Why was Yezhov executed? [Archive]

A Marxist Historian

31st October 2011, 07:06

With Stalin cheering him on all the way

Yezhov's death is not really related to Yezhov at all. A typical manoeuvre of the Stalinist elite - and we see this time and time again during the 1930s - was to sharply change course, while maintaining that the original policy was correct, and then blame underlings for 'excesses'. So when the Soviet government decided to curtail the terror in 1938 it was Yezhov who was landed with the blame for the disaster. The fault was therefore with a bloodthirsty bureaucrat and not actual government policy. Never mind that Stalin and the Politburo had been fully behind Yezhov and the NKVD until this point

This also served a public communications role - bluntly signalling that policy had changed without having to explicitly state that errors had been made at the highest level - and provided the opportunity to purge both Yezhoz and his entire client network; the latter opening the way for the installation of Beria and his circle

This is all true, but is still only half of the story.

Stalin had basically turned the Soviet Union over to the NKVD in the summer of 1937. If Yezhov had actually wanted to, he could have easily arrested Stalin, put him against a wall and put a bullet into his head. Fortunately for Stalin, that was the last thing Yezhov wanted.

But apparently Yezhov *did* start compiling a file on Stalin. Technically speaking, he was supposed to compile files on everyone, that Stalin was an exception was an unstated reality not written down anywere. In Yezhov's mind perhaps he was just doing what he was supposed to, or, well, who knows what was getting into the head of this notoriously heavy drinker on bad days. So Stalin got nervous...

Also, Stalin, as is well known, read every word Trotsky wrote in his "Bulletin of the Opposition" voraciously. Proven fact, as the Stalin archive has reams of it all marked up in the margins in Stalin's handwriting.

Trotsky wrote in one of his articles that the logical end of the madness would be Stalin arrested and shot as a Trotskyite German spy...

-M.H.-

Ismail

31st October 2011, 10:46

"According to a memorandum left by a delegate to the Eighteenth Party Congress, which opened in March 1939, Ezhov was still free then, though several of his top aides had been arrested. At a meeting of the Council of Elders, apparently an informal group of top delegates within the Central Committee, Stalin called Ezhov forward. The Gensec asked him who various arrested NKVDists were. Ezhov replied:

'Joseph Vissarionovich! You know that it was I—I myself!—who disclosed their conspiracy! I came to you and reported it. . . .'

Stalin didn't let him continue. 'Yes, yes, yes! When you felt you were about to be caught, then you came in a hurry. But what about before that? Were you organizing a conspiracy? Did you want to kill Stalin? Top officials of the NKVD are plotting, but you, supposedly, aren't involved. You think I don't see anything?! Do you remember who you sent on a certain date for duty with Stalin? Who? With revolvers? Why revolvers near Stalin? Why? To kill Stalin? And if I hadn't noticed? What then?!'

Stalin went on to accuse Yezhov of working too feverishly, arresting many people who were innocent and covering up for others.

Ezhov was arrested a few days later. Roy Medvedev reports that he was shot in July 1940, after being held in a prison for especially dangerous 'enemies of the people.' A recent Russian publication confirms that Ezhov was arrested in 1939 and shot in 1940, 'for groundless repressions against the Soviet people.'"
(Robert W. Thurston. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1996. pp. 116-117.)

Thurston and Getty both note that although Stalin does bear responsibility for pretty much everything related to the Great Purges, he really did try to rein in exceses. E.g.: "These comrades do not understand that the method of mass, disorderly arrests—if this can be considered a method, represents, in light of the new situation, only liabilities which diminish the authority of Soviet power. They do not understand that making arrests ought to be limited and carried out under strict control of appropriate organs. They do not understand that arrests must be directed solely against active enemies of Soviet power... They do not understand that if this kind of action took on a massive character to any extent, it could nullify the influence of our party in the countryside." (Quoted in J. Arch Getty. "'Excesses Are Not Permitted': Mass Terror and Stalinist Governance in the Late 1930s," Russian Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 113-138.)

Rafiq

31st October 2011, 17:30

I didn't know Stalin reffered to himself in the third person... Weird.

ComradeOm

31st October 2011, 17:41

If Yezhov had actually wanted to, he could have easily arrested Stalin, put him against a wall and put a bullet into his headNonsense. The idea that Yezhov could have arrested and executed Stalin - who engineered the replacement of two NKVD leaderships in the space of three years - is fantasy. It was Stalin, and the rest of the Stalinist elite, who legitimised and signed off on the NKVD's activities. The terror was blind but stayed within the scope dictated by the centre. As history was to prove, at any point Stalin could have stopped Yezhov and the campaign of violence

Thurston and Getty both note that although Stalin does bear responsibility for pretty much everything related to the Great Purges, he really did try to rein in exceses. E.g.: "These comrades do not understand that the method of mass, disorderly arrests—if this can be considered a method, represents, in light of the new situation, only liabilities which diminish the authority of Soviet power. They do not understand that making arrests ought to be limited and carried out under strict control of appropriate organs. They do not understand that arrests must be directed solely against active enemies of Soviet power... They do not understand that if this kind of action took on a massive character to any extent, it could nullify the influence of our party in the countryside." (Quoted in J. Arch Getty. "'Excesses Are Not Permitted': Mass Terror and Stalinist Governance in the Late 1930s," Russian Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 113-138.)That quote dates from 1933... some four years before the Stalinist state would unleash violence of "massive character". And less than five years after it had first done so. Mass violence was a basic tool of Soviet governance during these years and Stalin, whatever he said in public, was entirely complicit in this

And to be honest, it's slightly perverse quoting a paper in which Getty demonstrates the role of Stalin in ordering the mass operations of 1937 and the extension of the violence into the countryside [edit: to argue that Stalin was in fact opposed to such indiscriminate violence]

Sasha

31st October 2011, 17:54

Ismail

31st October 2011, 23:53

That quote dates from 1933... some four years before the Stalinist state would unleash violence of "massive character". And less than five years after it had first done so. Mass violence was a basic tool of Soviet governance during these years and Stalin, whatever he said in public, was entirely complicit in this

And to be honest, it's slightly perverse quoting a paper in which Getty demonstrates the role of Stalin in ordering the mass operations of 1937 and the extension of the violence into the countryside [edit: to argue that Stalin was in fact opposed to such indiscriminate violence]Even then there are cases of him criticizing the targeting of every single person who happened to know a Trot or have a Trotskyist past, e.g. in 1937 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/05.htm):

"But the question arises: how is this task of smashing and uprooting the Japano-German Trotskyite agents to be carried out in practice? Does that mean that we must strike at and uproot, not only real Trotskyites, but also those who at some time or other wavered in the direction of Trotskyism and then, long ago, abandoned Trotskyism; not only those who are really Trotskyite wrecking agents, but also those who, at some time or other, had occasion to walk down a street through which some Trotskyite had passed? At all events, such voices were heard at this Plenum. Can such an interpretation of the resolution be regarded as correct? No, it cannot be regarded as correct. In this matter, as in all others, an individual, discriminate approach is required. You cannot measure everybody with the same yardstick.

Such a wholesale approach can only hinder the fight against the real Trotskyite wreckers and spies.

Among our responsible comrades there are a number of former Trotskyites who abandoned Trotskyism long ago and are fighting Trotskyism not less and perhaps more effectively than some of our respected comrades who have never wavered in the direction of Trotskyism. It would be foolish to cast a slur upon such comrades now.

Among our comrades there are some who ideologically were always opposed to Trotskyism, but who, notwithstanding this, maintained personal connections with individual Trotskyites which they did not hesitate to dissolve as soon as the practical features of Trotskyism became clear to them. Of course, it would have been better had they broken off their personal friendly connections with individual Trotskyites at once, and not only after some delay.

But it would be foolish to lump such comrades with the Trotskyites."

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st November 2011, 00:06

Rafiq

1st November 2011, 00:43

Which leads me to my conclusion that Stalinist anti revisionism is just as Idealist as Utopian Socialism and Chomskyan Socialism.

kurr

1st November 2011, 02:12

It's amazing, Ismail, that you actually think Trotskyism is/was the single biggest threat to 'Socialism', or Leninist rule.The reality is that Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism (as espoused by Trotsky), were so similar that Trotskyism actually represented a very real political threat to Marxism-Leninism as the machination of power in the USSR.I mean they were (and still are) autocratic tendencies within the "Socialist" movement. But Trotsky loved his right-wingers so I can't necessarily blame the Stalinist leadership for thinking that they were a threat

ComradeOm

1st November 2011, 13:35

Even then there are cases of him criticizing the targeting of every single person who happened to know a Trot or have a Trotskyist past, e.g. in 1937 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/05.htm):And this demonstrates the basic futility of quoting Stalin

We know that countless officials were arrested and executed on the slightest whiff of a Trotskyist past. We know that many more ordinary people were punished as part of a near indiscriminate campaign of mass violence. We know that Stalin personally approved the NVKD's methodology. We know that he and the Politburo signed the death warrants of hundreds of thousands of people. We know that he received detail reports of OGPU/NKVD activities and we know that he was in a position to reign them in

Yet you would have us believe that none of the above is relevant because Stalin - in a heavily edited speech first published the state paper and then included in his hagiographic Collected Works - occasionally said otherwise in public. This is just one of many occasions where what Stalin said fails to match what Stalin did. You don't quote the spitting mad Stalin railing against (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/09/06.htm) the "scum" who were about to be executed on the fantastic charge of leading an imaginary terrorist cell. But I suppose we can just wave away anything that suggests that Stalin was complicit in the deaths of millions because he occasionally denied it?

No

RED DAVE

1st November 2011, 14:57

I mean they were (and still are) autocratic tendencies within the "Socialist" movement. But Trotsky loved his right-wingers so I can't necessarily blame the Stalinist leadership for thinking that they were a threatA threat first of all involves concrete action. There were none. So, second, what you are justifying is mass murder.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

1st November 2011, 15:04

Even then there are cases of him criticizing the targeting of every single person who happened to know a Trot or have a Trotskyist past, e.g. in 1937 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/05.htm):But he didn't stop the mass murders.

"But the question arises: how is this task of smashing and uprooting the Japano-German Trotskyite agents to be carried out in practice?There were no such agents.

Does that mean that we must strike at and uproot, not only real Trotskyites, but also those who at some time or other wavered in the direction of Trotskyism and then, long ago, abandoned Trotskyism; not only those who are really Trotskyite wrecking agents, but also those who, at some time or other, had occasion to walk down a street through which some Trotskyite had passed? At all events, such voices were heard at this Plenum. Can such an interpretation of the resolution be regarded as correct? No, it cannot be regarded as correct. In this matter, as in all others, an individual, discriminate approach is required. You cannot measure everybody with the same yardstick.Nothing like this was done. Mass murder went on and on.

Such a wholesale approach can only hinder the fight against the real Trotskyite wreckers and spies.There were no such wreckers. All an obscene fantasy.

Among our responsible comrades there are a number of former Trotskyites who abandoned Trotskyism long ago and are fighting Trotskyism not less and perhaps more effectively than some of our respected comrades who have never wavered in the direction of Trotskyism. It would be foolish to cast a slur upon such comrades now.But thousands were killed anyway.

Among our comrades there are some who ideologically were always opposed to Trotskyism, but who, notwithstanding this, maintained personal connections with individual Trotskyites which they did not hesitate to dissolve as soon as the practical features of Trotskyism became clear to them. Of course, it would have been better had they broken off their personal friendly connections with individual Trotskyites at once, and not only after some delay.But thousands were killed anyway.

But it would be foolish to lump such comrades with the Trotskyites."But thousands were killed anyway.

How do you sleep at night, Ismail, after justifying mass murder? Do you honestly think that these are the actions of a leftist?

RED DAVE

Ismail

1st November 2011, 16:42

Yet you would have us believe that none of the above is relevant because Stalin - in a heavily edited speech first published the state paper and then included in his hagiographic Collected Works - occasionally said otherwise in public. This is just one of many occasions where what Stalin said fails to match what Stalin did.For what it's worth, Volume 14 and onwards (which includes the year 1937) were unofficial volumes, compiled in the 70s and 80s by Red Star Press since the publication of Stalin's Works was discontinued after 1956.

