thus help in the exploitation of the farm hands, the poor peasants, and the weaker middle peasants.

Besides this concentration of land and means of production in the hands of the highest groups, the latter are employing hired labour to a steadily increasing degree.

On the other hand, the lower and, in part, the middle group of peasant proprietors are losing, either by way of complete ruin and dissolution, or by way of the pushing out of individual members of the family, a continually increasing number of farm-hands. These surplus hands fall into servitude to the kulak or to the “strong ”middle peasant, or go away to the towns, where, in considerable numbers, they find no employment whatever.

In spite of these processes, which have gone very far, and which lead to a reduction in the relative economic weight of the middle peasant, the middle peasant continues to be numerically the largest agricultural group. To bring this middle peasant over to the side of a socialist policy in agriculture is one of the chief problems of the proletarian dictatorship. Basing our hope on the so-called “strong peasant ”means, in reality, basing it on the further disintegration of this middle layer.

Only a proper attention to the hired hand, only a course based on the poor peasant and his alliance with the middle peasant, only a decisive struggle against the kulak, only a course towards class co-operatives and a class credit system in the country, will make it possible to draw the middle peasant into the work for socialist reconstruction of agriculture.

[tir1944]

Your of no value to the working class or its movement! You are an absolute fool incapable of the most basis discussions of history!:cool:



From Robert Service's "A History of Modern Russia" (A bourgeois historian with horribly flawed conclusions, yes, but his ability to compile facts from the soviet archives shouldn't be called into question on those grounds)An excellent source by a world-famous objective historian.:laugh:


On the introduction of bourgeois practices to the military: "Epaulettes were restored to uniforms. The practice of saluting superiors was restored." pg. 279Cool,now explain to me how come and in what way are epaulettes(which were introduced only in 1943) "bourgeois".



On Russian chauvinism in the military: "The Russian nation was encouraged to believe that it was fighting for its Motherland (and fatherland: propagandists used the terms indiscriminately), and that this included not only Russia but the entire USSR." pg 283Your own quote doesn't even prove this alleged "Russian chauvinism".
The Russian nation was encouraged to believe that it was fighting for its Motherland which included (what a disgrace! what chauvinism!) the whole Motherland,that is,the Soviet Union in its entirety!
Just like the Georgian nation was "encouraged to believe that it was fighting for its Motherland which included the whole country,the whole Soviet Union and not just Georgia.
But,cool story anyway.



The brutal policies before 1941 had induced permanent hatred of Stalin among most non-Russians...For such conscripts, talk of the Soviet Motherland was a disguised way of advocating Russian Imperialism.This Service's outright falsification doesn't make any sense.
Does he,in that book,refer to some other source?
Anyway,Stalin's "brutal policies" hit Russians just as much as they hit Kazakhs or Armenians.
And if this "permanent hatred of Stalin among most non-Russians indeed existed,how come this happened then?
(Wiki) : 1956_Georgian_demonstrations


Propagandists who had portrayed Germans as honorary Russians during the two years of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty came to treat the entire German people as the enemy" pg. 284 (What ever happened to international class struggle?)Germans-honorary Russians?:laugh:
Insanity.
And yes,if the USSR leadership had indeed treated the "entire German people as the enemy" how come they made huge efforts to get German soldiers on their side?
Wiki: National Committee for a Free Germany



From "Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar" by Simon Sebag MontefioreLol.Seriously? Some sources... :laugh:


On order 270: "The commissars...were to conduct 'ceaseless struggles against cowards, panic-mongers, and deserters'" pg. 378 (The inner quotes being Stalin's own words from a radio address on July 3rd of 1941, and before you ask that bit of info is from the same page) Correct.Where's the proof for "mass slaughters of retreating(!) soldiers" though?




"...He [Stalin] approved NKGB order No. 246 that stipulated the destruction of the families of men who were captured, and now he made this public in his notorious Order No. 270....These measures ruined the lives of millions of innocent soldiers and their families." pg. 379Order 246? Google (English and Russian) hasn't even heard about it.
Hmmm...time for more sources from you.



The exact wording of the order, as personally written by Stalin: "I order that anyone who removes his insignia...and surrenders should be regarded as a malicious deserter whose family is to be arrested as a family of a breaker of oath and betrayer of the Motherland. Such deserters are to be shot on spot....those who prefer to surrender are to be destroyed by any available means while their families are to be deprived of all assistance." pg. 379FYI,deserters =/= any retreating(!) soldiers.



And before you start screaming about capitalist propaganda, I'm only citing bits of information taken directly from Soviet archives, I've been sure to exclude any actual bourgeois analysis. These works all have extensive biographies including a wide array of sources, collections which include primary sources. Sure,lol.:laugh:
How about you reread what "evidence" you provided so far,and say that it's really just "direct quotes from Soviet archives".
Also yeah,these 2 books you used are notorious capitalist propaganda.



Perhaps they should of encouraged class war over war in the bourgeois sense which applies only the national lens then, in a fashion which would of been a true Marxist approach to the question. Yes,poor German workers in uniforms should have been greeted with cookies and tea...:laugh:

[Small Geezer]

Stalin destabilised the spiritual forces in our solar system.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://www.mariosousa.se/LiesconcerningthehistoryoftheSovietUnion.html

That shows that 115,000 people, officially, died in labour camps in the period 1937-38. If that's not a lot of deaths then I don't know what is, maybe you just don't appreciate life.

Your source, by the way, completely and utterly ignores the extra-gulag executions which took place in the period 1937-38, which most certainly numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

Is that what you do with facts you don't like, just ignore them? Unluckily for you, i'm pretty well schooled in spotting historical revisionism such as yours.:closedeyes:

[thesadmafioso]

:cool:

An excellent source by a world-famous objective historian.:laugh:

Cool,now explain to me how come and in what way are epaulettes(which were introduced only in 1943) "bourgeois".

Your own quote doesn't even prove this alleged "Russian chauvinism".
The Russian nation was encouraged to believe that it was fighting for its Motherland which included (what a disgrace! what chauvinism!) the whole Motherland,that is,the Soviet Union in its entirety!
Just like the Georgian nation was "encouraged to believe that it was fighting for its Motherland which included the whole country,the whole Soviet Union and not just Georgia.
But,cool story anyway.

