Stalin's Great Purges

[ComradeOmar]

Hi guys. Although being an M-L I do believe that Stalin did good for the Ussr, but I always hear people talking about the "great purges of the 30's". My question is that did these ever really happen at all???:confused: And why do people even some M-L's belive Stalin to be a Dictator???

[ComradeOm]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]My question is that did these ever really happen at all???:confused:Of course. Why would you doubt this? It's well documented that at least 680k Soviet citizens were executed by the security services in the period 1937-38. I say 'at least' because these are only the documented deaths - it's likely that up to a million were executed


And why do people even some M-L's belive Stalin to be a Dictator???Probably because he headed, and comprised the most important member of, an unelected regime that was maintained primarily by mass repression

[Nox]

Hi guys. Although being an M-L I do believe that Stalin did good for the Ussr, but I always hear people talking about the "great purges of the 30's". My question is that did these ever really happen at all???:confused: And why do people even some M-L's belive Stalin to be a Dictator???

The true figure is likely to be between 600-800k deaths.

The people killed were fascists, trotskyists, traitors, capitalists and criminals.

[socialistjustin]

Who were these traitors and trotskyists? Did they actually sell secrets to other states or were they simply dissenters?

[ComradeOmar]

The true figure is likely to be between 600-800k deaths.

The people killed were fascists, trotskyists, traitors, capitalists and criminals.
But why trotskyist's? they are also communist's.

[Rodrigo]

Trotskyists (always minoritarian in the CPSU) were not killed for being trotskyists, but for acting as "terrorists", conspiring against the Communist Party and waging anticommunist propaganda outside Russia (what Trotsky did).

The morning session of August 20 commences with the examination of the accused L. B. Kamenev.
Kamenev states: "The terrorist cospiracy was organized and guided by myself, Zinoviev and Trotsky. I became convinced that the policy of the Party, the policy of its leadership, had been victorious in the only sense in which the political victory in the land of socialism is possible, that this policy was recognized by the masses of the toilers. Our banking on the possibility of a split in the Party also proved groundless. We counted on the Rightist group of Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky. The removal of this group from the leadership and the fact that it had become discredited in the eyes of the toiling masses deprived us of this trump card as well. It was no use counting on any kind of serious internal difficulties to secure the overthrow of the leadership which had guided the country through extremely difficult stages, through industrialization and collectivization. Two paths remained: either honestly and copletely to put a stop to the struggle against the Party, or to continue this struggle, but without any hope of obtaining any mass support whatsoever, without a political platform, without a banner, that is to say, by means of individual terror. We chose the second path. In this we were guided by our boundless hatred of the leaders of the Party and the country, and by a thirst for power with which we were once so closely associated and from which we were cast aside by the course of historical development."
Replying to Comrade Vyshinsky, the accused Kamenev relates to the Court how the Zinovievites entered into a bloc with the Trotskyites for the purpose of organizing a terroristic struggle against the Party and the Soviet state. "We carried on negotiations about the bloc with Smirnov, Mrachkovsky and Ter-Vaganyan, not as with men who independently issued political instructions," says Kamenev. "They were of value to us as men who precisely repeated the instructions of Trotsky. Knowing Smirnov and Mrachkovsky as active Trotskyites , knowing that Smirnov had been abroad and had established contact with Trotsky there, we were absolutely sure that the instructions concerning terrorism conveyed by Smirnov and Mrachkovsky,and supported by them, were the exact instructions of Trotsky. It was on this basis, and because Trotsky's instructions on terror coincided with our own inclinations, that we concluded what is here called a 'bloc,' and what should be called a narrow terrorist conspiracy. This conspiracy took shape in 1932 as an organizational union wich had no platform at all, and which set itself the aim of seizing power by disorganizing the government by terroristic means, by eliminating and assassinating Stalin, as the leader of the Party and the country, as well as his nearest comrades-in-arms."