But yeah, besides that I'm well aware of Stalin's various private discussions about what he viewed as foreign agents, etc. I've said this to you before, but I'd generally chalk things up to a simple psychological explanation: Stalin, not being a bloodthirsty man of evil, evidently wanted to see operations against perceived enemies being done as efficiently as possible. In between what was seen as hesitation on the part of the NKVD pre-Yezhov and the "radical" posture of Yezhov himself Stalin was basically just saying "we need to get the enemy, but we should try not to get any innocents caught up if possible." I also said to you at one point that another example could be used in the case of the anti-religious campaign in Albania, where Hoxha stressed persuasion rather than force, but in reality force was used in the majority of cases since it's rather hard to convince tons of people to at once give up their faith, etc. It's a feeling that something needs to be carried out, but the desire to see it done with little desire for bloodshed.

It's basically a "safeguard" mechanism. You claim it's "Stalin covering his ass," but as noted only the most egregious types were later punished after the purges (e.g. Thurston notes a bunch of NKVD men who were trying children) rather than those who were "products of the time," so to speak. Stalin never shied away from a policy, at most he made tactical retreats (which also occurred in Albania.) Thus Stalin was able to go through the Great Purges while also noting in 1939 that (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm): "It cannot be said that the purge was not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunately more mistakes than might have been expected. Undoubtedly, we shall have no further need of resorting to the method of mass purges. Nevertheless, the purge of 1933-36 was unavoidable and its results, on the whole, were beneficial."

Also as noted by others (Getty and Thurston included) Stalin tended to trust NKVD reports under Yezhov. Furr brought up cases where Stalin confidently asserted that so and so "turned out to be scum" based on NKVD reports, yet nothing ever happened to them.

ComradeOm

1st November 2011, 17:50

But yeah, besides that I'm well aware of Stalin's various private discussions about what he viewed as foreign agents, etc. I've said this to you before, but I'd generally chalk things up to a simple psychological explanation: Stalin, not being a bloodthirsty man of evil, evidently wanted to see operations against perceived enemies being done as efficiently as possibleA notion that falls down flat when you consider that:

a) Stalin's private language betrays few such nuances. He did not obsess about any 'collateral damage' and, as noted, behind closed doors his language could be harsh and uncompromising. He seems to have genuinely believed that wreckers/agents/Trotskyists/whatever were responsible for all ills and seen them everywhere. A wave of refugees fleeing famine conditions? Surely the work of Polish spies! Delusional doesn't begin to describe it

b) Stalin was an enabler, not a hindrance, when it came to the broadening of the violence. He did not restrain the NKVD but rather encouraged the extension of repressive measures throughout the country

c) Stalin was kept well informed of the process. He knew, and authorised, the use of torture to extract confessions. He, and the Politburo, had oversight of the numbers being executed or filing into the camp system. There is no excuse for ignorance there

There is nothing in all the above that suggests that Stalin was for a more 'targeted' or 'efficient' violence. Quite the contrary: far some stopping the spiraling wave of executions in 1937, he proposed and supported its extension into the lives of ordinary citizens, ie the 'mass operations'. It was the quest for 'Stalinist efficiency', not some plot/drive on the part of Yezhov, that saw almost a million executed in the space of a few years

In between what was seen as hesitation on the part of the NKVD pre-Yezhov and the "radical" posture of Yezhov himself Stalin was basically just saying "we need to get the enemy, but we should try not to get any innocents caught up if possible."Except that Stalin strongly backed Yezhov's appointment and supported him until 1938. These are not the actions of a man seeking some compromise position or third way

Thus Stalin was able to go through the Great Purges while also noting in 1939 that (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm): "It cannot be said that the purge was not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunately more mistakes than might have been expected. Undoubtedly, we shall have no further need of resorting to the method of mass purges. Nevertheless, the purge of 1933-36 was unavoidable and its results, on the whole, were beneficial."And of course there was never any connection between mistakes and policy. In fact, Stalin (and yourself!) here baldly assert that the previous line was actually the correct one. One wonders how many more would have had to have died for this to change

RED DAVE

1st November 2011, 17:59

"It cannot be said that the purge was not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunately more mistakes than might have been expected. Undoubtedly, we shall have no further need of resorting to the method of mass purges. Nevertheless, the purge of 1933-36 was unavoidable and its results, on the whole, were beneficial."The murder of tens of thousands of people and the breaking of the heart of the Left internationally, during the struggle against fascism was "beneficial."

And you have the nerve to quote that without comment. How do you fucking sleep at night? Your whole treatment of the purges has a nightmarish sense of unreality about it: "Oh, yes, hum, a few mistakes, regretful, but was Furr said ... ."

Mass murder, Ismail. You are justifying mass murder. Do you expect that anyone in their right mind in a political situation is going to trust the likes of you?

RED DAVE

Rafiq

1st November 2011, 19:37

The murder of tens of thousands of people and the breaking of the heart of the Left internationally, during the struggle against fascism was "beneficial."

And you have the nerve to quote that without comment. How do you fucking sleep at night? Your whole treatment of the purges has a nightmarish sense of unreality about it: "Oh, yes, hum, a few mistakes, regretful, but was Furr said ... ."

Mass murder, Ismail. You are justifying mass murder. Do you expect that anyone in their right mind in a political situation is going to trust the likes of you?

RED DAVE

Please, stop your dramatic moralist outcries.

Trotsky was the commander of the Red Army. The Cheka was 'taking care of people' to protect the revolution. While Trotsky was commander of the Red Army.

Why don't you criticize that? Had Trotsky been in Stalin's place he would have done the same thing. Thr purges are the least of my criticism.

RED DAVE

1st November 2011, 19:58

Please [RED DAVE], stop your dramatic moralist outcries.If you consider an outcry against Stalinist mass murder and its justification a "dramatic moralist outcr[y]," then how about an undramatic, unmoral outcry: "Fuck you!"

Trotsky was the commander of the Red Army. The Cheka was 'taking care of people' to protect the revolution. While Trotsky was commander of the Red Army.And I know for a fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people were imprisoned and/or killed. However, Trotsky was not the leader of the Cheka. He had, as far as I know, no direct influence over it. However, I do not consider that his hands are entirely clean in this matter.

Why don't you criticize that?Because, (A) Trotsky was not in charge of the Cheka. Stalin most certainly was responsible for the purges. (B) I do criticize it. (C) The scope of the purges was on a different order of magnitude of what the Cheka did (which Trotsky wasn't responsible for, anyway). (D) The Cheka was aimed at genuine counter-revolutionaries, Whites, etc. The purges was aimed at anyone who criticized Stalin.

Not the same thing at all.

Had Trotsky been in Stalin's place he would have done the same thing. Thr purges are the least of my criticism.You don't know that. All you're doing is pissing in the wind here.

RED DAVE

Rafiq

1st November 2011, 20:18

If you consider an outcry against Stalinist mass murder and its justification a "dramatic moralist outcr[y]," then how about an undramatic, unmoral outcry: "Fuck you!"

Well at least that's better.

And I know for a fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people were imprisoned and/or killed. However, Trotsky was not the leader of the Cheka. He had, as far as I know, no direct influence over it. However, I do not consider that his hands are entirely clean in this matter.

The Cheka did what was necessary to protect the revolution. Every revolution has a period of state terror and colletoral damage is mostly unavoidable. The Red Army was directly involved with the policy of State Terror and Trotsky himself was active in this regard.

Because, (A) Trotsky was not in charge of the Cheka. Stalin most certainly was responsible for the purges. (B) I do criticize it. (C) The scope of the purges was on a different order of magnitude of what the Cheka did (which Trotsky wasn't responsible for, anyway). (D) The Cheka was aimed at genuine counter-revolutionaries, Whites, etc. The purges was aimed at anyone who criticized Stalin.

It doesn't matter. The Cheka and the Red Army were both two currents of the same revolutionary dictatorship. And I don't recall Trotsky criticizing the Cheka, correct me if I'm wrong.

As for your ramblings regarding "Stalin controlling everything", see my post bellow.

You don't know that. All you're doing is pissing in the wind here.

Well, I'm a Materialist, so I can most certainly assume that Trotsky's policies would have been much similar to that of Stalin's. It's easy to sit on your ass in Mexico and morally criticize everything Stalin did.

The Material conditions manifested in the failure of the German revolution that hit Russia were in control of the country. Not Stalin. Not the NKVD. But the degeneration of the revolution.

Your arguments are the same as someone criticizing a member of the Bourgeoisie for being immoral. Him being immoral and him acting were a direct result of the conditions placed before him.

Stalin did not control everything in the Soviet Union. He was not even qualified enough to be labeled as "A dictator" with independent interests. Stalin acted upon the interests of the Soviet Bourgeoisie. He was not "Big brother" and all other humans in the country were forced to act on his behalf.

DaringMehring

2nd November 2011, 01:10

Same reason Yagoda was.

Put the blame on Yagoda, kill him, continue with Yezhov.

Then put the blame of Yezhov, kill him, continue with Beria.

After an interlude of over a decade, Beria too will take blame, and be shot.

This way, there is always a scapegoat, and no secret police chief gets too comfortable, too entrenched, too threatening...

RED DAVE

2nd November 2011, 10:44

And I know for a fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people were imprisoned and/or killed. However, Trotsky was not the leader of the Cheka. He had, as far as I know, no direct influence over it. However, I do not consider that his hands are entirely clean in this matter.
The Cheka did what was necessary to protect the revolution.Unfortunately, it went far beyond what was necessary.

Every revolution has a period of state terror and colletoral damage is mostly unavoidable.This is a very mechanical application of historical materialism. So-called state terror is a sign of the weakness of the revolution, not its strength. Much of what the Cheka did could have been avoided by forbidding capital punishment.

The Red Army was directly involved with the policy of State Terror and Trotsky himself was active in this regard.As I indicated originally, Trotsky's hands were not clean. In doing some research, it is evident that they were dirty. It is a blot on his career as a revolutionary.

Because, (A) Trotsky was not in charge of the Cheka. Stalin most certainly was responsible for the purges. (B) I do criticize it. (C) The scope of the purges was on a different order of magnitude of what the Cheka did (which Trotsky wasn't responsible for, anyway). (D) The Cheka was aimed at genuine counter-revolutionaries, Whites, etc. The purges was aimed at anyone who criticized Stalin
It doesn't matter. The Cheka and the Red Army were both two currents of the same revolutionary dictatorship. And I don't recall Trotsky criticizing the Cheka, correct me if I'm wrong.You are right that Trotsky did not criticize the Cheka. Shame on him for it.

However, as I said, the purges were qualitatively different from the actions of the Cheka. The Cheka acted, horribly, under conditions of revolution and civil war, to protect the revolution. The purges were done to consolidate Stalin's power and the power of the bureaucracy.

As for your ramblings regarding "Stalin controlling everything", see my post bellow.Stalin was responsible for the purges. They happened under his command. There is no getting away from that. He had them started and stopped. He exercised a power that Trotsky never had.

You don't know that [Trotsky would have done what Stalin did]. All you're doing is pissing in the wind here.
Well, I'm a MaterialistYour materialism is mechanical.

so I can most certainly assume that Trotsky's policies would have been much similar to that of Stalin's.Trotsky and Stalin were on opposite sides of the class line. The purges were to consolidate the rule of Stalin and the bureaucracy. Trotsky was opposed to both. This is amply shown by his actions, his writings and the fact that Stalin had him murdered.

It's easy to sit on your ass in Mexico and morally criticize everything Stalin did.Trotsky did not sit on his ass in Mexico. He arrive there as a political refugee, being hounded by Stalin's henchman from country to country, including having his son murdered. He was actively antifascist struggle, especially in Spain, and tried to build the 4th International. He opposed Stalin and the purges and for all this he was slandered and murdered.

The Material conditions manifested in the failure of the German revolution that hit Russia were in control of the country. Not Stalin. Not the NKVD. But the degeneration of the revolution.The choice to consolidate the rule of the bureaucracy was a choice. The alternative was permanent revolution, instead of that fraud: socialism in one country.

Your arguments are the same as someone criticizing a member of the Bourgeoisie for being immoral. Him being immoral and him acting were a direct result of the conditions placed before him.As I said, your materialism is mechanical. Yes, we do condemn members of the bourgeoisie as immoral. We do not consider them to be blind agents of history. In an earlier period of Orthodox Marxism, this "scientific" form of criticism was applied to the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. It was foolish and mechanical.

Stalin did not control everything in the Soviet Union. He was not even qualified enough to be labeled as "A dictator" with independent interests.The interests of the dictator correspond, more or less, with those of the ruling class. Stalin was the dictator in the interests of the bureaucracy.

Stalin acted upon the interests of the Soviet Bourgeoisie.You are making my point. Trotsky was on the other side of the class line, fighting for the interests of the working class.

He was not "Big brother" and all other humans in the country were forced to act on his behalfHe was a vile dictator, a mass murderer and the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution.