This Service's outright falsification doesn't make any sense.
Does he,in that book,refer to some other source?
Anyway,Stalin's "brutal policies" hit Russians just as much as they hit Kazakhs or Armenians.
And if this "permanent hatred of Stalin among most non-Russians indeed existed,how come this happened then?
(Wiki) : 1956_Georgian_demonstrations

Germans-honorary Russians?:laugh:
Insanity.
And yes,if the USSR leadership had indeed treated the "entire German people as the enemy" how come they made huge efforts to get German soldiers on their side?
Wiki: National Committee for a Free Germany

Lol.Seriously? Some sources... :laugh:

Correct.Where's the proof for "mass slaughters of retreating(!) soldiers" though?


Order 246? Google (English and Russian) hasn't even heard about it.
Hmmm...time for more sources from you.

FYI,deserters =/= any retreating(!) soldiers.

Sure,lol.:laugh:
How about you reread what "evidence" you provided so far,and say that it's really just "direct quotes from Soviet archives".
Also yeah,these 2 books you used are notorious capitalist propaganda.

Yes,poor German workers in uniforms should have been greeted with cookies and tea...:laugh:

Alright then, I'm done discussing this matter. If you want to criticize the analysis that these historians provided, go right ahead, I'll probably join you. But that does not discredit their ability to read primary sources and to place it into the format of a book. You are just being absolutely childish at this point, screaming about how any source which paints Stalin in a bad light must automatically be invalid in every possible sense of the word. You've no comprehension of how to conduct yourself in a proper historical debate, in the typical fashion of your average ignorant teenage Stalinist who just likes to make a habit of rejecting historical fact by saying that it was made up for purposes of propaganda. Never mind the fact that I literally quoted Stalin himself at you on a multitude of instances, that must of been made up too I suppose. Plus, that's not enough damned evidence for you, no, I didn't go through the bibliographies of these works and cite to you the primary and secondary sources they used.

What do you actually consider to be a valid level of proof for proving such basic and well documented facts? Should I go to Russia myself and dig through the reams of Soviet archives and compile a book of my own accord then? No, why bother, as that would naturally have some facts in it, which are poison to the followers of Stalin's new 21st century cult of teenagers with too much time on their hands.

The venting of my (well justified) anger aside though, I'll spend a moment touching on what little of your post that can possibly be seen as bearing some resemblance to a 'counter point'.

Saluting and frivolous decorations are the makings of a bourgeois military force, as they indicate solidified and direct hierarchy. I figured that would be simple enough to deduce, but at least your not questioning the actual existence of this fact in history, which is a start.

As for the Russian nationalism, that quote was a set up for that which followed it. I presume that such was lost on you, based on your inability to take the two in the context of each other. And yes, Robert Service uses a multitude of sources, so come of the tired and useless circle of defense which goes from "MORE SOURCES" to "BOURGEOIS PROPAGANDA, ALL LIES" to "MORE SOURCES", especially when you only appear to be applying haphazard googles searches in your own research. (Which I actually find quite insulting, given the amount of effort I put into actual historical research on that last answer)

Seriously though, the fact that google has nothing to say of something does not mean that it didn't happen. That would be a frightening world to live in indeed if such were the case. I cited order 246,a more obscure private order dealing with the same question as 270, directly from a biography on Stalin from someone who is more knowledgeable on the facts of his life than either you or I. His ability to draw political conclusions and broader historical analysis may be quite faulty, but that does not call into question his basic research skills.

For order 270, what exactly do you think Stalin meant the practical effect of 'cowards and deserters' to mean? Of course it meant soldiers on the battlefield who were retreating, hence the creation of penal battalions to tail units tasked with offensive maneuvers. And before the incessant desire in your head to scream "TROTSKYIST BOURGEOIS LIES" arises again, I'm fairly sure that detail about the penal battalions can be found on wikipedia.

You are holding to an axiom which only allows you to accept the citation of historical fact from poorly researched and irretrievably biased works of Stalinist history, works which do not even accept the most widely understood facts of the subject. Thus, you are, in true Stalinist form, attempting to re write history at your own whim. Thankfully you're only on a message board where you can only make a fool of yourself to a handful of posters, as opposed to in the Kremlin erasing politicians from history books at your whim, so as to make it 'true'.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me... Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute." - Karl Marx

[W1N5T0N]

Its dangerous to be believe Hitler was "evil"...just as it is dangerous to think that Stalin was in any way "benevolent". They were just two power hungry bastards with each their very own twisted vision of society and it's "evils"...remember, no dictator can actually hold on to power without doing certain "benevolent" acts, even if only to secure his power.

[tir1944]

If you want to criticize the analysis that these historians provided, go right ahead, I'll probably join you. But that does not discredit their ability to read primary sources and to place it into the format of a book.It seems to me that you don't know how a real debate (one based on facts) works.
So far,you have provided NO primary sources for your claims.



You are just being absolutely childish at this point, screaming about how any source which paints Stalin in a bad light must automatically be invalid in every possible sense of the word.No,i did not say or imply that.Nice try though.


You've no comprehension of how to conduct yourself in a proper historical debate, in the typical fashion of your average ignorant teenage Stalinist who just likes to make a habit of rejecting historical fact by saying that it was made up for purposes of propaganda.Pot calling the kettle...:laugh:
It's YOU who can't provide real facts for your claims.



Never mind the fact that I literally quoted Stalin himself at you on a multitude of instances, that must of been made up too I suppose.Where exactly did you quote Stalin and what relevance does that have for your claims made in this thread?



Plus, that's not enough damned evidence for you, no, I didn't go through the bibliographies of these works and cite to you the primary and secondary sources they used. It's just that there's NO real evidence.Sorry,not my fault.


What do you actually consider to be a valid level of proof for proving such basic and well documented facts? Should I go to Russia myself and dig through the reams of Soviet archives and compile a book of my own accord then?No,just provide primary sources.Shouldn't be too hard,at least not for such an expert as yourself.



Saluting and frivolous decorations are the makings of a bourgeois military force, as they indicate solidified and direct hierarchy.Conclusion=hierarchy is bourgeois?



As for the Russian nationalism, that quote was a set up for that which followed it. I presume that such was lost on you, based on your inability to take the two in the context of each other.Again,that quote proved nothing.



And yes, Robert Service uses a multitude of sources, so come of the tired and useless circle of defense which goes from "MORE SOURCES" to "BOURGEOIS PROPAGANDA, ALL LIES" to "MORE SOURCES", especially when you only appear to be applying haphazard googles searches in your own research.Sorry but all that doesn't change the fact that you failed to provide any real evidence for your claims of "Russian chauvinism" and what not...