Zinoviev begins his testimony by relating the history of the restoration of the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite centre in 1932. He emphasizes that there never were any material differences between the Trotskyites and the Zinovievites.
"Our differences with Trotsky after the Fifteenth Congress," says Zinoviev, "when Trotsky used the world 'treachery' in relation to me and Kamenev, were really slight zig-zags, petty disagreements. We committed no treachery whatever against Trotsky at that time, but committed one more act of treachery against the Bolshevik Party to which we belonged."
But it was precisely at that moment, says Zinoviev, continuing his testimony, that we were completely adopting, as our main line,double-dealing to which we had already resorted previously, which we had practised in 1926 and in 1927. In 1928, however, after the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U., we could not take a single step, we could not utter a single word without betraying the Party in one way or another, without resorting to double-dealing in one way or another. "From 1928 to 1932," Zinoviev says further, "there was not for one moment any real difference between ourselves and the Trotskyites. And so the logic of things carried us to terrorism.
"We banked on a growth of difficulties. We hoped that they would grow to such an extent that we and the Rightists and the Trotskyites, and the smaller groups associated with them, could come out openly. We dreamt of coming out in a united front. At that time we thought that the Rightists had most chances of success,that their prognoses were more likely to come true, and that their names would have particular power of attraction. At that time we attempted to place particular emphasis on our closeness to them."
Continuing, Zinoviev says: "At the same time certain underground groups of the Right as well as of the so-called 'Left' trend, sought contact with me and Kamenev. Approaches were made by the remnants of the 'Workers' Opposition': by shlyapnikov and Medvedyev. Approaches came from the groups of the so-called 'Leftists': that is, Lominadze, Shatskin, Sten and others. Approaches also came from the so-called 'individuals,' to whose numbers belonged Smilga, and to a certain extent, Sokolnikov."
Zinoviev further says: "In the second half of 1932 we relized that our banking on a growth of difficulties in the country had failed. We began to realize that the Party and its Central Committee would overcome these difficulties. But both in the first and in the second half of 1932 we were filled with hatred towards the Central Committee of the Party and towards Stalin."
Continuing, Zinoviev says: "We were convinced that the leadership must be superseded at all costs, that it must be superseded by us, along with Trotsky. In this situation I had meetings with Smirnov who has accused me here of frequently telling untruths. Yes, I often told untruths. I started doing that from the moment I began flighting the Bolshevik Party. In so far as Smirnov took the road of fighting the Party, he too is telling untruths. But it seems, the difference between him and myself is that I have decided firmly and irrevocably to tell at this last moment the truth, whereas, he it seems has adopted a different decision.
Vyshinsky: Are you telling the whole truth now?
Zinoviev: Now I am telling the whole truth to the end.
Vyshinsky: Remember that on January 15-16, 1935, at the sessions of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, you also asserted that you were telling the whole truth.
Zinoviev: Yes. On January 15-16 I did not tell the whole truth.
Vyshinsky: You did not tell the truth, but you maintained that you were telling the truth.
Continuing his testimony, Zinoviev relates that during his conversations with Smirnov in 1931 he conferred with him with regard to an understanding on uniting the Trotskyites and the Zinovievites on the basis of terrorism and that this was done on Trotsky's instruction. "I. N. Smirnov entirely agreed with this instruction, and carried it out wholeheartedly and with conviction, "testifies Zinoviev. "I spoke a great deal with Smirnov about choosing people for terroristic activities and also designated the persons against whom the weapon of terrorism was to be directed. The name of Stalin was mentioned in the first place, followed by those of Kirov, Voroshilov and other leaders of the Party and the government. For the purpose of executing these plans, a Trotskyite-Zinovievite terrorist centre was formed, the leading part in which was played by myself-Zinoviev,and by Smirnov on behalf of the Trotskyites.

[Rodrigo]

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=mission+to+moscow&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=the+moscow+trials+were+fair&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox#sclient=psy-ab&hl=pt-BR&safe=off&client=firefox&hs=31y&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=%22the+moscow+trial+was+fair%22&pbx=1&oq=%22the+moscow+trial+was+fair%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12617l15513l0l15639l8l5l0l0l0l1l739l2158l3-1.1.1.1l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f40ac1ce4e641ff3&biw=1280&bih=629

[Sir Comradical]

The true figure is likely to be between 600-800k deaths.

The people killed were fascists, trotskyists, traitors, capitalists and criminals.

Tell me, why is it justified to shoot someone for being a Trotskyist?

[Per Levy]

this thread again and of course the usual apologists for countless murders.

[Geiseric]

It isn't! Marxist Leninists are full of shit! i'm confessing right now, to everybody on revleft, that the user rodrigo above myself and i are both neo-nazi spies from Stormfront, sent to get memberlists! What I said has as much credibility as what kamanev said at the court. Swear to god, think for a second! Use materialism! MOTIVATIONS DON'T MATTER. ACTIONS MATTER. TROTSKY ORGANISED ZERO TERRORISM AGAINST THE USSR WHICH HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING. HE SPOKE AGAINST STALIN CLAIMING THAT HE AND EVERY OTHER OLD BOLSHEVIK WERE FASCISTS, AND THEN KILLING THEM, AND HE SPOKE AGAINST STALIN'S MENSHEVIST FOREIGN POLICY.