RED DAVE

ComradeOm

2nd November 2011, 15:16

Please, stop your dramatic moralist outcries.

Trotsky was the commander of the Red Army. The Cheka was 'taking care of people' to protect the revolution. While Trotsky was commander of the Red Army.

Why don't you criticize that? Had Trotsky been in Stalin's place he would have done the same thing. Thr purges are the least of my criticism.Head. Desk. Bang

Why would anyone bring up Trotsky in this thread? You started the thread so tell me, have I misread the title? Does it actually have nothing to do with Yezhov and instead read "What did Trotsky do as commander of the Red Army?" Or is this just a case of reflex whataboutism?

Introducing something completely irrelevant - such as the Civil War era Red Army or wild 'Materialist' assumptions about alt-history - and then proceeding to argue about it is not smart and it's not clever. It adds zero to the discussion at hand

Iron Felix

2nd November 2011, 15:58

Yezhoc accumulated too much power and knew too much to be left alive. He become an alcoholic only after Stalin began manuevering him out of power, that's when he realized that his fate is a bullet in the head.

tir1944

2nd November 2011, 16:35

Yezhov was a spy,a traitor and an infiltrated saboteur plotting against the Soviet state.

RED DAVE

2nd November 2011, 16:45

Yezhov was a spy,a traitor and an infiltrated saboteur plotting against the Soviet state.Typical Stalinist lies.

And to anticipate, the burden of proof lies with you tir.

ETA: If I didn't know tir better, I'd say his was a satirical post, but he's serious!

RED DAVE

Rooster

2nd November 2011, 17:46

Yezhov was a spy,a traitor and an infiltrated saboteur plotting against the Soviet state.

Funny how Stalin had a knack for promoting these spies, traitors and infiltrated saboteurs.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd November 2011, 19:49

One wonders how many more would have had to have died for this to change

Only one, but he only came to die in 1953.

Luís Henrique

ComradeOm

2nd November 2011, 20:03

Yezhov was a spy,a traitor and an infiltrated saboteur plotting against the Soviet state.Which is interesting given that you believe that many of Yezhov victims* were similarly "spies, traitors and infiltrated saboteurs plotting against the Soviet state". Do you believe that a significant percentage of the Soviet government at the time was in fact comprised of foreign agents busy killing each other off?

*Not to suggest for a second that he bears sole responsibility of course

LuÃs Henrique

2nd November 2011, 20:22

Funny how Stalin had a knack for promoting these spies, traitors and infiltrated saboteurs.

In fact, the Russian revolution would never happened if half of the "spies, traitors, and infiltrated saboteurs" were actually spies, traitors, or saboteurs. After all, "spies, traitors, and saboteurs" made up the majority of the Bolshevik Party's Central Comittee in late 1917.

But there is an easy explanation for why Stalin promoted individuals who had moral flaws, even if they were not spies, traitors, or saboteurs: in order to best control them, always having the Damocles' sword of their past hanging over them. At the smallest hesitation, it would be "remembered" or "discovered" that they were Mensheviks (or something like that) in their youth...

Luís Henrique

Iron Felix

2nd November 2011, 20:51

Yezhov was a spy,a traitor and an infiltrated saboteur plotting against the Soviet state.
Yezhov joined the Bolsheviks before the October Revolution and fought in the Red Army during the Civil War. Besides that, he was a loyalist Stalininst and Stalin's dog that had over 650,000 "spies, traitors and infiltrated saboteurs" shot under Stalin's orders. This spy and traitor ensured that Stalin was not overthrown. Some traitor.

Rafiq

2nd November 2011, 21:05

Unfortunately, it went far beyond what was necessary.

I call bullshit. Why would the Cheka decide to go "Too far"? Do you think they enjoyed killing people? They had a reason for it all.

This is a very mechanical application of historical materialism. So-called state terror is a sign of the weakness of the revolution, not its strength. Much of what the Cheka did could have been avoided by forbidding capital punishment.

State Terror is necessary in all revolutions, Weak or Strong. Yes, Russia at the time was at a "weak" position (Isolated) but the terror would have occurred regardless. The White Movement counterrevolutionaries would have fought on, German Revolution or no German Revolution.

As I indicated originally, Trotsky's hands were not clean. In doing some research, it is evident that they were dirty. It is a blot on his career as a revolutionary.

Why do you think Trotsky did what he did? Do you think he did it for no reason?

You are right that Trotsky did not criticize the Cheka. Shame on him for it.

No, shame on people like you who wouldn't have supported the Cheka.

However, as I said, the purges were qualitatively different from the actions of the Cheka. The Cheka acted, horribly, under conditions of revolution and civil war, to protect the revolution. The purges were done to consolidate Stalin's power and the power of the bureaucracy.

That's partially true. As I am not familiar with "the Other Side of the story" I will not comment as to whether the purges were meant to secure the power of 'Stalin'. I will say this though: Enemies did infiltrate the Soviet Union.

Stalin was responsible for the purges. They happened under his command. There is no getting away from that. He had them started and stopped. He exercised a power that Trotsky never had.

No he wasn't. You make it as if one individual could have so much power.

Your materialism is mechanical.

No, you're just a petty Dualist.

Trotsky and Stalin were on opposite sides of the class line. The purges were to consolidate the rule of Stalin and the bureaucracy. Trotsky was opposed to both. This is amply shown by his actions, his writings and the fact that Stalin had him murdered.

Had Trotsky switched place with Stalin, I'm sure Stalin would have said the same thing about Trotsky and fools like you would have been defending him for it.

Trotsky did not sit on his ass in Mexico. He arrive there as a political refugee, being hounded by Stalin's henchman from country to country, including having his son murdered. He was actively antifascist struggle, especially in Spain, and tried to build the 4th International. He opposed Stalin and the purges and for all this he was slandered and murdered.

You said before "trotsky had his hands dirty". Sounds to me like after Trotsky was expelled he was nothing more than an opportunist.

The choice to consolidate the rule of the bureaucracy was a choice. The alternative was permanent revolution, instead of that fraud: socialism in one country.

Again with your disgusting free will moralism. Permanent Revolution is a bunch of shit, any sensible Marxist would have figured that out. The Bourgeoisie today has a Choice, too. However, Frankly, I don't give three fucks about what choice they make, and I won't criticize them for making that choice. The very fact that they have the option to make those choices means there is a problem. The Material conditions placed before them allowed them to make that choice. When looking at human history, you have to assume that when given the choice, Humans will do terrible things. Blaming Stalin is dumb. The Material conditions manifested in the 1920's was in charge. The Bureaucracy was just a consequence.

The very inability of the proletariat to pursue it's class interest means something was wrong It was a proletarian revolution, and it was their dictatorship that followed. it was the fact that the USSR was Isolated, that made it become something horrible. You are looking at history like some kind of religious leader.

As I said, your materialism is mechanical. Yes, we do condemn members of the bourgeoisie as immoral.

Immoral on what basis? Morals are social constructions. The weakest form of criticism from a Socialist is a moral criticism. We oppose the Bourgeoisie because they are our class contradiction. Not because they are "Immoral". I promise that after the revolution the proletariat will be "Immoral" as well.

In an earlier period of Orthodox Marxism, this "scientific" form of criticism was applied to the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.

And rightfully so. It still remains valid, to this day. If anything, the Orthodox Marxists were proven correct!

It was foolish and mechanical.

Can you shut it with this "mechanical" business? These accusations of Mechanical materialism is just apoligism for Dualism.

The interests of the dictator correspond, more or less, with those of the ruling class. Stalin was the dictator in the interests of the bureaucracy.

Stalin wasn't a dictator. The real dictator in Russia was the Soviet Bourgeoisie. Stalin represented them and nothing more. Stalin did what he could to deal with the material conditions manifested in Russia and it didn't turn out pretty. He wasn't an asshole for no reason.

You are making my point. Trotsky was on the other side of the class line, fighting for the interests of the working class.

The hell if I'm making your point. The point is, is that if Stalin died some other asshole would come and replace him. Fact is, had Trotsky been in his place, he would have had to do the same thing. If you were in Stalin's place, you would have done the same thing as well.

He was a vile dictator, a mass murderer and the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution.

The Russian revolution was very much so buried deep in it's grave by the time Stalin officially took power, none the less during the purges. To blame Stalin for the failure of the October revolution is one of the most ridiculous things to ever come out of a so-called "Materialist".

If Lenin lived on he would have done the same thing as Stalin. Go figure.

Rafiq

2nd November 2011, 21:12

Head. Desk. Bang

Why would anyone bring up Trotsky in this thread? You started the thread so tell me, have I misread the title? Does it actually have nothing to do with Yezhov and instead read "What did Trotsky do as commander of the Red Army?" Or is this just a case of reflex whataboutism?

Introducing something completely irrelevant - such as the Civil War era Red Army or wild 'Materialist' assumptions about alt-history - and then proceeding to argue about it is not smart and it's not clever. It adds zero to the discussion at hand

Because now this conversation became a debate and I was just ever-so curious as to why a self proclaimed Trotskyist was criticizing Stalin for all of these "immoral" things (Like what he did to Yezhov, and how he was behind Yezhov's actions) when in fact Trotsky took similar measures to protect the revolution.

Ismail

3rd November 2011, 09:35

Typical Stalinist lies.

And to anticipate, the burden of proof lies with you tir. For what it's worth, these are the interrogations of Ezhov: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/ezhovinterrogs.html

ComradeOm

3rd November 2011, 09:37

Why is anyone's Trotskyism or whatever relevant to a discussion about Yezhov or Stalin? Is it not possible to discuss the latter without dredging up what Trotsky did a decade previously?

Actually I'm going to answer my own question: of course it is! In fact, it's entirely necessary to ignore the irrelevancies if you actually want to discuss the topic at hand. There is not one shred of your 'debate' with Red Dave (from either of you) that sheds any light on the conditions or events of the 1930s USSR. Ismail might be a dyed in the wool Stalinist with a love of Hoxha but even he understands the importance of staying focused and referring to the actual topic at hand

And yet that's how these threads go. There comes an inevitable point where the actual history is forgotten about, Trotsky gets rolled out and the thread degenerates into some primary school ethics debate full of one-line responses that add nothing and say nothing. Seriously, what do you people get out of this?

Die Neue Zeit

3rd November 2011, 14:35

This way, there is always a scapegoat, and no secret police chief gets too comfortable, too entrenched, too threatening...

Yuri Andropov? Vladimir Putin?

Rafiq

3rd November 2011, 20:28

Why is anyone's Trotskyism or whatever relevant to a discussion about Yezhov or Stalin? Is it not possible to discuss the latter without dredging up what Trotsky did a decade previously?

This user was resorting to Ethical arguments against the Stalinist bourgeoisie, which I think is pretty counter productive to the actual thread topic, and useless all together. This is why I brought Trotsky in. He is a Trotskyist, and was being pretty hypocritical.

A Marxist Historian

7th November 2011, 09:52

Unfortunately, it went far beyond what was necessary.

This is a very mechanical application of historical materialism. So-called state terror is a sign of the weakness of the revolution, not its strength. Much of what the Cheka did could have been avoided by forbidding capital punishment.

As I indicated originally, Trotsky's hands were not clean. In doing some research, it is evident that they were dirty. It is a blot on his career as a revolutionary.

You are right that Trotsky did not criticize the Cheka. Shame on him for it.

However, as I said, the purges were qualitatively different from the actions of the Cheka. The Cheka acted, horribly, under conditions of revolution and civil war, to protect the revolution. The purges were done to consolidate Stalin's power and the power of the bureaucracy.

Stalin was responsible for the purges. They happened under his command. There is no getting away from that. He had them started and stopped. He exercised a power that Trotsky never had.

Your materialism is mechanical.

Trotsky and Stalin were on opposite sides of the class line. The purges were to consolidate the rule of Stalin and the bureaucracy. Trotsky was opposed to both. This is amply shown by his actions, his writings and the fact that Stalin had him murdered.

Trotsky did not sit on his ass in Mexico. He arrive there as a political refugee, being hounded by Stalin's henchman from country to country, including having his son murdered. He was actively antifascist struggle, especially in Spain, and tried to build the 4th International. He opposed Stalin and the purges and for all this he was slandered and murdered.

The choice to consolidate the rule of the bureaucracy was a choice. The alternative was permanent revolution, instead of that fraud: socialism in one country.

As I said, your materialism is mechanical. Yes, we do condemn members of the bourgeoisie as immoral. We do not consider them to be blind agents of history. In an earlier period of Orthodox Marxism, this "scientific" form of criticism was applied to the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. It was foolish and mechanical.