Seriously though, the fact that google has nothing to say of something does not mean that it didn't happen. That would be a frightening world to live in indeed if such were the case. I cited order 246,a more obscure private order dealing with the same question as 270, directly from a biography on Stalin from someone who is more knowledgeable on the facts of his life than either you or I. His ability to draw political conclusions and broader historical analysis may be quite faulty, but that does not call into question his basic research skills.
You may have quoted something,but you didn't mention a primary source.



For order 270, what exactly do you think Stalin meant the practical effect of 'cowards and deserters' to mean? Of course it meant soldiers on the battlefield who were retreating, hence the creation of penal battalions to tail units tasked with offensive maneuvers. Again,retreating =/= deserting your post.



You are holding to an axiom which only allows you to accept the citation of historical fact from poorly researched and irretrievably biased works of Stalinist history, works which do not even accept the most widely understood facts of the subject. Thus, you are, in true Stalinist form, attempting to re write history at your own whim. Thankfully you're only on a message board where you can only make a fool of yourself to a handful of posters, as opposed to in the Kremlin erasing politicians from history books at your whim, so as to make it 'true'.Cool story bro.:cool:



Its dangerous to be believe Hitler was "evil"...just as it is dangerous to think that Stalin was in any way "benevolent". They were just two power hungry bastards with each their very own twisted vision of society and it's "evils"...remember, no dictator can actually hold on to power without doing certain "benevolent" acts, even if only to secure his power.
Cool story bro.:cool:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Stalin_nose.JPG

[tir1944]

(doublepost)

[Rooster]

Tir, you're not really looking for any sources or arguments, are you?

[thesadmafioso]

It seems to me that you don't know how a real debate (one based on facts) works.
So far,you have provided NO primary sources for your claims.

No,i did not say or imply that.Nice try though.

Pot calling the kettle...:laugh:
It's YOU who can't provide real facts for your claims.

Where exactly did you quote Stalin and what relevance does that have for your claims made in this thread?

It's just that there's NO real evidence.Sorry,not my fault.

No,just provide primary sources.Shouldn't be too hard,at least not for such an expert as yourself.

Conclusion=hierarchy is bourgeois?

Again,that quote proved nothing.

Sorry but all that doesn't change the fact that you failed to provide any real evidence for your claims of "Russian chauvinism" and what not...

You may have quoted something,but you didn't mention a primary source.

Again,retreating =/= deserting your post.

Cool story bro.:cool:

Cool story bro.:cool:





You don't seem to be knowledgeable on how histories and biographies are generally compiled. All of the historians which I have cited have physically visited Soviet archives and viewed multitudes of primary sources which are now in their works. When I cite the finished products of such work, I am also citing the research contained within them, meaning that I am indeed making use of primary sources.

Yes, these works are literally secondary sources, but secondary sources are more than adequate for these matters. As we are dealing with what once was a 'discussion' on an internet forum, pardon me if I don't pay the soviet archives a visit myself to supplement my arguments.

Also, we are dealing with the history of Stalin's Russia, most any documents put out by his deformed bureaucracy need to be brought under the light of long term historical analysis for the sake of accuracy. It would be most irresponsible to base an analysis of Stalin's despotic regime solely upon contemporary documents of the degenerated Soviet state, as most would of been subjected to an excessive dose of Stalinist manipulation. I certainly hope that you don't believe that the Stalinist propaganda machine was one known for presenting the truth, because if you hold to that premise this discourse will quite literally be impossible to advance in any way.

And in final addendum, are you honestly trying to forward internet memes as a defense of Stalinist history?

Well, at least you are not actually active in any political activity with the masses, that much is reassuring.

[tir1944]

Tir, you're not really looking for any sources or arguments, are you?
I am,why are you asking?



You don't seem to be knowledgeable on how histories and biographies are generally compiled. All of the historians which I have cited have physically visited Soviet archives and viewed multitudes of primary sources which are now in their works. When I cite the finished products of such work, I am also citing the research contained within them, meaning that I am indeed making use of primary sources.
Don't worry,point me out to a specific,exact source from the "Soviet Archives" and i'll find a way to take a look at them.



Yes, these works are literally secondary sources, but secondary sources are more than adequate for these matters. As we are dealing with what once was a 'discussion' on an internet forum, pardon me if I don't pay the soviet archives a visit myself to supplement my arguments.
Every normal historian quotes the sources he/she used...


Also, we are dealing with the history of Stalin's Russia, most any documents put out by his deformed bureaucracy need to be brought under the light of long term historical analysis for the sake of accuracy. It would be most irresponsible to base an analysis of Stalin's despotic regime solely upon contemporary documents of the degenerated Soviet state, as most would of been subjected to an excessive dose of Stalinist manipulation. I certainly hope that you don't believe that the Stalinist propaganda machine was one known for presenting the truth, because if you hold to that premise this discourse will quite literally be impossible to advance in any way.
In other words:you have no real sources.Am i right?



And in final addendum, are you honestly trying to forward internet memes as a defense of Stalinist history?
No,it's just that you should cut down on unfounded ad-hominems.:cool:



Well, at least you are not actually active in any political activity with the masses, that much is reassuring.
Speaking of ad-hominems...:laugh:

[thesadmafioso]

I am,why are you asking?


Don't worry,point me out to a specific,exact source from the "Soviet Archives" and i'll find a way to take a look at them.


Every normal historian quotes the sources he/she used...


In other words:you have no real sources.Am i right?


No,it's just that you should cut down on unfounded ad-hominems.:cool:


Speaking of ad-hominems...:laugh:

In other words, you're just trying to drag this debate out with frivolous demands so that you may put off dealing with actually capitulating to being mistaken in any way, shape, or form.

Scroll down to the source notes section. This should serve to give you a general idea of the array of sources used in these works, which should suffice for the nature of your demands. I couldn't find an actual link to the sources used in the other two, but this should still give you an idea of what the back of a biography looks like.

http://books.google.com/books?id=f-HerzgvxssC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=source%20notes&f=false

[tir1944]

Burden of proof dude,burden of proof.
All i'm asking you is to provide exact sources for (some or,preferably,all) of your claims.
Which you still haven't done,BTW...

[thesadmafioso]

Burden of proof dude,burden of proof.
All i'm asking you is to provide exact sources for (some or,preferably,all) of your claims.
Which you still haven't done,BTW...

Go fucking look at them yourself you historically incompetent pile of petrified amorphous shit.

I gave you the link to the sources used in one of the main secondary sources which I cited. The burden of proof was met long ago, it is just that your deluded and propagated mind is incapable of realizing such.

