The Red Terror

[The Stalinator]

What exactly was it, what were its aims, and do you believe it was justified? What would have happened if it had not occurred?

[thesadmafioso]

It was undertaken in the aftermath of a failed assassination attempt against Lenin in the midst of brewing reaction and counter revolution, so naturally it was aimed to reduce the threat of those forces to the newly crafted proletarian state and the revolutionary ideals which it upheld.

I certainly believe it was justified; if these enemies of Bolshevism looked to revert back to the crude tactics of senseless terror, what else did they expect to come of them?

Had it not occurred you would likely of seen a greater extent of political dissent of the counter revolutionary variety emerge in urban centers, which would of led to unnecessary erosion in the core of the soviet state. If gone unchecked, the physical violence which was promoted by the stagnant and defeated SR's may of spread further, only increasing the tumultuous nature of the era.

This was an epoch of outright civil war with not only the threats of the white armies emerging throughout Russia, but against their vast hordes of capitalistic support from the words external superpowers. Needless to say, it was not a time for leniency when dealing with forces of violent terror against the proletarian and its institutions of class rule.

[Geiseric]

It was anything that any state would do in their position, which I believe is justified because in order to increase stability they obviously need to find saboteurs and people who would actively work to create violence and chaos in the country, in order to revert back to capitalism

[RedMarxist]

wanna know something disturbing? Stalin actually advised Lenin to instigate the Red Terror.

He basically told him it was necessary to weed out the remaining reactionaries from Russia or something along those lines.

I don't think it was necessary. It was murder no matter what. And all it did was make Socialism look really, REALLY bad to the rest of the world. Gee, I wonder what caused the First Red Scare?

[ArrowLance]

wanna know something disturbing? Stalin actually advised Lenin to instigate the Red Terror.

He basically told him it was necessary to weed out the remaining reactionaries from Russia or something along those lines.

I don't think it was necessary. It was murder no matter what. And all it did was make Socialism look really, REALLY bad to the rest of the world. Gee, I wonder what caused the First Red Scare?

Socialism already looked bad and would be made to look bad regardless of any truths or even if socialism didn't exist. Yes it was murder, and perhaps it was not necessary but none of that matters.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I do think terrors are necessary sometimes but I think some of what happened was just barbaric. The White Terror was going on before that and SR's trying to assassinate Lenin was just the last straw. But it's hard to justify executing striking workers, taking families hostage and killing them because somebody else deserted, etc. So a lot of what happened was totally unjustifiable IMO.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It was anything that any state would do in their position, which I believe is justified because in order to increase stability they obviously need to find saboteurs and people who would actively work to create violence and chaos in the country, in order to revert back to capitalism

How's San Fran looking today?

Bet it's looking rather nice, nice enough for you to sit behind your computer theorising away (badly, too) about how somehow hundreds of thousands of wrongful, shoddy, essentially 'coram non-judice' (in the sense of being without democratic jurisdiction) murders were somehow justified.

I can't imagine how your opinion might have changed if you were involved first-hand during the period. No doubt you'd maintain absolute devotion to the murders even as they drag your mother and father away, wrongly accused of being saboteurs, spies and Trotskyist-Fascist conspirators.

I mean, seriously, those who actively support that episode really do give the rest of us a bad name. Shameful.

[Iron Felix]

Revolutionary terror is a neccesary tool to create a new society. Marx didn't disagree.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Revolutionary terror is a neccesary tool to create a new society. Marx didn't disagree.
Can Marx ever be wrong?

[Weezer]

Transitional periods have always been times of uncomfortable living and suspension of rights.

This even happened after the American Revolution, the Alien and Sedition Acts, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)

I feel though that the transitions from Feudalism to Capitalism were easier, as in Feudalism there was nothing called "human rights, human rights were invented by the American and French bourgeois revolutions. Now that these rights are firmly integrated in our society, it is nearly impossible to have a revolution without calls of "human rights abuses!"