The interests of the dictator correspond, more or less, with those of the ruling class. Stalin was the dictator in the interests of the bureaucracy.

You are making my point. Trotsky was on the other side of the class line, fighting for the interests of the working class.

He was a vile dictator, a mass murderer and the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution.

RED DAVE

The Cheka did what was necessary to defend the Revolution. Trotsky never disassociated himself from the Cheka in any way, and in trying to pretend that Trotsky was not fully co-responsible for the heroic work of the Cheka, you are doing him a disservice which no doubt has him turning in his grave in resentment.

Stalin's terror was not to defend the Revolution, but to destroy it. The difference between the terror of the Cheka under Lenin, Trotsky and Dzherzhinsky and the terror under Stalin is the simplest of all differences.

It is the difference between good and evil.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

7th November 2011, 10:01

Just one more point...

Unfortunately, it went far beyond what was necessary.

This is a very mechanical application of historical materialism. So-called state terror is a sign of the weakness of the revolution, not its strength. Much of what the Cheka did could have been avoided by forbidding capital punishment...

RED DAVE

Felix Dzherzhinsky first became famous in Poland as a campaigner against capital punishment--a position he maintained all his life. When the Bolsheviks reinstituted capital punishment in 1921, this was over Dzherzhinsky's opposition.

As he put it, "the Cheka does not judge, it strikes." When the Cheka short someone, it was not as punishment for a crime, but a measure in defense of the Revolution, no different from a soldier shooting a soldier on the other side during a battle.

Revolution and civil war simply cannot be carried out without shooting people, any more than any other form of war. The Cheka's job was to defend the Revolution against internal threats and suppress counterrevolution. Issues of crime and punishment had nothing to do with it and were outside its purview.

This was by the way no Bolshevik innovation. During the 1848 Revolution in Germany Marx and Engels called repeatedly and publicly for institution of Red Terror vs. reactionaries, after the Jacobin model.

And, of course, Marx explicitly defended the Commune shooting hostages in his famous pamphlet.

-M.H.-

Grenzer

9th November 2011, 02:04

The Cheka did what was necessary to defend the Revolution. Trotsky never disassociated himself from the Cheka in any way, and in trying to pretend that Trotsky was not fully co-responsible for the heroic work of the Cheka, you are doing him a disservice which no doubt has him turning in his grave in resentment.

Stalin's terror was not to defend the Revolution, but to destroy it. The difference between the terror of the Cheka under Lenin, Trotsky and Dzherzhinsky and the terror under Stalin is the simplest of all differences.

It is the difference between good and evil.

-M.H.-

I have to call bullshit on this.

So in other words the difference between the crimes under Lenin and those under Stalin is purely subjective rather than being based on a rigorous materialist analysis. This is what has always annoyed me about Trotskyists; they always turn a blind eye to the mass executions and repressions done while Lenin was still alive. The primary objective difference between them was the scale and the scope; but from the moralistic perspective at which the criticism of Stalin is applied, this is inconsistent. I suspect the real reason that ComradeOM got his under garments in a bunch is not so much that Trotsky is not germane, but rather that Trotsky is pretty difficult to defend being the hypocrite and opportunist that he was. Rafiq had a good point in bringing it up.

As to the subject of Yezhov, I am not too well versed regarding the purges but it seems to me that Stalin wanted end the purges by killing those who had helped him carry it out in the first place. Doubtless that they had gotten quite a bit of influence by this time, so it could have only benefitted Stalin to eliminate them, regardless of their real or imagined complicity.

A Marxist Historian

10th November 2011, 04:56

I have to call bullshit on this.

So in other words the difference between the crimes under Lenin and those under Stalin is purely subjective rather than being based on a rigorous materialist analysis. This is what has always annoyed me about Trotskyists; they always turn a blind eye to the mass executions and repressions done while Lenin was still alive. The primary objective difference between them was the scale and the scope; but from the moralistic perspective at which the criticism of Stalin is applied, this is inconsistent. I suspect the real reason that ComradeOM got his under garments in a bunch is not so much that Trotsky is not germane, but rather that Trotsky is pretty difficult to defend being the hypocrite and opportunist that he was. Rafiq had a good point in bringing it up.

As to the subject of Yezhov, I am not too well versed regarding the purges but it seems to me that Stalin wanted end the purges by killing those who had helped him carry it out in the first place. Doubtless that they had gotten quite a bit of influence by this time, so it could have only benefitted Stalin to eliminate them, regardless of their real or imagined complicity.

Proletarian morality vs. bourgeois morality is thoroughly materialist and not subjective at all, read Trotsky's "Their morals and ours."

When you have war between the oppressed and the oppressors, yes violence by the oppressed for the purpose of liberation from oppression, as in the violence of John Brown vs. slaveowners, or the repression of counterrevolutionaries by the Cheka, is good.

Violence of the oppressors vs. the oppressed, like the cops at Occupy Oakland, or repression of revolutionaries by Stalinists in the service of bureaucratic privilege, is bad.

-M.H.-

Invader Zim

22nd November 2015, 18:56

I didn't know Stalin reffered to himself in the third person... Weird.

Worth necroing because of the hilarious irony now that Rafiq uses the third person to talk about himself all the time.

motion denied

22nd November 2015, 19:06

how did you even find this lmao

Invader Zim

22nd November 2015, 19:13

how did you even find this lmao

I remember everything. It's my curse.

Guardia Rossa

22nd November 2015, 19:19

I remember everything. It's my curse.

Give that curse to me.

And the only thing worth of seeing here is that I shouldn't take Ismail seriously.

Invader Zim

22nd November 2015, 19:22

Give that curse to me.

I wasn't being entirely serious. But I do tend to remember a lot of irrelevant crap.

And the only thing worth of seeing here is that I shouldn't take Ismail seriously. Oh I dunno, it shows that little has changed all that much and that we still go over the same old ground. Though sitting back and reading Om's destruction of people's sacred cows was always great -- provided they weren't yours.

Art Vandelay

22nd November 2015, 19:32

ComradeOm

22nd November 2015, 20:13

And the only thing worth of seeing here is that I shouldn't take Ismail seriously.Ismail I actually had some time for. Of course, he was/is a dyed-in-the-wool Stalinist - unable to critically analyse sources and with a fantastist's eye for imaginary plots - but he could still assemble a coherent argument. I'd invariably disagree with said argument but it was something that could be engaged with. In hindsight I may have been overly harsh on him on occasion in the past.

But yeah, don't take him seriously.

It's really too bad that some of these posters aren't around anymore. I mean, this thread in particular was a bit of a shitfest, but there were a lot of contributors that we're capable of making interesting points, who have either been banned or (and I can't blame them) decided to stop posting due to the steady decline in quality content.I called this years ago (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2324031&postcount=136), shortly after this thread in fact. Drive away good posters and the quality drops, simple as. Not only do you lose people who know what they're talking about but the next generation of joiners isn't able to learn from them.

And I've been particularly struck on this visit by the decline in quantity and quality on the site. It's all a bit grim, to be honest. Even the mod of History hasn't been active since May!

Rafiq

22nd November 2015, 21:06

Worth necroing because of the hilarious irony now that Rafiq uses the third person to talk about himself all the time.

What do you hope to prove by resurrecting these threads? Am I supposed to be embarrassed?

I'm just trying to understand the sense of amusement you, among others get from this. Do you think, somehow, that I have forgotten I am not the same person as I was four years ago? Every aching moment of my life is spent learning and struggling with myself. It has led me thus far.

Where has not only all 4 years, but all the years that you have called yourself a socialist led you? Some shiny credentials that you allow to speak for you, while you do the big other's passive work dealing with mere empirical facts, which any idiot can do?

Speaking in third person is not testament to having such a great ego. Rather, it is testament to recognizing it does not belong to you and that you are only a person insofar as you relate to other people. This is not something simply inherent to Stalin, but to the whole "Judeo-Christian" tradition itself vis a vis Eastern spirituality: You are not the culmination of some essential, inside qualities, you are precisely only your outward relationship to others. In that sense it does not matter if Stalin was personally a great guy, a very sensitive man, or whatever. What matters is his symbolic relationship to the party. He knew this. So he could speak, and say "You tried to kill Stalin" as any other man was, because at least formally, all men were equal in Stalinist discourse, "Stalin" was a figure irreducible to the man himself, but a symbol beyond them all.

Of course, when I speak in the third person, I am actually acknowledging my bad reputation on this website, I am in no way referring to some imaginary cult of personality. That's what is truly ironic: When I speak in the third person, I am assuming YOUR perspective, the position that wants to approach Rafiq. You see, as a person, especially on an anonymous internet forum, I DO NOT MATTER. I am only what I post, which is "Rafiq". That's it.

If you do not understand this, you are not a Socialist.

Rafiq

22nd November 2015, 21:18

It's really too bad that some of these posters aren't around anymore. I mean, this thread in particular was a bit of a shitfest, but there were a lot of contributors that we're capable of making interesting points, who have either been banned or (and I can't blame them) decided to stop posting due to the steady decline in quality content.

Rose tinted fucking glasses if there ever were any. Actually, threads in 2015 are actually more interesting (yes, not just the ones where I am involved) than they were before.

"Interesting points"? Sure, Om is a good poster (insofar as matters refer to purely empirical matters, not ones that require critical thought - if he were a more modest man, he would admit this), but this whole thread was nothing more than passive aggressive dickwaving.

Threads on Revleft pretty much remained the same post financial crisis. Before then, from what I have read, it was a confused barren wasteland. Go look at a thread 5 years ago about evolutionary psychology. The shit you will find in some threads before is literally disgusting, and why? because people had no sophisticated sense of DISTINCT partisanship or ideological discipline. I mean today it is bad - but people on average are more capable of deciphering correct positions. I literally recall a thread in the past, I can pull it up if you think I'm bluffing, where users basically admit that some races are "less intelligent" than others and that capitalism does not adequately address the needs of those "less intelligent".

I LITERALLY saw this! This would NEVER be said without ridicule, without ruthless criticism and so on in 2015 today, with or without Rafiq. You all keep talking about a "decline in quality content", please, what the fuck are you referring to? If someone asked, right now, "Why was Yezhov executed", we would probably direct them to a thread like this because some topics have already been discussed over, and over again on this site, the Great purges, Krodstat, not to say the least of them.

"Quality content", awww, that's cute, is that content which makes you feel warm and confident inside which doesn't fuck with your head? Please shut the fuck up, there was never 'quality content' if you claim there is none right now, most of Revleft used to be passive posts of people just taking a piss, insufferable passive aggressiveness probably underlying what appeared to be real personal tensions between people, and then empiricists coming along and setting everyone straight.

Of course, there were good posters who we all miss, namely, Zanthorous, but deeply theoretical posters were not usually received well. Even Rosa was a good poster, because she forced people to ask hard questions.

If you think Revleft is such a horrible place with such a lack of "quality" content then get the fuck out. "Quality" he sais, as though everyone is supposed to cater TO YOU, like Revleft is some kind of service. If you want quality content, THEN MAKE IT YOURSELF, no one is stopping you - the alternative is for you to shut the fuck up, stop whining, and leave.

("Hilarious" colored font incoming)

This goes not only for 9mm, who by all means is a contemptible rat, but for everyone including Om who whine about Revleft's "regression". Just leave! Go! There are plenty of users who come here who want to learn, who want to immerse themselves in theory and so on - we don't need you, we don't want you (if your sole purpose here is to fucking tell us all how worthless we are in your eyes).

And that's another thing: Revleft is not, should not be the ONLY PLACE where users learn from, but a starting point - what books to read, and why, you will never immerse yourself in the traditions and theory that is necessary to be a Socialist solely on Revleft. Om and Zim think they're so fucking clever, that "Revleft has changed Rafiq" - no, dear elders, it has not, a tiny fraction of the time I spend on ideological, theoretical, and political matters is spent on Revleft, AND IT IS MOSTLY TO DIFFUSE WHAT I HAVE LEARNED ELSEWHERE to other users.

"People who know what they're talking about" he sais. And how do they? What gave them this magical power? ComradeOm keeps making pretenses to some great, unknowable mystery, that "If only the old timers were here" they could set Rafiq straight. Bullshit. BULLSHIT! You make pretenses to be a big other to compensate for your own inability, or at least will, to wrap your head around my posts. Like I have SEEN older threads, a big part of my time here - in fact - is spent looking at ancient threads. There is NOTHING impressive about them, the actual sophisticated insights contributed were almost always ignored in favor of fucking heresay. Better this forum over-run by confused newbies who at least have the capacity to get somewhere than these high-priests of technocracy, these disgusting Anglo-Saxon philistines whose reign was to, under the backdrop of correctly addressing false empirical claims, essentially impede any theoretical improvement of users at large.