[tir1944]

Go fucking look at them yourself you historically incompetent pile of petrified amorphous shit.
Are you retarded or what?
It's your job to provide/quote exact sources for your claims.:laugh:



I gave you the link to the sources used in one of the main secondary sources which I cited. The burden of proof was met long ago, it is just that your deluded and propagated mind is incapable of realizing such.
Don't expect me to read that bullshit book just to find the sources the author used for his "analysis" which you then used here in this thread.
That burden is on you,champ.

:cool:

[Die Rote Fahne]

Are you retarded or what?
It's your job to provide/quote exact sources for your claims.:laugh:


Don't expect me to read that bullshit book just to find the sources the author used for his "analysis" which you then used here in this thread.
That burden is on you,champ.

:cool:

"Retarded" is prejudiced language. Grow up.

[thesadmafioso]

Are you retarded or what?
It's your job to provide/quote exact sources for your claims.:laugh:


Don't expect me to read that bullshit book just to find the sources the author used for his "analysis" which you then used here in this thread.
That burden is on you,champ.

:cool:

Rather bold claims for someone apparently incapable of reading a bibliography...

You don't actually read the entire book (which is apparently all 'bullshit' because it disagrees with your fraudulent and contorted image of history) to find sources used in a given section, you simply look them up by chapter.

I provided you with more than reasonable citation for this context, if you would like the exact primary sources which were used in the formulation of said sources you may observe them yourself. It is not my job to satisfy your never ending torrent of incessant nagging over sources, as such is little more than a substandard mechanism of defense for your sheltered ego and its undeniably strong connection to the neo Stalinist cult of personality.

[Rodrigo]

That shows that 115,000 people, officially, died in labour camps in the period 1937-38. If that's not a lot of deaths then I don't know what is, maybe you just don't appreciate life.

Comparing to the number of people on the Gulag - or the number of people in USSR, it wasn't really a lot of deaths, you're just trying to find a bs rhetorical excuse to blame every death on Stalin and trying to demoralize me.

[tir1944]

"Retarded" is prejudiced language. Grow up.
I made a rhetorical question.
He on the other hand called me a "historically incompetent pile of petrified amorphous shit."
That isn't "prejudiced language"?


I provided you with more than reasonable citation for this context, if you would like the exact primary sources which were used in the formulation of said sources you may observe them yourself. It is not my job to satisfy your never ending torrent of incessant nagging over sources, as such is little more than a substandard mechanism of defense for your sheltered ego and its undeniably strong connection to the neo Stalinist cult of personality.
Sorry dude,it's not my fault that you don't have any reliable sources,nor is it my job to search for sources you were supposed to quote in order to substantiate your own claims.
You had your chance to try to look credible,but you failed.
Sorry.;)

[thesadmafioso]

I made a rhetorical question.
He on the other hand called me a "historically incompetent pile of petrified amorphous shit."
That isn't "prejudiced language"?


Sorry dude,it's not my fault that you don't have any reliable sources,nor is it my job to search for sources you were supposed to quote in order to substantiate your own claims.
You had your chance to try to look credible,but you failed.
Sorry.;)

How was my beautifully crafted remark prejudiced, it was little more than an eloquent collection of words which lyrically described your role in this discussion. This compared to your incredibly crude, vulgar, and insensitive slander towards by character.

And you've been issued your sources, the fact that I did not transfer them from a google book to a forum post does not invalidate their existence. Even if such were not the case, I would hardly say that you are in a position to bestow upon anyone the crown of historical legitimacy.

[Rodrigo]

I never said Stalin directly supported the Nazi's, just that his flawed analysis of the "third stage" led to some serious tactical miscalculations that led to alliances in the late 20s and early 30s (whether intentional or not) with fascists.

What alliances with the Nazis, could you please tell me? :confused:


And you can't really ignore the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact either, nor can you simply whitewash over Stalin's conciliatory approach to the western powers before and during WWII.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not an alliance, . This "approach to Western powers", which was military, guaranteed a better position for the Red Army on WW2, but these same Western powers didn't help USSR when they had to (when Germany invaded Poland). There was just moral support, and just only after they discovered Hitler's intention to invade UK after the supposed defeat and conquest of the Soviet Union by the Nazi troops.

In the 30's USSR fought for an anti-fascist and anti-Nazi security union between any country that agreed with. In 1939 USSR proposed a military treaty to France and England against Germany. But there was a delay, provoked by France and England who wanted USSR to fight alone against Germany. Then, on August 12, 1939, they sent people with no power to make agreements or military alliance with the Soviet Union.

Historic investigation by English writer L. Mosley tell that if the Soviet Union hadn't signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Göring (Hitler's right-hand) would have travelled to England on August 23th to the final negotiations of peace treat with Chamberlain. That's why the capitalist powers delayed the Moscow conversations, because they wanted to make an alliance of all powers against USSR.

Some say there were "secret attachments" to the pact, to cause suspicion. In reality, most parts of international pacts, specially in times of war, are always secret. In the so-called "secret attachment" it was established a demarcation line between the two countries which indicated military security zones to be respected. It was also established that Germany would have no military influence over Finland, Latvia and Estonia. This part of the pact lifted a barrier through Central Europe what according to Churchill on October 1st, was "absolutely necessary to Russia's security regarding the Nazi menace. The line exists and makes an east front the Nazis wouldn't dare to attack".

The Curzon Line made Russia accept a frontier hundreds of kilometers inside the Ukrainian and Belorussian linguistic zones. It performed a special role in 1939. When Germany invaded Poland, later the Red Army occupied just zones east of the Curzon Line and not every zone referred in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Then, the territories taken from Russia were regained and its ethnic minorities were defended from the Nazi.

The Pact destroyed the imperialist front England was forming against USSR and obligated France and England to enter the antifascist struggle. During the Pact, Soviet total industrial production raised 13%/year and the defense industry 39%/year! From the beginning of 1940 to June 1941 the Soviet material reserves raised from 4 billion to 7,6 billion rubles and the army was modernized and mechanized with 5 million armed men. The Pact enabled USSR to win WW2, destroy Nazi Germany and free the world from Nazism.


Trotsky expressing quite the opposite stance.

You're right on the Trotsky-kulak question. I stand corrected.

[thesadmafioso]

What alliances with the Nazis, could you please tell me? :confused:



The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not an alliance, . This "approach to Western powers", which was military, guaranteed a better position for the Red Army on WW2, but these same Western powers didn't help USSR when they had to (when Germany invaded Poland). There was just moral support, and just only after they discovered Hitler's intention to invade UK after the supposed defeat and conquest of the Soviet Union by the Nazi troops.