It was a good strategy on the bourgeoisie's part to invent human rights. Because now it is extremely to have a revolution with them. It's not like after revolution we're going to completely discard human rights because we're evil socialists, but people should realize revolutions and transitional periods cannot hold human rights conventions at the same time. After the revolution is stabilized, people will be, or at least should be, guaranteed human rights and more.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I know people on the left are fans of making a point that 'human rights' are skewed towards bourgeois interests, and in some cases this is most certainly true.

But taking away someone's right to life, no, taking away an entire section of peoples' rights to life, and then hiding behind the smokescreen that rights are some sort of bourgeois decadence, is really weak. That some human rights are certainly bourgeois does not mean that, conversely, denying peoples' basic human rights is thus excusable.

Besides, without becoming theoretical, let's not pretend the purges of 1937-38 had anything to do with rights. You don't murder hundreds of thousands of people on a technicality. The act was gross and I challenge any of you sitting behind your keyboards to genuinely tell me you feel comfortable that the act as a whole was justified and right, without resorting to quoting obscure passages from Marx, Lenin and Stalin out of context, and calling me a liberal or Trotskyist or whatever.

[RedMarxist]

Honestly, why do people A) Support/Glorify Joseph Stalin and B) Justify his purges?

I can understand having respect for him as he did, after all, turn a relatively backwards society, backwards both economically and culturally, into one of the most culturally advanced and economically powerful industrial states in the world. In short, he turned the USSR into a superpower.

Or is it "Winning" World War II that makes "Stalinists" drool onto their keyboards so much? Fun historical fact: without US aid(yes US aid, the country that tried to destroy the USSR during a Civil War in which 13 other nations invaded), the Nazi war machine would have CRUSHED the Red Army, Air Force, and Navy.

How's that for winning WWII?

It is so sick to say that just because of those above accomplishments, the purges were 100% justified.

Lets flip that around and apply it to Adolf Hitler. I guess his Final Solution was justified as, he turned Germany into a culturally and economically advanced Industrial state. He also turned Germany into a superpower.

Or is it Almost winning WWII that makes Neo-Nazi scum from drooling on their keyboard?

see how ludicrous "Stalinist" claims are? grow up.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't understand why people *cough* El Granma *cough* RedMarxist *cough* are talking about the evil Stalin and persecuted Trotskyists, we're talking about the Red Terror, not the Great Purges. El Granma people die in revolutions get over it, we're not going to overthrow the capitalists by occupying Freedom Plaza or Wall Street or whatever.

[Os Cangaceiros]

El Granma people die in revolutions get over it, we're not going to overthrow the capitalists by occupying Freedom Plaza or Wall Street or whatever.

I think he's criticizing the notion that people's right to not get slaughtered is a bourgeois conception or something, not that people die in revolutions.

[RedMarxist]

Criticism of Stalin aside, A Revolutionary Tool is right. Revolutions are violent.

Why then, and this is an honest question, why are violent revolutions condemned by the international community and labeled as 'terrorist movements?'

No, they say, peaceful revolutions are the new 21st century revolution!

is it because 'they', being world governments, feel safe if no one is employing violence against them? Does violence scare them? not to suggest violence is right...I'm just asking an honest question.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, I think that a lot of Russia's early history is often clouded in almost religious-style myth and legend. Granted, the early Russian state faced significant pressure from greater Europe, especially with WW1 still ongoing, but the other powers (aka the 40+ capitalist armies or whatever the hell the number is now) never really were able to focus their energies for exactly that reason. And the "white armies" that were supposedly popping up everywhere? They waged one of the most inept military campaigns in modern history.

[Rafiq]

Can Marx ever be wrong?


Rarely

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think he's criticizing the notion that people's right to not get slaughtered is a bourgeois conception or something, not that people die in revolutions.