Art Vandelay

22nd November 2015, 21:23

I called this years ago (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2324031&postcount=136), shortly after this thread in fact. Drive away good posters and the quality drops, simple as. Not only do you lose people who know what they're talking about but the next generation of joiners isn't able to learn from them.

And I've been particularly struck on this visit by the decline in quantity and quality on the site. It's all a bit grim, to be honest. Even the mod of History hasn't been active since May!

The amount of quality posters that have been banned or driven away from the site is truly staggering. I feel like a lot of people, particularly among the BA, have rolled out the narrative you address in that post; namely, that the quality of posts on the board always fluctuates, ebbs and flows, etc...when in reality, over my time here, all I have witnessed is a steady decline in quality.

Revleft is essentially dead and has been for a while. Most of the posters with something interesting to say, can't be bothered to post these days and I really don't blame them. When you take a look at those who are considered to be the intellectual 'heavy hitters' on the site, it becomes pretty clear that the inmates have taken over the asylum. Hell, I can probably count the amount of active mods and admins on one hand, if they can't even be bothered to participate (or hand over the job to someone who will), then I'm not sure what else can be expected.

I don't know the specifics, but I wish the unbanning policy had applied to more posters. The board could really use an influx of some of the old high quality members who were banned for spurious reasons. As far as I'm aware, only TAT and myself have been unbanned, there are a number of other posters I would consider good candidates to be brought back. In my opinion, that would be a good first step towards bringing some life back to this place.

Rafiq

22nd November 2015, 21:44

But anyway, thanks for staying 9mm. We really love hearing "Man, all the good users are gone" every 3 weeks.

In fact, users will project what is their own spiritual, ideological and political regression, their own degeneration into an abyss of confusion, faithlessness and darkness, onto the wider forum.

What we see in the world is the necessity, and the prospect of a renewed Left. This is what could re-invigorate the forum, not mythical old timers who mostly weren't worth a shit anyway. The events of the 21st century have put everyone in a blind alley. Recovery from this requires re-approximating our theoretical traditions and building new analysis's of our present concrete situation, not pathetically falling back on what might have been worthwhile 40 years ago.

We don't need old timers. We need people who can "march at the helm" of the spirit of the times. Those who say otherwise have no notion of not only the dialectic but the history of the Left in general - we did not produce Lenin's because of an attitude of falling back at what was there, but the creation of something new by re-asserting the legacy of the past.

Spectre of Spartacism

22nd November 2015, 22:02

Even the mod of History hasn't been active since May!

and hasn't posted in in a year and a half. Is this normal?

ComradeOm

22nd November 2015, 22:30

"People who know what they're talking about" he sais. And how do they? What gave them this magical power? ComradeOm keeps making pretenses to some great, unknowable mystery, that "If only the old timers were here" they could set Rafiq straight. Bullshit. BULLSHIT! You make pretenses to be a big other to compensate for your own inability, or at least will, to wrap your head around my posts. Like I have SEEN older threads, a big part of my time here - in fact - is spent looking at ancient threads. There is NOTHING impressive about them, the actual sophisticated insights contributed were almost always ignored in favor of fucking heresay. Better this forum over-run by confused newbies who at least have the capacity to get somewhere than these high-priests of technocracy, these disgusting Anglo-Saxon philistines whose reign was to, under the backdrop of correctly addressing false empirical claims, essentially impede any theoretical improvement of users at large.No, that's true. I had forgotten that you were the pinnacle of RevLeft, the apex of socialist thought, the bringer of non-Anglo-Saxon philosophy, objectively the greatest member of this board, the High Rafiq himself, out of whose behind the sun shines. What ever did we do before you decided to share your sermons with us?

Although, if it's any consolation, this thread has reminded me that you were never the sharpest in the first place, Rafiq. You've dialled the portentousness up to 11, admittedly, but the biggest change has really just been the length of your posts. At least in 2011 it only took you a few lines to express your ignorance. Over-compensating for that worm of self-doubt, perhaps?

So maybe my condescension (charity?) has been misplaced. Maybe this is as good as you could ever be and I've just been projecting my disappointment with RevLeft in general onto you. Maybe, I don't know. Either way, keep on murdering the English language.

I am only what I post...Large, flabby and incoherent?

We don't need old timers. We need people who can "march at the helm" of the spirit of the times. Those who say otherwise have no notion of not only the dialectic but the history of the Left in general - we did not produce Lenin's because of an attitude of falling back at what was there, but the creation of something new by re-asserting the legacy of the past.Seriously, don't ever change :lol:

and hasn't posted in in a year and a half. Is this normal?Obviously I couldn't say. But there does seem to be an air of neglect around the forums as a whole. I'd love to see the activity stats because, whatever about a decline in quality, the place seems dead and musty.

Rafiq

22nd November 2015, 22:37

Although, if it's any consolation, this thread has reminded me that you were never the sharpest in the first place, Rafiq. You've dialled the portentousness up to 11, admittedly, but the biggest change has really just been the length of your posts. At least in 2011 it only took you a few lines to express your ignorance. Over-compensating for that worm of self-doubt, perhaps?

I would like ComradeOm, the highest authority as far as Rafiq is concerned, to point to a single post in 2015 that has any bearing to any post Rafiq made in 2011 in terms of content and theoretical level. I dare you to do this.

We don't need this. With all that is happening in the world, we don't need the Om's, 9mm's, among others. You either keep the fuck up, or you leave. You claim that I have not changed in 4 years. You are full of shit. I have changed. I have changed in every imaginable way possible. To say otherwise is pure DISHONESTY, the only similarity between me before, and now, is the fact that you took qualm with some of my posts (for good reason, most of the time - and this thread is not one of those, where you so fucking idiotically start whining about how I 'derailed' the thread into one about Trotsky - my god these fucking academics and their 'system-based' approaches, like get the FUCK out of here with that, the context of mentioning Trotsky was perfectly justified - there is no such thing as a 'single topic', if a topic leads us to another topic, that means what you define as the "relevant topic" was not sufficient unto itself IN DEALING WITH THE MATTERS IT CONCERNS IN GENERAL), which is meaningless because every other user was the same in that regard.

Frankly Om, before you decided to bless us with your return I did have a sense of respect for you - perhaps the kind one allocates for elders in general. But you've literally exposed yourself, you are undeserving of any respect whatsoever in that your approach to me in particular was literally just juvenile, you came off not as some wise elder trying to set me straight... Your "constructive criticisms" are pure impotence, you literally are bellow the standards set forth even as far as some new users are concerned. I mean, how mature you are - you went from being somewhat respected to a worthless piece of shit who really has no reason to be here just like that - and why? Not only because of needless personal hostility, but because of how you expose yourself as a philistine insofar as your "constructive criticism" of my grammar or writing style was opportunistically used as a means to dismiss and attack the content of my posts in general. Now you make a true ass of yourself.

Your encounter with me has not been one of a concerned member who wants to see me "improve" but NOTHING MORE than personal fucking abuse to compensate where you lack in theoretical knowledge. There is nothing about my posts, at the present moment, which indicates I'm a young little shit - had I been anyone else you wouldn't get away with ANY of what you say. Even when I was rather ignorant (but not willfully) I ACKNOWLEDGED this fact, which is why this thread was made in the first place.

I don't need to prove to you or anyone how far I have come. Because I do not care about whether "I am the same". What matters is the here and now. If you point to a post I made in 2011, I will quote Rafiq from 2011 and attack him as though I am attacking ANY OTHER user for saying something stupid as though they are saying it now. Do it, call my bluff.

You prattle of "incoherencey". No Om, rafiq doesn't have to be some great genius for you to plainly be a fucking idiot and a philistine. Don't flatter yourself - that I am telling you that you are nowhere near the intellectual level to adequately deal with my posts sais nothing about whether I personally am some great thinker (ALL OF MY IDEAS are merely the diffusion of what I have learned FROM OTHERS)- it just means YOU in particular are a philistine and an idiot. I have never considered myself "sharp", but I will never falter on admitting, and shamelessly acknowledging my level of dedication to the theoretical traditions I claim to derive from, and ultimately, the ideas of Communism. I do not need to prove this to anyone, none the less someone as worthless as you.

So put some fucking big boy pants on and approach me toe to toe, as an adult. If you can't do this, promptly shut your fucking mouth.

ComradeOm

22nd November 2015, 23:01

I would like ComradeOm, hte highest authority as far as Rafiq is concerned, to point to a single post in 2015 that has any bearing to any post Rafiq made in 2011 in terms of content and theoretical level. I dare you to do this.Let me look close to hand, this 2011 post from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2281373&postcount=23) is almost as bad as, well, any of your 2015 posts. The trademarks are there: the obsession with the philosophical flavour of the day (in this case morality), the proud declarations of superiority (look Mum, I'm a Materialist!), TINA and the convoluted deterministic defence of Stalin (which suggests works read but not understood). All rather tangential to the topic at hand.

Over this weekend I've seen no evidence that you've progressed in any real way from Young Rafiq. You've clearly read more (French philosophy being the current fad) but only at a surface level. Instead of absorbing Zizek et al and incorporating them into a coherent worldview, you're just throwing out concepts and buzzwords ad hoc. It's one reason why your posts are so confused and contradictory. And you're so painfully keen to ensure that everyone knows what you've read... it's just cringe-worthy.

For an example of this Mature Rafiq, well, take almost any post I've been responding to this weekend. At least Young Rafiq was concise in his silliness. (And not quite as quick to anger. Losing your cool impresses nobody.) So you've certainly not progressed much. Sideways into verbosity, perhaps.

Edit: As for your edit RRRAGGH, hear me roar! Are you having as much fun with this as I am?

But I would suggest that you are not the best judge as to how "there is nothing about my posts, at the present moment, which indicates I'm a young little shit." Because they do. I'd initially assumed that you were older, given that you have been here five years, but you've really nailed that tortured 'why will nobody acknowledge my genius?' vibe.

That said, age doesn't excuse making a fool of yourself on the internet. Seriously, these rants of whiny rage do you no favours. Calling someone out on the internet? Pull yourself together.

Invader Zim

22nd November 2015, 23:24

What do you hope to prove by resurrecting these threads? Am I supposed to be embarrassed?

Why does it have to prove anything? And why threads? Is there more than one? Would you like to find another? And how could I embarrass the rafiq? Given what you write doesn't embarrass you when it really should, I see no way that anything I say is going to make any difference to you. No, I necroed the thread, using my dark arts, because I hoped it would bring a playful smile to people's faces.

I'm just trying to understand the sense of amusement you, among others get from this. Stop. Take a deep breath. Read this very post. And if you're even half as smart as you clearly believe you are, you'll have your answer.

Do you think, somehow, that I have forgotten I am not the same person as I was four years ago? Every aching moment of my life is spent learning and struggling with myself. It has led me thus far. Good for you.

Where has not only all 4 years, but all the years that you have called yourself a socialist led you? Some shiny credentials that you allow to speak for you, while you do the big other's passive work dealing with mere empirical facts, which any idiot can do? Except that isn't what I do Rafiq; and, even if it were, no, you rafiq, for one, cannot. Because even 'passive work dealing with empirical facts' requires actually knowing some empirical facts.

Speaking in third person is not testament to having such a great ego.

Well, it doesn't come across that way -- nor do your lengthy, incomprehensible, intellectually half-baked rants.

Invader Zim

22nd November 2015, 23:34

Om and Zim think they're so fucking clever...

Gold! This from the lad who steps back from the ugly messes he leaves in his wake, surveys the carnage and pats himself on the back, and declares himself a genius.

And I am that clever. My mommy told me so.

swims with the fishes

23rd November 2015, 00:10

Stalin as well as the outmoded commodity are denounced precisely by those who imposed them. Every new lie of advertising is also an avowal of the previous lie. The fall of every figure with totalitarian power reveals the illusory community which had approved him unanimously, and which had been nothing more than an agglomeration of solitudes without illusions.

Puzzled Left

23rd November 2015, 02:40

motion denied

23rd November 2015, 02:59

As an outsider and (relatively) new member, I simply cannot stand most of the posts made 5 years ago or older. The threads back then were pretty shallow and filled with outright 20th century sectarian attacks. While less active today, Revleft actually has higher "quality" posts, on average.

Not at all tbh. Looking at older posts, ZeroNowhere, AMH et al were very good posters. Even y the time I joined (2013) this shit was much better.