[Leftsolidarity]

Wow, just because we might be communists doesn't mean we have to be blind to history. Are you really going to try to justify mass execution? *cough* Rodrigo *cough*

I'm no "OMGEEEE STALIN WAZ BADZZZZZ!!!11!!!" person but come on. Yes, he purged a lot of people and yes he was a dictator.

[Per Levy]

ah who cares, lets dig in this dirthole.


Who were these traitors and trotskyists? Did they actually sell secrets to other states or were they simply dissenters?

mostly people who were in the way of the ruling cast.


My question is that did these ever really happen at all???

yes, they did.


Tell me, why is it justified to shoot someone for being a Trotskyist?

because trotskyists are pure evil and dont deserve to live?

@rodrigo: its sad that you belive all these lies but hey they might give you some comfort, right?

[Astarte]

The trumped up charges the old guard of the Bolshevik had to endure are pretty well established. Read the actual documents of the trial proceedings, the things old Bolsheviks were being tried with were the most insanely idiotic things - the worst kinds of conspiracy theorist bullshit.

[Sentinel]

I didn't expect that someone would actually have the stomach to post those 'confessions' by men that were beaten, threatened and finally promised to be spared if they confessed the most incredible things -- promises that weren't kept. They were destroyed as persons before they were condemned to death and executed.

But anyone can draw their own conclusions. Is it actually plausible that so many of the Old Bolsheviks, the heroes that led the October Revolution, half of the 1917 party central committee (in fact all except 4 of those that had not died of other reasons by then) etc -- were in fact anti-communists, fascist agents etc?

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/cc-1917.jpg

[Rodrigo]

Wow, just because we might be communists doesn't mean we have to be blind to history. Are you really going to try to justify mass execution? *cough* Rodrigo *cough*

I'm no "OMGEEEE STALIN WAZ BADZZZZZ!!!11!!!" person but come on. Yes, he purged a lot of people and yes he was a dictator.

http://www.amazon.com/Stalinist-Terror-John-Arch-Getty/dp/0521446708

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Tell me, why is it justified to shoot someone for being a Trotskyist?

They were not shot for merely being a Trotskyite.

[Geiseric]

Rodrigo, i'm admitting right now that myself and every other person in the stalinist usergroup are all spies sent by the CIA. I'm admitting it! What you don't know is that my familly was threatened to be killed. so i guess all of you guys are going to be executed now, since what i say must be true! i confessed it for fucks sake! please for your good, listen to some logic. I'm going to make a point for now on to stop saying things like "they're full of shit," so you can tell how sincere I am. Stalinism is founded on lies and menshevism.

[Per Levy]

They were not shot for merely being a Trotskyite.

stop this "ite" thing allready, you just look silly if post that all the time. and yes members of the left opposition were murdered for being in the way of ruling cast, thank you very much. and now good night everyone, sleeping is a much better activity then dwelling in threads like this.

[Leftsolidarity]

http://www.amazon.com/Stalinist-Terror-John-Arch-Getty/dp/0521446708

Great argument bro :thumbup1:
I'll have to order some obscure (most likely bullshit) book just to read your side.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

stop this "ite" thing allready, you just look silly if post that all the time.

I said 'ite' merely because I find it hilarious that people get pissy over it.


and yes members of the left opposition were murdered for being in the way of ruling cast.

:rolleyes:

Oh but of course.

[Rodrigo]

Great argument bro :thumbup1:

Better than the common sense stupidity of yours and these Trots.


I'll have to order some obscure (most likely bullshit) book just to read your side.

A book is good if it's known? If it's not known, it's not good? It's incredible your ability to judge a book before even reading it! Wow, man, I like to learn how you do it!

[Leftsolidarity]

Better than the common sense stupidity of yours and these Trots.



A book is good if it's known? If it's not known, it's not good? It's incredible your ability to judge a book before even reading it! Wow, man, I like to learn how you do it!

I'll just let this comment stand by itself without my criticism because honestly it doesn't need it...

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I'll just let this comment stand by itself without my criticism because honestly it doesn't need it...

It's no less silly than the comment to which he was responding to really.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

http://www.amazon.com/Stalinist-Terror-John-Arch-Getty/dp/0521446708

You got a response that doesn't include buying stuff? Sorry but I'm broke.

[Rodrigo]

You got a response that doesn't include buying stuff? Sorry but I'm broke.

Don't you know Amazon's books often have a description or review?