I don't know I'm under the impression that he's saying you can't ever kill someone, that that would take away their "right to life". I'm under this impression because I can swear I remember him saying he was a pacifist and that the revolution should be peaceful.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Rarely

Lol, the point I'm going to make is we shouldn't be saying "Marx believed it, therefore it's correct" like Iron Felix just did. His argument that revolutionary terror is justified? Marx said it can be used. It's an appeal to authority, like Marx is God so whatever he said must be correct. We shouldn't be making such arguments, we're supposed to have critical thinking skills.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

What exactly was it, what were its aims, and do you believe it was justified? What would have happened if it had not occurred?

"We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly."-Felix Dzerzhinsky.

[Ostrinski]

Revolutionary terror is OK if

A) It is a popular and democratic operation.
B) It is not aimed toward other proletarians.

Case closed.

[Sensible Socialist]

When we succumb to fear, hysteria, and terror, we are no better than those who have caused it.

[Pioneers_Violin]

Why then, and this is an honest question, why are violent revolutions condemned by the international community and labeled as 'terrorist movements?'

No, they say, peaceful revolutions are the new 21st century revolution!

is it because 'they', being world governments, feel safe if no one is employing violence against them? Does violence scare them? not to suggest violence is right...I'm just asking an honest question.

Yes.
"They" are completely frightened of violence directed towards them. Specifically, the persons that make up the ruling classes.

This is why more and more politicians and business leaders, oops, business DICTATORS have literal armies to protect them.

May they rot in their Gated Communities, which I call Prisons, shivering with fear.


Please continue studying the Stalin period. Uncle Joe was probably the best leader of that time. Without him, many more lives would have been lost and the USSR probably wouldn't have made it out of the 20's.

[Geiseric]

I don't think they should have been killed, but in hindsight what would have happened in the Civil War period if none of the counter revolutionary movements were not opposed in any way? The revolution would have FAILED, and the possibility for world revolution starting in Russia would have been gone. Btw, I live in an apartment. Don't use ad hominem attacks against me please, I never resort to those, I would expect the same out of everybody else. i'm not going to say any more.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't understand why people *cough* El Granma *cough* RedMarxist *cough* are talking about the evil Stalin and persecuted Trotskyists, we're talking about the Red Terror, not the Great Purges. El Granma people die in revolutions get over it, we're not going to overthrow the capitalists by occupying Freedom Plaza or Wall Street or whatever.

I don't think I ever said anything about 'the evil Stalin'. If you'd read any of my posts you'd know that's not what my focus is on.

'people die in revolutions get over it'. What sort of argument is this?

Shall I say 'people die in wars get over it'? You'd go bloody mad if I did.

The point is not that people die in revolutions, it's that sometimes, BAD peopl die in revolutions because they are trying to kill the revolutionaries.

Like i've said many times, it's easy to while away hundreds of thousands of lives behind your computer screen. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Please continue studying the Stalin period. Uncle Joe was probably the best leader of that time. Without him, many more lives would have been lost and the USSR probably wouldn't have made it out of the 20's.

Sorry, this is such bullshit. We are materialists, we are economic historians.

What you have done, is to simplify the materialist process, no - abolish it entirely, and replace it with this simplistic, child-like 'great men' social history theme.

So, Stalin was the ONLY person at the time capable of leading the USSR to any sort of success, was he? Can you back this up in any academic way?

I guess by 1937-38 he may have been the only person, because the rest of them were dead.:rolleyes:

[RedMarxist]

Wow, thanks for the insult A Revolutionary Tool! :(



Please continue studying the Stalin period. Uncle Joe was probably the best leader of that time. Without him, many more lives would have been lost and the USSR probably wouldn't have made it out of the 20's.

Let's break this ignorant statement apart piece by piece, shall we?


Please continue studying the Stalin period

I already have done that. And what my studies have shown me is that Stalin was a horrible, HORRIBLE man who only brought death and destruction upon the USSR. Screw Joe's "miraculous" industrialization program and his gulags!