But who cares it's an internet forum lol

Puzzled Left

23rd November 2015, 03:52

Not at all tbh. Looking at older posts, ZeroNowhere, AMH et al were very good posters. Even y the time I joined (2013) this shit was much better.

But who cares it's an internet forum lol

2013 is pretty good (at least for what I had seen), but there are some old threads that I can't imagine them to be posted today.

Rafiq

23rd November 2015, 04:47

Let me look close to hand, this 2011 post from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2281373&postcount=23) is almost as bad as, well, any of your 2015 posts. The trademarks are there: the obsession with the philosophical flavour of the day (in this case morality), the proud declarations of superiority (look Mum, I'm a Materialist!), TINA and the convoluted deterministic defence of Stalin (which suggests works read but not understood). All rather tangential to the topic at hand.

Trademarks which establish ESSENTIAL equivalences, ladies and gentlemen. These pure fucking abstractions.

Obsession with philosophical flavor of the day. What was the philosophical flavor of the day in 2011? For all intensive purposes, it was largely identical to that of 2015. Rather than keeping up with what was fashionable, my emphasis on morality reflected my own struggles with morality and nothing more.

As for proud declarations of superiority, read the post. I am accused of "pissing in the wind". My reply: "Well, I'm a materialist, and I'm doing nothing more than using a materialist analysis". Of course, my 'materialism' back then was nonsense - it was not 'materialism' as such but a combination of cheap determinism with positivist 'materialism'. The materialism of Rafiq in 2015 is that of Marx's, because it is the supersession of Absolute idealism, not naive ignorance.

That my position on Stalinism does not appear to have changed that at the level of morality means nothing. In fact my understanding of Stalinism back then was merely the regurgitation of other positions. I didn't critically approach them or understand how the conclusions were made, I just accepted them because I felt they were correct compared to the inconsistency and hypocrisy of other anti-Stalinist moralism.

But today, even if my "deterministic" defense of Stalin is similar, it is for entirely different reasons and it is sustained by a critical, rigorously wrought understanding of Stalinism as a historic phenomena. It also relates to the conundrum of the left today in relating to its past - today, I claim that for better or for worse Stalinism is OUR legacy and we need to defend or criticize it on that basis. In 2011 I would have claimed "Well the Soviet Union was no different than any other bourgeois state". This is not my position today.

So the qualifications you have provided to back up the assertion that I have not changed at all amount to completely unjustified abstractions which you deem essentially defining for reasons that are totally arbitrary. You literally think with your ass - the idea that what makes or breaks Rafiq's character are the above vague qualifications is pretty hilarious from the perspective of the actual person in question - you know, who regularly had to struggle with himself since then - not only intellectually but yes, ideologically and spiritually.

Over this weekend I've seen no evidence that you've progressed in any real way from Young Rafiq.

Your standards of "progression" conform to your own philistinism and myopic understanding of theory. It is not surprising you do not see any change.

You've clearly read more (French philosophy being the current fad) but only at a surface level. Instead of absorbing Zizek et al and incorporating them into a coherent worldview, you're just throwing out concepts and buzzwords ad hoc.

French philosophy being the current fad? French philosophy was brought to your attention because of a single thread with invader Zim. Aside from that, there is no indication that I am presently conforming to the "french philosophy" fad. In fact the KEY distinguishing characteristic between, say, pre-2014 Rafiq and Rafiq in 2015 was not an encounter with French philosophy but German idealism. Lacan was in fact approached as a subset of Hegel. Hegel was approached by NECESSITY, I did not arbitrarily choose to learn Hegel for the sake of it. I had to. I was stepping into waters I had no experience in, I was forced to confront deeper problems with myself that I could not articulate - 'existential' ones, if you want, to be cliche'd. And things were getting nasty before then - notice the abrupt change that happened in late 2013/early 2014.

But to be more clear: The reason I laugh at you is because the notion that I have some static, un-compromising ego and think I'm such a genius is literally so stupid. Like you literally have no idea what you're talking about. There have been no 2 months of my life that were not filled with struggle - self-doubt, consideration that I might just be crazy and that I have no right to engage the ideas I do, faith in the ideas of Communism. You can try and be abusive all you want, but there is nothing you are telling me that I have not already told myself, you cannot tear me down anymore than I have already tore myself down: I am quite simply nothing. Until you learn what it means to literally be nothing, to feel dead, do NOT fucking talk to me about 'thinking I'm so great'. No, the point is precisely that I am NOT great and never will be - I am a body, I am flesh, bone, and a mind. I am worthless.

It is through this worthlessness that I derive the freedom to be unbound by social hierarchies, including hierarchies of legitimized thought. It is not through some over-confidence in special abilities, but precisely in the recognition of just how worthless I am that I have the AUDACITY to speak. I have said it before and will say it again: All men and women are worthless creatures, all men and women are NOTHINGS. That is the true meaning of equality in Communist terms - that we are all nothing in the face of the totality of our relations.

That is why you can literally kill me if you like - you can do anything. You can ridicule me, you can destroy me personally, you can totally knock down my ego (and it is regularly knocked down), and a new one will take its place. So long as I am living and breathing, I will live and breathe to serve the ideas of Communism and the theoretical tradition of Marxism. If this is madness, I embrace it proudly, and I spite sanity, I choose death over it.

What I have learned in all my few, meager years is that: Men and women are not "intelligent". You do not have to have special essential abilities to think. Rather, reduced to a certain level of nothingness, all men and women are capable of thinking, it is our rotten social order that IMPEDES confidence. It will not impede my confidence in believing, in having faith that there are no gods, that there is no natural, cosmic or divine order, and that I CAN do it - I CAN make pretenses to things which are so beyond me.

You literally don't know shit, you talk straight out your ass and derive over-reaching conclusions about my posts as a whole from half-assed, inconsiderate encounters with one or more posts. There was a period in my life where I had to literally associate my identity and some 'personal qualities' with my ideas. Why? because I lacked faith in the ideas, I had to cowardly associate them with something that was immediately tangible: Me as "special". In my dark, dark period of self obsession, years ago, which lasted a few months, the GREATEST lesson I drew was that narcassism and self-obsession were SHAMS, they themselves required almost a kind religious-like faith, I learned that cynicism was wrong and that even the most bare bones 'self-interest' was nothing more than - almost a theological category.

I remember the last time you decided to rear your head, and you attacked me, told me to take a break from Revleft for a reason that was later demonstrated to be completely unjustified (i.e. you literally over-glossed, skimmed through my post without understanding what I was trying to say - all that would have taken was the most elementary consideration).

The idea that I just throw around words arbitrarily to sound like a philosopher is also puzzling. But again, you're literally just talking out of your ass and drawing conclusions without justifying them. That it "sounds" nice and makes sense for a philistine is not going to cut it here. Like the basic logic is: If I can't undersand it, it must be total meaningless bullshit. Okay Om, but some users do understand it. For those who do understand, and take the time to understand, my posts are made.

if they don't exist on Revleft, if you can show me no one understands my posts, or that no one tries to without already presupposing cheap, cliche'd dismissals, I will literally leave. I promise.

It's one reason why your posts are so confused and contradictory.

I have never contradicted myself in any post where I did not admit it afterwards.

At least Young Rafiq was concise in his silliness. (And not quite as quick to anger. Losing your cool impresses nobody.)

Yes, you would like that wouldn't you. This is why you expose yourself - you must incessantly assert that "Young Rafiq" (whatever that means) is the same. You're interpreting your own inability to address my posts in terms of your previous encounters with me when I was far more ignorant, not simply at the level of theory, but at the level of truly understanding what it means to be a Communist, which is infinitely more important.

I'd initially assumed that you were older, given that you have been here five years, but you've really nailed that tortured 'why will nobody acknowledge my genius?' vibe.

I mean Om, what do you want me to do, kill myself? Or would you like to kill me yourself? I do not claim to be some special genius, I am what I am, that is all that I am insofar as I am alive. I am what I post. I do not need to presuppose I am a genus to make posts, and subsequently defend those posts. I am no genius because there are no geniuses. There is only ignorance where there is darkness.

Seriously, these rants of whiny rage do you no favours. Calling someone out on the internet? Pull yourself together.

I happen to take your "opinion" seriously. I happen to feel obliged to explain how wrong you are, for my own sake.

Precisely because I am not better than you at the level of being flesh and bones, with a brain. If ComradeOm can think something, SO TOO can Rafiq think it, and vice versa. Why I do not think what you think, must be justified and defended. I, 'schizophrenically' you may say, will approach other users posts as though they could be my own thoughts. If I MYSELF could think this, how do I justify not thinking this? The slightest smell of cognitive dissonance is quickly dealt with.

Rafiq

23rd November 2015, 04:50

As an outsider and (relatively) new member, I simply cannot stand most of the posts made 5 years ago or older. The threads back then were pretty shallow and filled with outright 20th century sectarian attacks. While less active today, Revleft actually has higher "quality" posts, on average.

Quiet!

According to ComradeOm, you're a worthless moron and the fact that you say this only reflects "how bad" the forum has got.

If only you could be a coward who compensates for what he lacks in 2015 with imaginary pretenses to a mythical past.

Ismail

29th November 2015, 14:35

reviscom1

30th November 2015, 22:11

Emmett Till

1st December 2015, 00:35

I really think it's disingenuous to claim that the terrors of the Civil War were in the same category as those of Stalin, and ludicrous to claim that Trotsky would have ended up behaving in the same way had he won the power struggle. Trostky was no angel, and no doubt would have been a ruthless leader, who would have not hesitated to physically eliminate party rivals (and probably abuse his position in other ways)

But in saying that I am talking about maybe a dozen men throughout the course of his hypothetical reign - men at the top of the party who were genuine rivals and who genuinely bore him ill will. He wouldn't have destroyed the entire senior leadership of the party, he wouldn't have destroyed the entire leadership of the army, he wouldn't have had hundreds of 1000s of low and mid ranking junior provincial party officials shot, he wouldn't have had shooting quotas, he wouldn't have shot his chauffeurs and other domestics, he wouldn't have shot women, he wouldn't have shot the wives of his subordinates, he wouldn't have shot people who asked him to show mercy to other victims, he wouldn't have shot close family friends who grew up thinking of him as nice, twinkly Uncle Joe, he wouldn't have spouted off about "Stalinite-Zinovievite Terrorist Saboteurs"

All that was down to an imbalance in Stalin's mind, a need to dominate and kill, and had nothing to do with politics or any practical considerations at all.

For the same reasons, his Terror cannot be compared to that of the Civil War. I'm not mad about that Terror either, to be honest, but it was done for logical reasons and quite possibly the survival of the Revolution depended on it. Stalin's Terrors were not done for logical reasons and the survival of nothing depended on it, not even that of Stalin.

In other words, Trotsky would have been a Khrushchev type?

Hardly. In fact, to his death, including even after Stalin had his children murdered, he always refused to personalise political conflict. The idea that Trotsky or Lenin or just about any leading Bolshevik other than Stalin would have killed the leaders of the political competition is absurd and goes totally against Bolshevik political culture.

Thus, the Bolsheviks until the 1930s did not even execute the leaders of the terrorist Socialist Revolutionary Party, responsible for repeated and sometimes successful assassination attempts against Bolsheviks from Lenin on down, and grisly peasant insurrections in which it was common for Bolshevik schoolteachers in peasant villages to be tortured to death after gangrape.

The Menshevik leaders were sent into exile--and then given undercover financial support by the Bolsheviks, who until Lenin died still believed that the continued existence of working class political opposition, even if it had to be curbed temporarily, was ultimately beneficial for the Soviet state.

reviscom1

1st December 2015, 08:09

Emmett Till

2nd December 2015, 01:41

I'm not sure what you mean by "a Krushchev type"

I am not saying Trotsky would have systematically killed members of the internal opposition. In fact my point was that he would not have. I am saying he would have fallen out with some of them, either through his fault or theirs, and that may have ended in their deaths. As I say I am talking about maybe a dozen men, not a million. And I am talking about men with whom he was genuinely at odds, not men who looked at him a bit funny.

But yes you could be right.

As for Khrushchev, the big K certainly purged his opponents, but after he got it all out of his system by offing Beria, not only did he never shoot any of his rivals, he never imprisoned them, and they would usually get demoted and, at worst, expelled from the party. Kaganovich in his memoirs complained about how lousy his pension was and how they never let him rejoin the party no matter how much he begged.

And K got the same treatment when Brezhnev purged him.