In the 30's USSR fought for an anti-fascist and anti-Nazi security union between any country that agreed with. In 1939 USSR proposed a military treaty to France and England against Germany. But there was a delay, provoked by France and England who wanted USSR to fight alone against Germany. Then, on August 12, 1939, they sent people with no power to make agreements or military alliance with the Soviet Union.

Historic investigation by English writer L. Mosley tell that if the Soviet Union hadn't signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Göring (Hitler's right-hand) would have travelled to England on August 23th to the final negotiations of peace treat with Chamberlain. That's why the capitalist powers delayed the Moscow conversations, because they wanted to make an alliance of all powers against USSR.

Some say there were "secret attachments" to the pact, to cause suspicion. In reality, most parts of international pacts, specially in times of war, are always secret. In the so-called "secret attachment" it was established a demarcation line between the two countries which indicated military security zones to be respected. It was also established that Germany would have no military influence over Finland, Latvia and Estonia. This part of the pact lifted a barrier through Central Europe what according to Churchill on October 1st, was "absolutely necessary to Russia's security regarding the Nazi menace. The line exists and makes an east front the Nazis wouldn't dare to attack".

The Curzon Line made Russia accept a frontier hundreds of kilometers inside the Ukrainian and Belorussian linguistic zones. It performed a special role in 1939. When Germany invaded Poland, later the Red Army occupied just zones east of the Curzon Line and not every zone referred in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Then, the territories taken from Russia were regained and its ethnic minorities were defended from the Nazi.

The Pact destroyed the imperialist front England was forming against USSR and obligated France and England to enter the antifascist struggle. During the Pact, Soviet total industrial production raised 13%/year and the defense industry 39%/year! From the beginning of 1940 to June 1941 the Soviet material reserves raised from 4 billion to 7,6 billion rubles and the army was modernized and mechanized with 5 million armed men. The Pact enabled USSR to win WW2, destroy Nazi Germany and free the world from Nazism.



You're right on the Trotsky-kulak question. I stand corrected.

Bit of a nationalistic approach to foreign policy though, wouldn't you say? What ever happened to the international struggle of the proletariat, as in the workers of every nationality collectively fighting against the capitalist class in solidarity with one another?

Oh, Stalin sort of killed any immediate hope of that in the 1930's with his capitulations to the major capitalistic powers in his failure to take a stance of staunch advocation for the popular fronts against fascism which were taking shape during the era. Why is this? These policies were the result of a ruthlessly brutal calculus of Stalinist nationalism, as a leftist revolution not in line with Moscow was inconceivable to Stalin. So you saw Stalin shatter the front in Spain, you saw him lead the German Communists into de facto alliance with the fascists against the SDP, and you saw a generally bourgeois approach to foreign affairs emerge on Stalin's behalf.

So, we see that the very existence of the situation allowing for the signing of this treaty was the doing of the reaction of Stalin his band of reactionary bureaucrats donning of the crown of Revolutionary Bonapartism. It could easily of been avoided had Stalin and his faction of bureaucratic elites actually of acted in a manner fitting of true Communists.

Even at this point in time, though, it was still not a necessary measure to undertake. Any picture wherein supposed 'communists' are toasting fascists under the hammer and sickle and the swastika is not one I want any part in.

Plus, it's not as if it really altered the conditions leading up to the war anyway. Stalin did far more damage in his heavy handed purges of the professional officers corps and in invading Finland on the eve of war than he could of possibly of done by avoiding warm diplomatic relations with the Nazi's. Simply by refusing to heed intelligence reports of imminent invasion in June of 1941 and ignoring calls from his commanders to engage in an official retreat in the early days of the war, he crippled the ability of the Soviet Union to fight WWII more so than a principled anti fascist stance would of in 1939.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I made a rhetorical question.
He on the other hand called me a "historically incompetent pile of petrified amorphous shit."
That isn't "prejudiced language"?


Sorry dude,it's not my fault that you don't have any reliable sources,nor is it my job to search for sources you were supposed to quote in order to substantiate your own claims.
You had your chance to try to look credible,but you failed.
Sorry.;)
Referring to someone as "retarded" is prejudiced for the reason that it demeans mentally challenged people. It's inappropriate, and is likely to get you a warning, if not infraction.

It's the same as if you called him a "*****" or whathaveyou.

[tir1944]

Referring to someone as "retarded" is prejudiced for the reason that it demeans mentally challenged people.
Yeah whatever.


And you've been issued your sources, the fact that I did not transfer them from a google book to a forum post does not invalidate their existence. Even if such were not the case, I would hardly say that you are in a position to bestow upon anyone the crown of historical legitimacy.
You can play dumb as much as you want,but the fact is:you haven't provided evidence.The rules of a sourced debate is clear (and every history book is written in such a way) : you provide exact sources for each and every claim of yours.
Sorry dude,but it's not my fault you don't have real sources for your insinuations.:laugh:

[W1N5T0N]

FUCK STALIN!

nou goed?

[Wanted Man]

I don't know why thesadmafioso kept banging on about the Red Army and Trotsky's "humane" leadership of it. The reality is more like:


With the help of his faithful deputy Ephraim Sklyansky, Trotsky spent the rest of the Civil War transforming the Red Army from a ragtag network of small and fiercely independent detachments into a large and disciplined military machine, through forced conscription, party controlled blocking squads, compulsory obedience and officers chosen by the leadership instead of the rank and file. He defended these positions throughout his life.

"Blocking squads", of course, are squads of soldiers who shoot at retreating soldiers. These were introduced in the Red Army by Tukhachevsky, with Trotsky's authorisation. Humane? No of course not, it was a war of survival just like WWII. But there is nothing dumber than Trots who pretend that their shit doesn't stink, that Trotsky was some kind of cuddly humanitarian.

[Invader Zim]

Tottle is a dirty communist

Which are you words not mine.


Have you ever read Douglas Tottle's book?

Yes, but you plainly have not.

And let us examine your pathetic attempt to justify paying any serious attention to this hack. You cite two 'historians'? The first, Munford is an nth rate specialist in 17th century Atlanic slavery and another ideologue. He is not remotely qualified to seriously review on Tottle's drivel, and the fact that he did and failed to note how shoddy the research was. And let us be frank, Munford should be trying to get his own piss-poor work up to scratch, not moonlighting as a credible authority on Soviet history.

As for the other guy, I've never even heard of him.