Uncle Joe was probably the best leader of that time.

no, Lenin was, before he kicked the bucket.


Without him, many more lives would have been lost and the USSR probably wouldn't have made it out of the 20's.

your forgetting something...Didn't he kill like 1-2 million people? Also, I'm sure Trotsky could have still won WWII and got the nation out of the 20's, only in a more humane way.

screw "Stalinist" scum like you!

[Rafiq]

Peaceful revolutions will never happen. The bourgeoisie had a hard time coming to power, with massive bloodshed, so what makes you think the proletariat will just be able to march on the street and win?

[Joseph S.]

What exactly was it, what were its aims, and do you believe it was justified? What would have happened if it had not occurred?
Its a lei that is wat it is.
Capitalist propaganda, and trotskyist's trying To make Glorios leader Joseph Stalin look bad.
It never happend

[Joseph S.]

screw "Stalinist" scum like you!
SKREW YOU 2.
Capitalist agitator

[Luc]

Its a lei that is wat it is.
Capitalist propaganda, and trotskyist's trying To make Glorios leader Joseph Stalin look bad.
It never happend

Not sure if your trolling but...

It happened under Lenin not Stalin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1990/trotsky2/01-sovpower.html

Your probably thinking of the great terror:
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm

see: the begining of the red terror

[Red_Struggle]

"On Authority" anyone?

[Joseph S.]

Not sure if your trolling but...

It happened under Lenin not Stalin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1990/trotsky2/01-sovpower.html

Your probably thinking of the great terror:
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm

see: the begining of the red terror
You are rigth i made a mistake.

Also the thing's that hapend under lenin are havy exegerated bij capitalist's to make cumunisem look bad.
in a war people dei .,Live with it ,its not just drinking a cup of tea.

[Rooster]

You are rigth i made a mistake.

Also the thing's that hapend under lenin are havy exegerated bij capitalist's to make cumunisem look bad.
in a war people dei .,Live with it ,its not just drinking a cup of tea.

How can you say that it's exaggerated when you just confused time periods? How much do you know what you are talking about?

[Joseph S.]

How can you say that it's exaggerated when you just confused time periods? How much do you know what you are talking about?
I know enuf of it i read a lot about it.
So just because i mixed up the 2 terror's mean's i dont know wat im talking about?
Shal i trow white terror in to the ecuation ?
Since redterror was a responce to it

[Rooster]

I know enuf of it i read a lot about it.
So just because i mixed up the 2 terror's mean's i dont know wat im talking about?
Shal i trow white terror in to the ecuation ?
Since redterror was a responce to it

Tell me what is being exaggerated and what your sources are for it.

[Luc]

You are rigth i made a mistake.

Also the thing's that hapend under lenin are havy exegerated bij capitalist's to make cumunisem look bad.
in a war people dei .,Live with it ,its not just drinking a cup of tea.

The problem with this though ("in a war people dei .,Live with it ," (sic) type idea/ethic) is that once we stop caring that people are dying then there is no point in having a Communist revolution. It could be put like this "People die in Capitalism, get over it" (they are also exploited but thats not as bad as being killed). :unsure:

The bad thing isn't that Capitalists are killing people and it isn't made good by having Communists killing people it's bad because people are killing people.

[Joseph S.]

Tell me what is being exaggerated and what your sources are for it.
The killing of inocent people is being havy exegorated.
They werent all as inocent as you think they are.
why shold i provide sources dont you know wat you are talking about?

[Pioneers_Violin]

<pointless accusation of bullshit clipped>

So, Stalin was the ONLY person at the time capable of leading the USSR to any sort of success, was he? Can you back this up in any academic way?


I never claim that he was the only CAPABLE person at the time.

Stalin was the only one who ACTUALLY DID lead the USSR onwards and upwards at the time.

There could have been a million people more capable and far more agreeable to your fragile sensibilities than Uncle Joe.... but where were they?
If you're capable of something and either don't get the opportunity to do it or don't bother, it's just a pointless theoretical argument.