-.-

[ComradeOm]

http://www.amazon.com/Stalinist-Terror-John-Arch-Getty/dp/0521446708What? Have you actually read any of Getty's work? I don't know where Stalinists get this notion that he is somehow sympathetic towards either Stalin or the idea of a vast left-right conspiracy against Soviet power. Either you haven't read anything by him or you are taking selective reading to a new extreme

Getty's interpretation of the Terror is more nuanced than many but he accepts, particularly in his later works, that the campaign was engineered, if not perhaps controlled, by Moscow centre and does not accept the Stalinist accusations or forced confessions. See his The Road to Terror for an examination of the political process that lead to the launching of the Purge

[o well this is ok I guess]

So I notice how mentioning Stalinism in Revleft is sort of like mentioning Atlas Shrugged in literary circles.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Don't you know Amazon's books often have a description or review?

-.-

Yeah it has a description of the book that doesn't tell you much about it at all. Reading it doesn't solve anything. Bad response is bad.

[Nox]

I said 'ite' merely because I find it hilarious that people get pissy over it.



:rolleyes:

Oh but of course.

They incorrectly call us Stalinists, we incorrectly call them Trotskyites.

It's a two-way deal.

[FuzzypegX]

So I notice how mentioning Stalinism in Revleft is sort of like mentioning Atlas Shrugged in literary circles.

Yes, much like in literary circles, hardly anyone has read the book or knows what they're talking about.

I consciously avoid discussion topics about Stalin or the so-called Stalin-era on these forums precisely because they are consistently of such low quality. And I mean that both in terms of those who attack Stalin and those who defend him. Almost every debate is compromised of a bunch of Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists hurling insults at each other while discussing almost nothing of substance - primarily because most people have no genuine knowledge of the subject under discussion, but don't let that prevent them from having a very strong opinion - with perhaps one or two people who've read a bit on the subject and now fashion themselves as experts (but, of course, people with real expertise on any subject don't sit on internet message boards discussing it). And all this is sat atop a sea of trolls.

[A Marxist Historian]

The true figure is likely to be between 600-800k deaths.

The people killed were fascists, trotskyists, traitors, capitalists and criminals.

All 600-800k of them?

If it were true, which of course it isn't, that would be just about the worst indictment of Stalinism you could come up with. Any regime generating dissent, outright opposition and bad behavior on that kind of huge scale is obviously *beyond* fucked up.

Orthodox Stalinism is basically the best argument for capitalism that there is. As long as that is what the left has to offer, it is doomed.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

So I notice how mentioning Stalinism in Revleft is sort of like mentioning Atlas Shrugged in literary circles.

Well, there's a big difference, because Atlas Shrugged to the lits is just a bad joke they can roll their eyes about and sneer at.

Stalinism is what happened to the Left in the world, what destroyed it.
If you don't understand what Stalinism was, you don't know anything really about revolution and socialism and leftism.

The Russian Revolution was the only time the human race really made a serious, powerful effort at establishing a socialist society. Without understanding what went wrong and why, all leftists would be doomed to make the same mistakes all over again, and all left wing efforts would be totally useless and a waste of time.

Santayana said it long ago, those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. Truer words never spoke.

-M.H.-

[FuzzypegX]

Stalinism is what happened to the Left in the world, what destroyed it.
If you don't understand what Stalinism was, you don't know anything really about revolution and socialism and leftism.

Honestly, what is the point in comments like this? How can you possibly imagine it contributes to informed debate? If you disagree with Marxism-Leninism on a specific theoretical issue, or if you want to discuss a specific action taken by the C.P.S.U.(B.) during the period of Stalin's leadership, then that's one thing... but just throwing out glib remarks about "Stalinism" is not only pointless but it makes you sound like a school history teacher.

[A Marxist Historian]

You got a response that doesn't include buying stuff? Sorry but I'm broke.

It's an easily available enough book that it might be in your public library, if you live in a major city not in the South.

Also you could try Google Scholar for fairly reliable book reviews. (Amazon, eh...)

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Honestly, what is the point in comments like this? How can you possibly imagine it contributes to informed debate? If you disagree with Marxism-Leninism on a specific theoretical issue, or if you want to discuss a specific action taken by the C.P.S.U.(B.) during the period of Stalin's leadership, then that's one thing... but just throwing out glib remarks about "Stalinism" is not only pointless but it makes you sound like a school history teacher.

And just what's wrong with that? As Marx said, ignorance never did anyone any good.

Everybody knows what Stalinism is. "Marxism Leninism" is a weird dogmatic ideological construct that is bullshit, as the only true Marxists and Leninists are the Trotskyists. Stalin, in addition to killing damn near a million people, totally revised the basic foundations of the ideas of Marx and Lenin with his strange, totally failed idea of "socialism in one country."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes, much like in literary circles, hardly anyone has read the book or knows what they're talking about.