This is what you get when you put his name into bookfinder:

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=david+whitefield&title=&lang=en&isbn=&submit=Search&new_used=*&destination=gb&currency=GBP&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr

Into JSTOR:

http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=au%3A%22David+Whitefield%22&wc=on

In Google Scholar:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=david+whitefield&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=soc&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&btnG=Search+Scholar&hl=en

So basically, this guy never wrote a book, never published an article (at least that can be found on a common journal search engine). And if we look for his thesis (apparently he went to Oxford), what do we get:

http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?dscnt=0&vl%28105258007UI0%29=any&vl%28103770091UI1%29=thesis&scp.scps=scope%3A%28OULS%29&frbg=&tab=local&dstmp=1316271890315&srt=rank&ct=search&mode=Basic&dum=true&tb=t&indx=1&vl%281UIStartWith0%29=contains&vl%28freeText0%29=david+whitefield&fn=search&vid=OXVU1

That's right. Nothing.

I would like to see what his specialism was, but apparently he didn't have one.

[RED DAVE]

Bringing it back to the US of A, one of the "accomplishments" of the Stalinists was the conversion, in the mid-1930s, of the CPUSA into, basically, a social democratic party and the left-wing of bourgeois liberalism and the New Deal.

Not quite as dramatic as the Stalin-Hitler pact, I know, but devastating to American Left politics.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

I don't know why thesadmafioso kept banging on about the Red Army and Trotsky's "humane" leadership of it. The reality is more like:



"Blocking squads", of course, are squads of soldiers who shoot at retreating soldiers. These were introduced in the Red Army by Tukhachevsky, with Trotsky's authorisation. Humane? No of course not, it was a war of survival just like WWII. But there is nothing dumber than Trots who pretend that their shit doesn't stink, that Trotsky was some kind of cuddly humanitarian.

Quite frankly, I was expecting this to be mentioned about 5 pages or so ago. It certainly would of been preferable to dealing with this troll continuously bleating on about his feedback loop of sources and acting as if a point could be found in such. This is actually rather refreshing.

The Russian Civil War was a conflict far different in its dynamic from the Second World War. The Red Army tasked with fighting the Civil War under Trotsky displayed organization, ideological aims, and methodology leagues above Stalin's Red Army in every imaginable way.

And even when these tactics were demanded of Trotsky's Red Army, they can still be justified by the incredibly diverse conditions of the conflict, one wherein political loyalty was a serious issues confronting many units, as they were participating in a civil war being fought in the defense of socialism. In WWII, retreating units were not retreating out of political disloyalty, but rather out of a fear for their lives and as a result of the brutish nature of the Red Armies military planning (or rather lack thereof, I suppose). Stalin's troops did not have a deficiency of patriotism, as his expansive machine of Stalinist falsification had long since deprived the propaganda of the deformed bureaucratic state of any truly socialist content. It was not as if troops were retreating as a result of their commitment to socialism, as they were propagated to understand the conflict in an entirely separate light. They were shot so that they would fall in line and carry out the suicidal demands of the military bureaucrats in Moscow.

Even then, I would argue that Stalin's use of such units was far more widespread to a point where fear consumed the purpose of his military, as compared to Trotsky's forces which were still primarily motivated out of a revolutionary commitment to the cause of socialism's defense. Trotsky oversaw the implementation of this policy in a time of ideological civil war, whereas Stalin applied it fecklessly to further his nationalistic aims of wartime. The two are without a shared motivation nor shared results, and such a comparison is based upon a faulty conception of the situation.

[tir1944]

And even when these tactics were demanded of Trotsky's Red Army, they can still be justified by the incredibly diverse conditions of the conflict, one wherein political loyalty was a serious issues confronting many units, as they were participating in a civil war being fought in the defense of socialism. In WWII, retreating units were not retreating out of political disloyalty, but rather out of a fear for their lives and as a result of the brutish nature of the Red Armies military planning (or rather lack thereof, I suppose). Stalin's troops did not have a deficiency of patriotism, as his expansive machine of Stalinist falsification had long since deprived the propaganda of the deformed bureaucratic state of any truly socialist content. It was not as if troops were retreating as a result of their commitment to socialism, as they were propagated to understand the conflict in an entirely separate light. They were shot so that they would fall in line and carry out the suicidal demands of the military bureaucrats in Moscow. Shame on you,liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army

[Rodrigo]

This is what you get when you put his name into bookfinder

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?keywords=douglas+tottle&st=sh&ac=qr&submit=


Into JSTOR

[/URL][url]http://www.jstor.org/pss/41052624?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQue ry%3D%2522Douglas%2BTottle%2522%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3 DDouglas%2BTottle%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc %3Don%26swp%3Don&Search=yes (http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=au%3A%22David+Whitefield%22&wc=on)


In Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=author%3Adouglas+author%3Atottle&btnG=Search&as_subj=soc&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=david+whitefield&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=soc&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&btnG=Search+Scholar&hl=en)


So basically, this guy never wrote a book, never published an article (at least that can be found on a common journal search engine). And if we look for his thesis (apparently he went to Oxford), what do we get

He wrote a book. You claim you read it, so you should have read ABOUT THE AUTHOR and the sources/bibliography and footnotes. :)

He's Canadian, worked as a photographer and photo-lab technician, fine artist, underground miner, and as a steelworker. An active trade unionist, Tottle edited the United Steelworkers' journal The Challenger from 1975 to 1985, during which time the paper received over 20 international and Canadian labor journalism awards. Tottle has also worked as a labor history researcher, and as an organizer. During the 1970s he assisted the organizing drive of Chicano farm workers in Manitoba. Tottle has written for various Canadian and U.S. periodicals, magazines, and labor journals.


That's right. Nothing.

Is that so important? You're just trying to find excuses to make Douglas Tottle's work inferior. 7 pages of bibliography is nothing to you, right?

[RED DAVE]

And even when these tactics were demanded of Trotsky's Red Army, they can still be justified by the incredibly diverse conditions of the conflict, one wherein political loyalty was a serious issues confronting many units, as they were participating in a civil war being fought in the defense of socialism. In WWII, retreating units were not retreating out of political disloyalty, but rather out of a fear for their lives and as a result of the brutish nature of the Red Armies military planning (or rather lack thereof, I suppose). Stalin's troops did not have a deficiency of patriotism, as his expansive machine of Stalinist falsification had long since deprived the propaganda of the deformed bureaucratic state of any truly socialist content. It was not as if troops were retreating as a result of their commitment to socialism, as they were propagated to understand the conflict in an entirely separate light. They were shot so that they would fall in line and carry out the suicidal demands of the military bureaucrats in Moscow.
Shame on you,liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_ArmyApparently the Stalin School of Falsification is still graduating students. What does this have to do with the quote it is intended to deal with?