These were dangerous times, and they required a powerful leader well aware of the dangers and capable of dealing with them ruthlessly. Stalin was the "Great Man" as you say, that rose to the occasion. Without his careful attention to nearly everything, (He listens even how the GRASS GROWS!) the USSR would have failed for any of dozens of reasons.

I suppose you would like me to list them all right here and now. Well, here's a few:
Counter-revolutionaries. There were no shortage of these in 1924. Even after 7 years or so of struggle, they were determined to throw back the Revolution. They were not above violence or subterfuge. How would YOU stop them? By asking them nicely?

Foreign spies and saboteurs. Many foreign countries and concerns would stand to benefit from the failure of the USSR. So, they recruit spies and saboteurs to help bring about their goals. These wonderful people were also not above murder, mayhem and mischief. Again, what would YOU do about this? Magically determine who and where they are with 100% accuracy and then send them back home with a note to their mother pinned to their shirt?

Starvation. Mass Starvation, brought about by the sudden changes of the Revolution. The whole near-medieval system of food production and distribution was unsettled and needed to be improved FAST. Again, drastic measures were called for and were accomplished. Yes, it was at great cost (again), but what would you suggest? Sending out for Pizza? The USSR could've easily collapsed on this point alone.

Foreign Armies. Stalin saw this coming way ahead of time and scrambled to prepare for it. With ruthless determination and again, at great cost, they just barely succeeded in turning back the Germans. This isn't the half of it though. Without Stalin's skill at manipulation, the Germans probably would have invaded a LOT earlier with the help of the British and Japanese!
Stalin succeeded in stalling the invasions and manipulating world events until they only had to face the Germans.
Can you think of anyone else that could have accomplished THAT? Sure, there probably was such a person. But they didn't or couldn't do it.

You also, should study the period more closely and History in general. It's full of "Great Men" and "Great Women" (I generally call them "Great Leaders") that accomplish great things just when needed.
Some of the best don't seem very "Nice".


I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy.

Don't mind me..... I'm just trying to sweep the rubbish from my Uncle Joe's grave a little ;) I hope I didn't make it worse.

[Joseph S.]

The problem with this though ("in a war people dei .,Live with it ," (sic) type idea/ethic) is that once we stop caring that people are dying then there is no point in having a Communist revolution. It could be put like this "People die in Capitalism, get over it" (they are also exploited but thats not as bad as being killed). :unsure:

The bad thing isn't that Capitalists are killing people and it isn't made good by having Communists killing people it's bad because people are killing people.
No the point is that people dei in armd conflict its a basic rule of nature just like gravettional forces.
you kant change things in the past they hapend you kan ignore it happend and why it happend ore just acsept that it hapend and live with it.
Because either way it isent goin to change a dam thing about it.

[Luc]

No the point is that people dei in armd conflict its a basic rule of nature just like gravettional forces.
you kant change things in the past they hapend you kan ignore it happend and why it happend ore just acsept that it hapend and live with it.
Because either way it isent goin to change a dam thing about it.

I agree. People do die, but that doesn't mean it is okay.

No one is arguing that it didn't happened, I (or we) are arguing that it wasn't justifiable.

If we say it was justifiable then what is to stop us from doing it again? We can't repeat the mistakes of the past.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't think I ever said anything about 'the evil Stalin'. If you'd read any of my posts you'd know that's not what my focus is on.You didn't name Stalin explicitly, RedMarxist did(that other guy I talked about in that post) but you were talking about the Great Purges. "Besides, without becoming theoretical, let's not pretend the purges of 1937-38 had anything to do with rights."
And before that when you directly quoted Syd Barret you were talking about persecuted Trotskyists, which alludes to what again?