I consciously avoid discussion topics about Stalin or the so-called Stalin-era on these forums precisely because they are consistently of such low quality. And I mean that both in terms of those who attack Stalin and those who defend him. Almost every debate is compromised of a bunch of Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists hurling insults at each other while discussing almost nothing of substance - primarily because most people have no genuine knowledge of the subject under discussion, but don't let that prevent them from having a very strong opinion - with perhaps one or two people who've read a bit on the subject and now fashion themselves as experts (but, of course, people with real expertise on any subject don't sit on internet message boards discussing it). And all this is sat atop a sea of trolls.

Yes, you have a sea of trolls. But some of us with real expertise on the subject do get on boards like this, as it's a nice safe way, with the anonymity, to talk to people just getting into the movement about the serious issues, with a pretty fair number of people involved. Something you don't get to do day to day.

-M.H.-

[Leftsolidarity]

as the only true Marxists and Leninists are the Trotskyists.

Mind telling me what a true scotsman is while you're at it?

[Rooster]

Yes, they happened. You can read any good history book on the period for more information. I recommend Sheila Fitzpatrick's book The Russian Revolution (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Russian-Revolution-Sheila-Fitzpatrick/dp/0199237670). The great purge and the collectivisation were the things the broke all resistence to the bureaucratic class. Most people consider this to be the counter revolution.



common sense stupidity

How does one have both common sense and stupidity? :confused:

[A Marxist Historian]

Mind telling me what a true scotsman is while you're at it?

Well. my old man has gone over the geneology and he thinks he's descended from one of the Scots taken as an indentured servant at Culloden I think it was and sold by Cromwell to New England as an indentured servant back in the 17th Century. I guess that would make me a true Scot.

But I've gone over the listings and I think he's wrong, we've only traced it back for sure to about 1700 or so.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Mind telling me what a true scotsman is while you're at it?

Then there's James Robertson, founder of the Spartacist League, who has always claimed to be a true Scot.

In the '80s, he proposed the slogan,

"For an independent socialist Scotland as part of the Soviet Union."

Wha' hae?

-M.H.-

[ComradeOm]

How does one have both common sense and stupidity? :confused:Because in Stalinism there is both the truth and the fundamental truth. It's a matter of doublethink. Take the example that provides the topic of this thread:

Common sense dictates that the hundreds of thousands executed by the Soviet state in 1937-38, or even just the most prominent political victims, were not part of some 'left-right, Trotskyist-Bukharinist, German-Japanese-British-Polish spy ring'. That's just silly and the Stalinist leadership, even as it purged itself, was not comprised of idiots. However this does not fit with the accepted Stalinist dogma and must therefore be considered false. The fundamental truth is that Trotsky et al might not have been guilty of the specific crimes with which they were charged but their liquidation was still necessary because they were guilty of more abstract 'crimes', as defined by the Stalinist leadership. The truth, as taken as 'common sense' or 'reality', is abandoned in favour of a constructed alternative

What is actually quite interesting from a historical perspective is that, as I said, the Stalinist leadership was not stupid. The elite knew, as Molotov was able to admit as much several decades later, that the specific charges were probably false (and obtained through torture) but still considered the executed to be guilty, as per dogma. They were in effect holding two differing definitions of 'guilt' in their heads. It was a complete rejection of 'common sense' in favour of a more politically acceptable alternative

In this case Rodrigo slots perfectly within the Stalinist tradition. When 'common sense', also known as 'inconvenient reality', meets dogma, there can only ever be one winner. It's not uncommon to pin Stalinists down with facts and figures only to see them retreat to this fantasy land where these become irrelevant and common sense is considered 'stupid'. Probably because at this stage it's very, very hard to justify Stalinism without recourse to such mental tricks

[Kosakk]

These confessions by Kamanev and etc, were signed after being tortured.
There's NO credibility in them.
When being tortured you'd confess "anything".

[Rooster]

Whilst browsing through the group pages I came across this little gem from a Stalinist comparing the great purge (through some convoluted logic) to the holocaust:


Therefore Stalin's Great purges are in fact a "red terror" to Hitlers "white terror" (Holocaust).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5580

[tir1944]

Funny how today most bourgeois "commentators" rarely mention Hitler without bringing up Stalin sooner or later...

[ComradeOm]

Actually that cuts two ways. Hammer away at a Stalinist for long enough - peeling off each excuse like onion layers - and it's only a matter of time before Hitler and the victorious Red Army crop up

Edit: That is unless they've already accused you of using 'Hitlerite propaganda' for daring to assert that millions starved to death in the 1930s or whatnot, of course