RED DAVE

[Invader Zim]

He wrote a book.

I'm not talking about Tottle now, dumbass - we both know who he was and the garbage he wrote. We are talking about one of the individuals you cited as "expert" endorcement for Tottle's book.

I realise it must be difficult for you, but do at least try to keep up.


7 pages of bibliography is nothing to you, right?

Actually, yes. I've seen undergraduate dissertations with larger bibliographies.

[RED DAVE]

Douglas Tottle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Tottle)

RED DAVE

[Kiev Communard]

Sorry for off-topic, but I find it amazing when self-described "communists" engage in mindless personality-cult contests. Both Stalinism and Trotskyism, whatever their past histories, are completely irrelevant from the point of view of modern world's revolutionary process.

[Rodrigo]

We are talking about one of the individuals you cited as "expert" endorcement for Tottle's book.

http://emeritus.ucalgary.ca/whitefield


Actually, yes. I've seen undergraduate dissertations with larger bibliographies.

So that means his book is false? What you only said here to "prove the Ukrainian famine was caused by Stalin" was ad hominem against Douglas Tottle and people referenced in the book, and that's no proof of at all.

[thesadmafioso]

Sorry for off-topic, but I find it amazing when self-described "communists" engage in mindless personality-cult contests. Both Stalinism and Trotskyism, whatever their past histories, are completely irrelevant from the point of view of modern world's revolutionary process.

I'm sorry, but how exactly do you think that to be a valid and legitimate comparison?

Stalin butchered the Bolshevik Revolution with the ax of bureaucratic centralism, political paranoia, nationalism, and mass violence of the most undirected and brutal variety. His actions crushed the spirit of international socialism, both in his lifetime and in the ensuing decades. The damage of the disastrous actions directed by him and his cabal of bureaucrats survives to this day. Naturally, opposition to this should not be forsaken so long as malleable minds of the movement still fall victim to the deception of Stalinist falsification.

Why a defense of Trotsky should be classified as being equatable to advocation for this wretched despot and his cult of personality is well beyond me. No cult of personality exists around Trotsky within those who uphold his thought, no historical revisionism has been undertaken in his name, and no assault on the principles of socialism have been justified by such fervent worship of his image. There is a clear and concise line between drawing inspiration from the historical role played by a revolutionary and in carrying on the lineage of his thought, and in creating a church around a figure used for the justification any and every possible nationalistic deviation from socialist thought.

Trotsky made a multitude of valid contributions to socialist theory which is still relevant to this day, and the lessons of his conflicts with the bureaucratic counterrevolution as it manifested itself in the form of Stalinism are not ones which we would be wise to forget.

This is simply a crude whitewashing of history. We cannot nor should we simply ignore the theoretical breech separating socialism and Stalinism, as the latter poses a tremendous threat to the progress of the former. Theory is indispensable to the contemporary class struggle, and it would not be an intelligent to overlook the value of Trotsky's contribution to such.

[ComradeOm]

This is simply a crude whitewashing of historyWell yes, but it is history

My first post on this forum was a thread questioning the relevance of the Trotskyist/Stalinist division in today's world. I still haven't had a good answer as to why it matters. Stalinism, in the West at least, no longer exists as a viable intellectual current. It's been chased into the fringes of the internet and the flashlight increasingly shone on its historical crimes. By the same token, there is no need to hold Trotsky up as a mirror to the USSR or to insist that he represents an alternative to a socialism that no longer exists

Both are historical figures that are worth examining but neither have any real relevance to today's socialism. Old attitudes linger on but we don't need to treat them as anything but history

[Invader Zim]

http://emeritus.ucalgary.ca/whitefield




And that link tells us nothing, except that he is dead. It provides no information on his publications (which simply either do not exist, or were so shit that they have made absolutely no impact what-so-ever) or even his speciality.


So that means his book is false? What you only said here to "prove the Ukrainian famine was caused by Stalin" was ad hominem against Douglas Tottle and people referenced in the book, and that's no proof of at all.

It means his book is a poorly research piece of crass propaganda, that is roundly contradicted by that scholarly material which has been well researched.

[Wanted Man]

Quite frankly, I was expecting this to be mentioned about 5 pages or so ago. It certainly would of been preferable to dealing with this troll continuously bleating on about his feedback loop of sources and acting as if a point could be found in such. This is actually rather refreshing.

The Russian Civil War was a conflict far different in its dynamic from the Second World War. The Red Army tasked with fighting the Civil War under Trotsky displayed organization, ideological aims, and methodology leagues above Stalin's Red Army in every imaginable way.

And even when these tactics were demanded of Trotsky's Red Army, they can still be justified by the incredibly diverse conditions of the conflict, one wherein political loyalty was a serious issues confronting many units, as they were participating in a civil war being fought in the defense of socialism. In WWII, retreating units were not retreating out of political disloyalty, but rather out of a fear for their lives and as a result of the brutish nature of the Red Armies military planning (or rather lack thereof, I suppose). Stalin's troops did not have a deficiency of patriotism, as his expansive machine of Stalinist falsification had long since deprived the propaganda of the deformed bureaucratic state of any truly socialist content. It was not as if troops were retreating as a result of their commitment to socialism, as they were propagated to understand the conflict in an entirely separate light. They were shot so that they would fall in line and carry out the suicidal demands of the military bureaucrats in Moscow.

Even then, I would argue that Stalin's use of such units was far more widespread to a point where fear consumed the purpose of his military, as compared to Trotsky's forces which were still primarily motivated out of a revolutionary commitment to the cause of socialism's defense. Trotsky oversaw the implementation of this policy in a time of ideological civil war, whereas Stalin applied it fecklessly to further his nationalistic aims of wartime. The two are without a shared motivation nor shared results, and such a comparison is based upon a faulty conception of the situation.

Wow, you know so much. I think any future red armies should hire you as a psychic who can look into the minds of soldiers. Or does it only work when it's 60 or 80 years ago?

I agree that the situations were totally different. The civil war was a life-and-death ideological struggle where all methods used by St. Trotsky were justified. The invasion during WWII, on the other hand, was just a tiny matter of a 4-million strong invasion, aimed at ethnically cleansing the entire population in order to create Lebensraum, and physically eliminating every single Jew in an industrial manner with gas; no biggie, happens every day. Stalin's methods in responding to that were clearly disproportionate! In fact, he shouldn't have mobilised ground troops at all. Some humanitarian bombing of Berlin and decapitation strikes against the Nazi leadership with bunker-busters would have done the job. Shock and awe them!