All in a discussion about the Red Terror, events that happened a decade before the Great Purges. I'm just wondering why the hell you bring it up :confused:


'people die in revolutions get over it'. What sort of argument is this?Sorry that was a bad argument, I'm just a little tired of pacifists. I guess I should have said something about how I think pacifists' tactics of getting socialism won't work. But I don't know if I should considering it has nothing to do with the thread topic.


The point is not that people die in revolutions, it's that sometimes, BAD peopl die in revolutions because they are trying to kill the revolutionaries.Easy to say that while you sit behind your computer screen huh :rolleyes:


Like i've said many times, it's easy to while away hundreds of thousands of lives behind your computer screen. :rolleyes:
And is that the only defense you have? We're talking about it over the computer? It would be easy to justify it sitting in a bar, in a conversation with my parents, in a speech someones giving, etc, considering it happened decades ago and the only material people have to base their opinions on are writings about the events. It's not as if we can go back in time to decide if something is justified or not by experiencing it ourselves. And if you think about it how can you say something was unjustified while you sit here behind your computer, never having to actually deal with the Red Terror face to face? How can you take your stance on the Great Purges? Were you there? You should note, btw, that I said a lot of what happened during the Red Terror was totally unjustifiable.

What your argument amounts to is the same moralist arguments that the bourgeois employ, "just think about how it hurts people" "imagine if this happened to you or your family". Because they can always try appealing to our emotions because we all have those, even the bourgeois. Thing is I don't care if their feelings get hurt when their class gets overthrown and I wouldn't shed a tear for the family or friends of some bourgeois chump who dies in the struggle.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Wow, thanks for the insult A Revolutionary Tool! :(

I don't think it was an insult, I'm just wondering why you and El Granma are bringing up the Great Purges when we're trying to have a discussion about the Red Terror which are two completely different topics.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I never claim that he was the only CAPABLE person at the time.

Stalin was the only one who ACTUALLY DID lead the USSR onwards and upwards at the time.

There could have been a million people more capable and far more agreeable to your fragile sensibilities than Uncle Joe.... but where were they?
If you're capable of something and either don't get the opportunity to do it or don't bother, it's just a pointless theoretical argument.

These were dangerous times, and they required a powerful leader well aware of the dangers and capable of dealing with them ruthlessly. Stalin was the "Great Man" as you say, that rose to the occasion. Without his careful attention to nearly everything, (He listens even how the GRASS GROWS!) the USSR would have failed for any of dozens of reasons.

I suppose you would like me to list them all right here and now. Well, here's a few:
Counter-revolutionaries. There were no shortage of these in 1924. Even after 7 years or so of struggle, they were determined to throw back the Revolution. They were not above violence or subterfuge. How would YOU stop them? By asking them nicely?

Foreign spies and saboteurs. Many foreign countries and concerns would stand to benefit from the failure of the USSR. So, they recruit spies and saboteurs to help bring about their goals. These wonderful people were also not above murder, mayhem and mischief. Again, what would YOU do about this? Magically determine who and where they are with 100% accuracy and then send them back home with a note to their mother pinned to their shirt?

Starvation. Mass Starvation, brought about by the sudden changes of the Revolution. The whole near-medieval system of food production and distribution was unsettled and needed to be improved FAST. Again, drastic measures were called for and were accomplished. Yes, it was at great cost (again), but what would you suggest? Sending out for Pizza? The USSR could've easily collapsed on this point alone.

Foreign Armies. Stalin saw this coming way ahead of time and scrambled to prepare for it. With ruthless determination and again, at great cost, they just barely succeeded in turning back the Germans. This isn't the half of it though. Without Stalin's skill at manipulation, the Germans probably would have invaded a LOT earlier with the help of the British and Japanese!
Stalin succeeded in stalling the invasions and manipulating world events until they only had to face the Germans.
Can you think of anyone else that could have accomplished THAT? Sure, there probably was such a person. But they didn't or couldn't do it.

You also, should study the period more closely and History in general. It's full of "Great Men" and "Great Women" (I generally call them "Great Leaders") that accomplish great things just when needed.
Some of the best don't seem very "Nice".



Don't mind me..... I'm just trying to sweep the rubbish from my Uncle Joe's grave a little ;) I hope I didn't make it worse.

Amazing that as soon as reality hits, M-Ls abandon Marxist theory and proclaim the need for a 'strong leader'. The revolution needs strong leadership in the form of the most extreme, most direct and most participative working-class democracy. Saying that at the most tense point of class struggle in the revolution the working class should put its faith in the strong leadership of one man, or a small group, is anathema to Marxism and really to any logical leftist 'sensibilities', as you put it.

Okay, let's do this:

Counter-revolutionaries. These were mostly (but, i'll admit, not only) allowed to fester by the NEP, and by Lenin's ill-advised ban on factions, which whilst probably well meant, actually drove genuine democratic opposition into the realms of 'factionalism' and beyond, the likes of Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin later being tagged as counter-revolutionaries. Theoretically correct comrades they were not, but they were certainly not counter-revolutionaries. I think that much is really quite obvious, that they were friends not foes.

With regards to WW2, Stalin was hilariously late (I say hilarious, it was not) in scrambling an army-led response together to the German invasion. It has been well documented that he was near the thin end of the wedge in the first few days of the German invasion. In addition, his purging of the army in the mid-late 1930s stifled the ability of the Russians to form the organised military response needed to avoid at least the worst of the bloodshed when they were defending Russia.

With regards to starvation, this is a myth. Not the starvation, but what you say about food production. Far from being the equivalent of a 12th century Feudal country, Russia was one who was politically absolutist, but had an (admittedly small, but growing) urban working class and the beginnings of factory production already by 1913. Have you never wondered why food production nosedived after 1913? It was not because Russia was the most backwards country around, but because of WW1 and the civil war. The starvation was caused because of the harsh realities of WW1 and the civil war, combined with poor policy response by the Bolsheviks in the form of the NEP. They should have resorted to collective agri-production and industrial methods far earlier than they did.

Great leaders accomplish only notoriety off their own backs. Even some of Stalin's magnanimous achievements were not off his own back, but off the sweat and toil of the mass of Soviet workers. Likewise, 'his' disasters were not through him being some evil maniac, but through crass bureaucratic mis-management and/or self-interest.

In the end, history comes down to class struggle. Feudalist vs Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat. Great men/women, in the end, have nothing to do with how we should be viewing history, from a materialist perspective.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Congrats S&T, you got your leftie points, can we get back on topic now?

I think the point is, the revolution isn't a tea party, if some people have to die to accomplish our aims so be it.

"The ends justify the means."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Are you utterly incapable of engaging in any sort of debate?

Brilliant, 'the revolution isn't a tea party'. Do you actually think that repeating this over and over again either:

a) covers you in any sort of glory, or
b) justifies, in any way, the murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocents?

If you believe point b, you really are an enemy of the proletariat.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The ends do not always justify the means. That would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.

[tracher999]

i love to be red terror fuck all the rest:cool:

[Rooster]

Why must a red terror be necessary? Do we have to copy bourgeois revolutions?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Are you utterly incapable of engaging in any sort of debate?

No however I don't see the point in injecting irrelevencies into the discussion as you and RedMarxist have done. Or see the point in beating a dead horse with noobs that great men don't drive history; the point has been made, carrying on?


Brilliant, 'the revolution isn't a tea party'.

I thought so.



a) covers you in any sort of glory, or


Come now, don't be absurd.



b) justifies, in any way, the murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocents?


I would like for you to first prove that the Red Terror of 1918 did infact kill tens to hundreds of thousands of innocents and fully articulate their innocence for me. I don't understand how in the wake of the White Terror why you would feel such tactics wouldn't be necessary as to help silence the counter-revolutionaries and secure the victory of the revolution.



The ends do not always justify the means. That would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.


It was said tongue-in-cheek.