But as it is, every horrible method used in WWII by the Soviets was clearly both caused by the personal depravity of Stalin as well as the political rottenness of the Soviet state, whereas similar acts by Trotsky were just aberrations, so unimportant that he can still be touted as a humanitarian, or they can even be praised because at least he was a good military leader at the time.

:blink:

Anyway, it's interesting to hear that you do think it is on occasion acceptable to forcibly draft millions of workers, drag them from their homes, put a uniform on them and give them a gun (if they're lucky) and then shred them with machine guns from the safety of the rear if they don't want to die for the state. That's okay, just so we're not mistaken on this. This clearly demonstrates the superiority of Trotskyism from a humanitarian point of view. :thumbup1:

So in the interest of not having a post consisting fully of annoying sarcasm, I think this attitude shows exactly the kind of problem with zealous defence of the "glorious leader" or whatever, and exactly why the "Stalin vs Trotsky" arguments are so boring. Note that I'm only talking about the way they tend to play out on Revleft here; as several people have noted in this thread, there are, in fact, interesting political discussions to be taken from it. We'll just never see them here because all posts read like they're written by paid party hacks (in before: "Well, if only those damn Xists would see reason!!!11").

I absolutely think that this kind of blind obedience requires people to suspend their common sense and start defending the undefendable. This thread demonstrates that, for instance, Trotskyism (or at least its internet version) can never be content with simply analysing the political bankruptcy of "Stalinism" or whatever, it also needs its founding myth about the glorious martyr who did everything right (and what he did wrong was irrelevant or due to extenuating circumstances) to inspire its supporters. Which is a pretty interesting phenomenon for supposed materialists.

[thesadmafioso]

Wow, you know so much. I think any future red armies should hire you as a psychic who can look into the minds of soldiers. Or does it only work when it's 60 or 80 years ago?

I agree that the situations were totally different. The civil war was a life-and-death ideological struggle where all methods used by St. Trotsky were justified. The invasion during WWII, on the other hand, was just a tiny matter of a 4-million strong invasion, aimed at ethnically cleansing the entire population in order to create Lebensraum, and physically eliminating every single Jew in an industrial manner with gas; no biggie, happens every day. Stalin's methods in responding to that were clearly disproportionate! In fact, he shouldn't have mobilised ground troops at all. Some humanitarian bombing of Berlin and decapitation strikes against the Nazi leadership with bunker-busters would have done the job. Shock and awe them!

:blink:

Anyway, it's interesting to hear that you do think it is on occasion acceptable to forcibly draft millions of workers, drag them from their homes, put a uniform on them and give them a gun (if they're lucky) and then shred them with machine guns from the safety of the rear if they don't want to die for the state. That's okay, just so we're not mistaken on this. This clearly demonstrates the superiority of Trotskyism from a humanitarian point of view. :thumbup1:

Poorly done insult aside, you argue against nothing more than a hollow caricature of my original point.

I was not trying to underwrite the value of the fight against fascism and Nazism in WWII, I was simply comparing the glaring disparities in the situations which you are attempting to juxtapose. I support the Red Army and its efforts against fascism with absolute entirely, I just have to take opposition to the specific manner in which Stalin conducted the war. His brutal and heavy handed cruelty caused millions of senseless deaths while at the same time purging the socialist spirit from the army.

Also, had Stalin truly been committed to the cause of international socialism, he would not of allowed the Nazi's the numerous different advantages which he did. This situation could of been avoided completely had he shown a devotion to a true front against German fascism in the 1930's or if he had prepared his forces for a German invasion, instead of creating warm relations with the Nazi government. As I previously said, I support the Red Army and the Soviet people, not Stalin's endless efforts to undermine their progress.

You simply cannot equate the eventual triumph of the Soviet people over the numerous obstacles put in their place in their efforts to defeat fascism by the Stalinist bureaucrats with Stalin and his domineering lust for power and self glorification.

[tir1944]

His brutal and heavy handed cruelty caused millions of senseless deaths while at the same time purging the socialist spirit from the army. A bold claim but,again,you gave no proof.

[Invader Zim]

A bold claim but,again,you gave no proof.

Except, of course, that even the most conservative estimate based on figures from the Soviet archives suggest that during the Great Purge nearly a million individuals were either executed or died in slave labour camps, and liberal estimates from the same sources suggest upwards 3.5 million deaths during the same period. And this is before we consider the rest of Stalin's lengthy regime, the contradictions and flaws within the archival material, and the vast array of non-archival sources, all of which necessarily demand a higher estimate overall estimate.

So there is proof, and you're just another Red Alert "leftist", a miserable form of bellend, who refuses to accept the facts - you know, exactly like a holocaust deniar.

[Ismail]

Stalinism, in the West at least, no longer exists as a viable intellectual current. It's been chased into the fringes of the internet and the flashlight increasingly shone on its historical crimes.Except you could more or less apply that to every other Communist tendency in the US and in the West, sans some European "Communist" parties which are in name only. Of course it was the same "intellectuals" in those countries who spearheaded reformist tendencies to begin with, and who transformed Marxism from a revolutionary ideology into one where a bunch of students huddled together to read Gramsci or, God help us, Žižek.

Also if anything Stalin's "crimes" are being received with less emotionalism. As the years pass I'm pretty sure, outside of liberal and conservative circles, Stalin will be received better, albeit obviously sullied a fair bit for obvious reasons which will need to be rectified.

[thesadmafioso]

Except, of course, that even the most conservative estimate based on figures from the Soviet archives suggest that during the Great Purge nearly a million individuals were either executed or died in slave labour camps, and liberal estimates from the same sources suggest upwards 3.5 million deaths during the same period. And this is before we consider the rest of Stalin's lengthy regime, the contradictions and flaws within the archival material, and the vast array of non-archival sources, all of which necessarily demand a higher estimate overall estimate.

So there is proof, and you're just another Red Alert "leftist", a miserable form of bellend, who refuses to accept the facts - you know, exactly like a holocaust deniar.

Believe me, I've tried reasoning with this particular troll, but he is little more than a broken record which constantly repeats the same old tired demands for more sources. It's really not worth the effort.

[RED DAVE]

Also if anything Stalin's "crimes" are being received with less emotionalism. As the years pass I'm pretty sure, outside of liberal and conservative circles, Stalin will be received better, albeit obviously sullied a fair bit for obvious reasons which will need to be rectified.Pathetic.

As time goes by, the role of Stalin and his ilk in the betrayal of the working class and the destruction of the Left becomes clearer and clearer

RED DAVE