Ismail

2nd December 2015, 13:54

Khrushchev and Brezhnev belonged to the same revisionist clique. One of Brezhnev's first moves in office was to reaffirm that the CPSU would continue to uphold the resolutions of the 20th and 22nd Congresses, i.e. would continue to denigrate Stalin, hold that the USSR had become a "state of the whole people," that countries like India were "building socialism," that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable, etc.

Beria represented a physical danger to Khrushchev owing to the former's control of the security apparatus. That is why he was killed. But even on "peaceful" matters, Zhukov was ready to proclaim a military coup to oust the "Anti-Party Group" of Molotov, Kaganovich and others if the latter did not cease their efforts to remove Khrushchev, though they had inadequately organized themselves and lacked the cohesion necessary to carry on through the removal of Khrushchev, so that step wasn't necessary.

Furthermore there was working-class apprehension about the defeat of the "Anti-Party Group" which made punitive measures against them unwise, e.g.:

"There were even several instances of open opposition to the advance of the Khrushchev wing. An Austrian who returned from Russia in 1958 told the author that at the beginning of July 1957 the workers of the electrical appliances factory in Kursk stopped work. They asked for an explanation of the dismissal of Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich, and demanded that the fallen leaders should comment over the radio on the events at the full session of the Central Committee. The Party officials of the factory implored the workers to stop the strike: 'Remember, Molotov, Malenkov, and Kaganovich themselves admitted that they were guilty,' they said. Only after an hour did work start again. In other enterprises, too, there was unrest. Workers openly abused the Party leaders, which officials pretended not to hear."
(Leonhard, Wolfgang. The Kremlin Since Stalin. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1962. pp. 250-251.)

In the Moscow Trials not every person was sentenced to death. Rakovsky for example was only shot when the Nazis invaded the USSR, the same with SR terrorist Maria Spiridonova (whom I mention due to your comment about Bolshevik "lenience" towards SRs.) Those who played direct and/or leading roles in trying to overthrow the government via military plots, assassinations, sabotage, etc., such as Tukhachevsky, Bukharin, Yagoda, and Zinoviev were shot. Those whose roles were more or less couriers for Trotsky like Radek, who had no active involvement in planning such activities, were spared.

Burzhuin

11th December 2015, 14:14

According to my knowledge Yershov was executed after Trial. The main his fault was violation of Soviet Criminal Code.

R.Rubinelli

15th December 2015, 23:14

Because it was his turn?

reviscom1

16th December 2015, 21:12

According to my knowledge Yershov was executed after Trial. The main his fault was violation of Soviet Criminal Code.

Are you saying his trial was fair?

Lord Testicles

16th December 2015, 21:15

Are you saying his trial was fair?

I imagine Burzhuin's reasoning is something like this:

Why is he on trial? He's violated the Soviet criminal code. How do you know? Because he's on trial.

Ismail

17th December 2015, 00:39

Why is he on trial? He's violated the Soviet criminal code. How do you know? Because he's on trial.
"According to a memorandum left by a delegate to the Eighteenth Party Congress, which opened in March 1939, Ezhov was still free then, though several of his top aides had been arrested. At a meeting of the Council of Elders, apparently an informal group of top delegates within the Central Committee, Stalin called Ezhov forward. The Gensec asked him who various arrested NKVDists were. Ezhov replied:

'Joseph Vissarionovich! You know that it was I—I myself!—who disclosed their conspiracy! I came to you and reported it. . . .'

Stalin didn't let him continue. 'Yes, yes, yes! When you felt you were about to be caught, then you came in a hurry. But what about before that? Were you organizing a conspiracy? Did you want to kill Stalin? Top officials of the NKVD are plotting, but you, supposedly, aren't involved. You think I don't see anything?! Do you remember who you sent on a certain date for duty with Stalin? Who? With revolvers? Why revolvers near Stalin? Why? To kill Stalin? And if I hadn't noticed? What then?!'

Stalin went on to accuse Yezhov of working too feverishly, arresting many people who were innocent and covering up for others.

Ezhov was arrested a few days later. Roy Medvedev reports that he was shot in July 1940, after being held in a prison for especially dangerous 'enemies of the people.' A recent Russian publication confirms that Ezhov was arrested in 1939 and shot in 1940, 'for groundless repressions against the Soviet people.'"
(Robert W. Thurston. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1996. pp. 116-117.)

Also: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/ezhovinterrogs.html

Ceallach_the_Witch

19th December 2015, 19:41

i was actually in a discussion about this last week in a seminar about forced labour and the gulags and we touched on the various dismissals and executions of senior officials, Yezhov among them. It was a pretty interesting talk all things considered, but what we arrived at was pretty similar to what a lot of people in this thread are saying - Yezhov was dismissed, denounced and executed because it was a politically expedient move for Stalin and the Central Committee, just as it was to finish off his predecessor Yagoda.

Ismail

20th December 2015, 00:36

what we arrived at was pretty similar to what a lot of people in this thread are saying - Yezhov was dismissed, denounced and executed because it was a politically expedient move for Stalin and the Central Committee, just as it was to finish off his predecessor Yagoda."Politically expedient" doesn't mean much though. In the context of the growing menace of fascism and plots against the Soviet state, the purges were an act of political expediency just as the Red Terror was over a decade earlier. That's generally how political events involving lots of people dying tend to start. It also helps explain the NEP, the promotion of material incentives in the early 30s to promote production, and other policies. It doesn't say anything bad about Lenin or Stalin.

It seems to me that Yezhov, as Stalin said, killed many innocent people and was trying to cover this up. At the same time it was known that Yezhov was also trying to compile a file against Stalin. Thus the reason he was executed had to do with Yezhov's own actions and not Stalin being afraid of the masses rising up against the dreaded bureaucracy of evil if he didn't use Yezhov as a scapegoat. This is especially obvious when one keeps in mind that after Yezhov's execution he simply faded from public memory and was never mentioned in the books or press. There was no public campaign blaming him for anything.

Antiochus

20th December 2015, 11:48

What I love about Stalinists is their ability (in their minds) to convolute historical events to the point where the NKVD handing over lists of communists and jews to be liquidated was "revolutionary", to be defended with copious quote digging from Pravda archives.

The funniest part of it all, in a terribly depressing but comical way, is that this is "necessary" and "not betrayal", but the SDP's betrayal is a great betrayal. Well, if we were to use the same logic, the SDP that voted for war credits were the most revolutionary men in history and true Communists; their sacrifice of the working class caused dozens of revolts and revolutions, lmao.

Ismail

21st December 2015, 07:04

What I love about Stalinists is their ability (in their minds) to convolute historical events to the point where the NKVD handing over lists of communistsIn this case "communists" means "anyone who ever opposed Joseph Stalin." This list of sterling revolutionists includes such unforgettable names as Kosior (who played a key role in covering up the extent of the Ukrainian famine), Postyshev (who was one of the most "zealous" in promoting the purges to demonstrate his own "loyalty"), Yagoda and Yezhov (by all accounts bad persons from both a personal and political point of view), Tukhachevsky (an anti-Semite who applauded the invincibility of the Nazi army) and numerous others, many of whom were later held up by Khrushchev and Brezhnev as great men worthy of emulation.

and jewsThat didn't happen. Here's what did though: one of the first adherents to "National Bolshevism," Nikolai Ustrialov, was shot during the purges. No doubt if you had heard nothing about him except that he had claimed to be a "communist" when this event occurred, you would have lamented his demise as another example of "revolutionaries" being killed by none other than J.V. Stalin.

The funniest part of it all, in a terribly depressing but comical way, is that this is "necessary" and "not betrayal", but the SDP's betrayal is a great betrayal. Well, if we were to use the same logic, the SDP that voted for war credits were the most revolutionary men in history and true Communists; their sacrifice of the working class caused dozens of revolts and revolutions, lmao.The SPD and likeminded parties of the Second International who supported imperialism were amply rewarded by their respective bourgeois governments in terms of being granted cabinet positions and so on. Those elements in the USSR who supported imperialism against the USSR in order to overthrow its government and socialist system were imprisoned and/or shot. That's the key difference between how a society run by the bourgeoisie and how a society run by the workers treat the renegades from the working-class movement.

As US Ambassador to the USSR Joseph E. Davies pointed out in his Moscow Diary, "There were no Fifth Columnists in Russia in 1941 - they had shot them. The purge had cleansed the country and rid it of treason." In this way the purges not only played an important role in protecting the USSR at a time when its military defenses were in a precarious situation, they helped ensure the triumph of the USSR over the fascists and the transformation of socialist construction from a single country into numerous countries liberated from fascism and colonialism.

Antiochus

21st December 2015, 09:15

In this case "communists" means "anyone who ever opposed Joseph Stalin." This list of sterling revolutionists includes such unforgettable names as Kosior (who played a key role in covering up the extent of the Ukrainian famine), Postyshev (who was one of the most "zealous" in promoting the purges to demonstrate his own "loyalty"), Yagoda and Yezhov (by all accounts bad persons from both a personal and political point of view), Tukhachevsky (an anti-Semite who applauded the invincibility of the Nazi army) and numerous others, many of whom were later held up by Khrushchev and Brezhnev as great men worthy of emulation.

That didn't happen. Here's what did though: one of the first adherents to "National Bolshevism," Nikolai Ustrialov, was shot during the purges. No doubt if you had heard nothing about him except that he had claimed to be a "communist" when this event occurred, you would have lamented his demise as another example of "revolutionaries" being killed by none other than J.V. Stalin.

The SPD and likeminded parties of the Second International who supported imperialism were amply rewarded by their respective bourgeois governments in terms of being granted cabinet positions and so on. Those elements in the USSR who supported imperialism against the USSR in order to overthrow its government and socialist system were imprisoned and/or shot. That's the key difference between how a society run by the bourgeoisie and how a society run by the workers treat the renegades from the working-class movement.

As US Ambassador to the USSR Joseph E. Davies pointed out in his Moscow Diary, "There were no Fifth Columnists in Russia in 1941 - they had shot them. The purge had cleansed the country and rid it of treason." In this way the purges not only played an important role in protecting the USSR at a time when its military defenses were in a precarious situation, they helped ensure the triumph of the USSR over the fascists and the transformation of socialist construction from a single country into numerous countries liberated from fascism and colonialism.

Yeah, quote digging that runs into the face of facts. The "fact" is, hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens joined the invading Nazis. I don't know if you can call it a 'fifth column', though I don't know any other name for it than that.

unforgettable names as Kosior (who played a key role in covering up the extent of the Ukrainian famine)

Ah yes. The old, "The king is good!!!! Its his advisors who are evil!!!" what a load of shit.

Also its hysterical how Tukhachevsky is labelled an anti-semite (I suppose he was), while Stalin, who led nation-wide deportations of minorities and who was notorious in his own instances of anti-semitism is somehow spared of any actual criticism. Keep in mind, Tukhachevsky never acted out on his "anti-semitism", whereas Stalin certainly did. After all, it was not Stalin that signed a non-aggression pact and facilitated the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe indirectly through it and providing the Nazis with invaluable economic aid.

And off course, lets not pretend as if Tukhachevsky was killed because he was an anti-Semite, I mean are you really so disingenuous? And really, I love how it is conveniently covered up that it wasn't just "General X" or "Person Y" that were killed, but usually entire families or people with the most minimal 'connections' to said individual, no doubt defended through copious quote digging.

Those elements in the USSR who supported imperialism against the USSR in order to overthrow its government and socialist system were imprisoned and/or shot.

Nice dodging of what I said. The point being, Stalin's alliance with Nazi Germany and his subsequent aid to Nazi Germany could EASILY and rightly be seen as a betrayal of the working-class movement. But it is not done so by Stalinists because Stalin did it. My point of mentioning the SDP is, if they were such snakes and worms as the Stalinists were/are, they too might be spared such a label if they were willing to undergo the rigors of the mental gymnastics needed to justify such an action, i.e "We voted for WW1 because we knew it would lead to revolution!!".

Ismail

21st December 2015, 09:24

Yeah, quote digging that runs into the face of facts. The "fact" is, hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens joined the invading Nazis. I don't know if you can call it a 'fifth column', though I don't know any other name for it than that.A "fifth column" refers to an organized force within the country. An unprecedentedly large invasion which brings hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens under the control of a genocidal fascist empire does not create a fifth column. Even the likes of Vlasov and other failed attempts to convince the Soviet people to rise up against their "Judeo-Bolshevik masters" weren't really fifth columnists, insofar as no Soviet citizens of any significance rose up in support of said appeals within the unoccupied and liberated parts of the USSR, let alone entire army divisions.

Ah yes. The old, "The king is good!!!! Its his advisors who are evil!!!" what a load of shit.Well then let's see what King Stalin of Sovietlandia did to alleviate the famine compared to what Duke Kosior of Ukrainia was doing.

Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine. Copy of the Original document. March 16th, 1932. Provided by the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central committee of the Communist party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine. Original document. April 26th, 1932.
There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central committee of the Communist party of Ukraine. Copy. April 26th, 1932.
Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

And then let us end with noble knight Semyon Budyenny, who rode into Ukrainia and told the peasants of the evident shittiness of their local leaders who lied to their glorious King.

Memorandum of Alexeev, secretary of the Vinnitsa provincial committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Communist party of Ukraine regarding content of speeches by Semyon Budyenny made during visits to Ukrainian villages. (This copy of the letter was forwarded to Lazar Kaganovich, secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party in Moscow). Verified copy of the original document. June 27th, 1932.
[…] in his conversations with collective farmers, comrade Budyenny said: “Your predicament is that the authorities do not know that you have no bread, your “Ukrainian” and local leaders are to blame, they over-promised [to the Central authorities] all these ‘self-imposed extensions’ of quotas for grain procurement, and took your grain, and left you without bread”.

Ismail

21st December 2015, 09:48

Also its hysterical how Tukhachevsky is labelled an anti-semite (I suppose he was), while Stalin, who led nation-wide deportations of minorities and who was notorious in his own instances of anti-semitism is somehow spared of any actual criticism.Well first off the deportation of nationalities is different from anti-Semitism (unless the Chechens, Volga Germans, etc. were secretly Jews.) If you want to bring up deportations as some sort of sin Stalin committed then you're free to do so and I am free to debate on that point.

As for "his own instances of anti-semitism," there were none. Stalin firmly combated anti-Semitism. Khrushchev and others were, of course, anti-Semites and anti-Semitism flourished following the restoration of capitalism after Stalin's death.

Keep in mind, Tukhachevsky never acted out on his "anti-semitism"Nor could he, considering his plan for a coup d'état failed.

After all, it was not Stalin that signed a non-aggression pact and facilitated the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe indirectly through it and providing the Nazis with invaluable economic aid.It was Stalin who sent troops into the Baltics, western Ukraine and Byelorussia, and Bessarabia, thus saving the lives of countless Jews.

And off course, lets not pretend as if Tukhachevsky was killed because he was an anti-Semite, I mean are you really so disingenuous?Of course not. He was killed for wanting to carry out a coup that would establish an essentially fascist system in the country. His anti-Semitism was not in itself a reason for his execution, though it obviously didn't endear him to those responsible for sentencing him.

And really, I love how it is conveniently covered up that it wasn't just "General X" or "Person Y" that were killed, but usually entire families or people with the most minimal 'connections' to said individual, no doubt defended through copious quote digging.You're free to cite concrete examples.

Nice dodging of what I said. The point being, Stalin's alliance with Nazi Germany and his subsequent aid to Nazi Germany could EASILY and rightly be seen as a betrayal of the working-class movement. But it is not done so by Stalinists because Stalin did it.Except the USSR did not ally with Nazi Germany, nor did it aid it (unless foreign trade counts as "aid.") Soviet-German relations were significantly stronger, and actual aid rendered, in the 1920s under Lenin and Stalin.

Antiochus

21st December 2015, 09:51

If that is your simplistic definition of a "5th column" than no nation in world war 2 suffered from such a predicament; which off course blows up in the face of the purges somehow eliminating such a threat.

The fact is, many, many of the charges of the purges were known fabrications, often pulled straight out of Stalin's and Yezhov's ass (wasn't the "charge" against Yezhov that he was too overzealous?).

I mean, how can you even defend such a farce that flies in the face of the most rudimentary logic? Oh, because Stalin did it :lol:

The fact is, the Stalinist show-trials, fabricated and carried out with the validity of a Southern lynching, find their fertile ground in the minds of utter imbeciles. At best these people just argue that Stalin was "forced" to carry out internal repression because of the failure of the international revolution.

And yes, Stalin was a chauvinist, through and through. None of the people killed in the purges were killed because of their supposed anti-semitism, so off course your statement thereof is just libel (I mean, if they really were anti-semites, fuck them, but Stalin should have then followed them to the wall).

Antiochus

21st December 2015, 10:03

Well first off the deportation of nationalities is different from anti-Semitism (unless the Chechens, Volga Germans, etc. were secretly Jews.)

No, they aren't Jews, it does however, illustrate a pathology.

.Nor could he, considering his plan for a coup d'état failed

No, considering no such coup existed and it was fabricated by Stalin and the NKVD. But by all means post quotes from the NKVD "proving" it.

It was Stalin who sent troops into the Baltics, western Ukraine and Byelorussia, and Bessarabia, thus saving the lives of countless Jews.

lmao. Yes, I suppose the Soviet invasion of Poland, in tandem with the Nazi invasion, saved many Jewish lives. To commemorate the saving of these lives, Soviet troops were ordered to hold joint marches and ceremonies with German troops; you know, to celebrate the safety of the European Jews in Eastern Europe.

Except the USSR did not ally with Nazi Germany, nor did it aid it (unless foreign trade counts as "aid.") Soviet-German relations were significantly stronger, and actual aid rendered, in the 1920s under Lenin and Stalin.

Yeah, nice verbal vomit. The 'ties' the USSR had with the Weimar Republic, were absolutely nothing compared to the vital and necessary aid the Germans received as part of a pact to carve up Eastern Europe; with which the Germans could not have prosecuted the war.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/GermanImports_USSRPerCent.jpg/800px-GermanImports_USSRPerCent.jpg

Ismail

21st December 2015, 11:08

If that is your simplistic definition of a "5th column" than no nation in world war 2 suffered from such a predicament; which off course blows up in the face of the purges somehow eliminating such a threat.I'm pretty sure the USSR had no equivalents of a Pétain or a Quisling except in the context of the Nazis conquering an area and finding collaborators (which isn't surprising) or in the context of the Nazis capturing Soviet officers and a few of them (again, Vlasov being the most prominent example) agreeing to collaborate.

A fifth column rising up within the USSR, in tandem with the Nazis, is something entirely different and was noticeable by its absence.

The fact is, many, many of the charges of the purges were known fabrications, often pulled straight out of Stalin's and Yezhov's ass (wasn't the "charge" against Yezhov that he was too overzealous?).He was accused not so much of being "overzealous" but of intentionally killing innocent people. So yes, murder was one charge. Pederasty and espionage were others, as was treason in general as he was accused of being involved in a plot to overthrow the government.

The fact is, the Stalinist show-trials, fabricated and carried out with the validity of a Southern lynching, find their fertile ground in the minds of utter imbeciles. At best these people just argue that Stalin was "forced" to carry out internal repression because of the failure of the international revolution.The only people who argue that are Trotskyists who try to explain the behavior of the "Stalinist bureaucracy" under such terms. I would fully concur that such persons are utter imbeciles, but alas you seem to reserve that term instead for people who don't dismiss every charge against every person in 1936-38 out of hand by invoking the evilness of Koba the Dread.

No, they aren't Jews, it does however, illustrate a pathology.No it doesn't. The Chechens and others weren't deported because Stalin had an obsessional hatred of them, but because of reports of massive collaboration with the enemy.

No, considering no such coup existed and it was fabricated by Stalin and the NKVD. But by all means post quotes from the NKVD "proving" it.I don't need to do so since a number of sources hostile to Stalin, such as Isaac Deutscher, admit that it was very likely a coup plot existed within the military.

Yes, I suppose the Soviet invasion of Poland, in tandem with the Nazi invasion, saved many Jewish lives.Correct.

"When the Red Army crossed into eastern Poland, it was greeted with wild enthusiasm and mass demonstrations by the populace, largely made up of Ukrainians and Belorussians and Jews. A contemporary account saw it this way:

'Not a shot was fired, not a bomb was dropped, and villages and townspeople, free from the terror of German air attacks, hailed the Red Army as deliverers.Russian troops themselves contributed to this feeling of relief by saying they came as comrades. Many inhabitants in this part of Poland are Jews whose number has been swelled by thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing before the Germans. Their joy was great at finding themselves safe from Nazi hands.'

The Red Army stopped at the Bug River, which coincided with the Curzon line, and most Jews were sent to safety beyond the Urals. Among them was a young man by the name of Menachim Begun, later to become premier of Israel, and an inveterate enemy of all things socialist. Still, in his UN speech, December 10, 1945, Albert Einstein expressly noted that only the Soviet Union opened its borders to Jews in 1939 and saved tens of thousands from the Holocaust, almost at a time when a ship seeking safety in Cuba, under Batista, was turned back to Germany. In 1938 the Poland of the Colonels refused to repatriate thousands of Polish Jews from Germany, thus dooming most to death. Choose your morality: immoral to cross the Polish border or moral to save the lives of thousands of Jews?"

(Bonosky, Philip. Devils in Amber: The Baltics. New York: International Publishers. 1992. pp. 86-87.)

To commemorate the saving of these lives, Soviet troops were ordered to hold joint marches and ceremonies with German troops; you know, to celebrate the safety of the European Jews in Eastern Europe.Except that didn't happen. Brest was captured by the Germans but then handed over to the Soviets. The German commander, Guderian, referred to it in his memoirs as a "farewell parade" of his troops, not some sort of glorious joint victory parade against the Judeo-Polish sub-humans or whatever you want to turn it into.

Yeah, nice verbal vomit. The 'ties' the USSR had with the Weimar Republic, were absolutely nothing compared to the vital and necessary aid the Germans received as part of a pact to carve up Eastern Europe; with which the Germans could not have prosecuted the war.The ties between the USSR and Weimar-era Germany were certainly relevant considering the Soviets intentionally helped build up the German army in retaliation for the Versailles treaty. There was no similar intention with regards to Soviet-German trade in 1939-1941, which was intended to strengthen the defense capabilities of the USSR and which in fact did so. Trade was necessary as a demonstration of the normalization of relations between the two states. The Germans also exported military equipment to the USSR.

Antiochus

23rd December 2015, 02:35

I'm pretty sure the USSR had no equivalents of a Pétain or a Quisling except in the context of the Nazis conquering an area and finding collaborators (which isn't surprising) or in the context of the Nazis capturing Soviet officers and a few of them (again, Vlasov being the most prominent example) agreeing to collaborate.

Which only occurred once French and Norwegian forces were defeated. There were hundreds of thousands of Russian/Ukranian/Baltic troops that 'switched' sides once the war began or once they were captured.

He was accused not so much of being "overzealous" but of intentionally killing innocent people.

Oh, like Stalin? The fact is, Stalin tried to kill Tukhachevsky in 1930 using the same charges. The charges against Tukhachevsky were completely concocted, they had no relation to reality.

No it doesn't. The Chechens and others weren't deported because Stalin had an obsessional hatred of them, but because of reports of massive collaboration with the enemy.

Yes, collective punishment for ethnic groups. How does it change anything I said?

There was no similar intention with regards to Soviet-German trade in 1939-1941, which was intended to strengthen the defense capabilities of the USSR and which in fact did so. Trade was necessary as a demonstration of the normalization of relations between the two states. The Germans also exported military equipment to the USSR.

The trade relations between the USSR and Germany (which as noted by the graph escalated with the defeat of France) had DISASTROUS consequences for the USSR. It allowed the German army to prosecute a war it was ill-prepared to carry out. German oil reserves, even with Romania, could never have lasted as long they did without the enormity of Soviet contributions.

The "military technology" sent to the USSR hardly helped the Soviets. Most of it was never sent at all or was sent piecemeal. The proof of that none of the subsequent Soviet tank, airplane, field artillery (etc...) designs were based on German technology from this period.

I don't need to do so since a number of sources hostile to Stalin, such as Isaac Deutscher, admit that it was very likely a coup plot existed within the military.

Except you have no proof for it. That isn't to say there weren't potential coup-plotters; but naturally when you perform surgery, you do it with a scapel, not a fucking battle axe.

Furthermore, the killing of Tukhachevsky and the Soviet high command was disastrous. It hampered the modernization of the Soviet army and set back the Soviet army years in terms of tactical doctrines. Leaving it with the likes of Timoshenko in command; making irrational battle decisions like ordering counter-attacks that could never hope to succeed and then executing the officers who failed to break through the German lines .

instead for people who don't dismiss every charge against every person in 1936-38 out of hand by invoking the evilness of Koba the Dread.

Ah, now the argument is that "Well, I don't dismiss the 'cases' ". Ridiculous. Most of the cases were fabricated and had little if any merit. My comparison to a trial of a Black person in a Southern court, stands. I am sure, in the multitude of "lawful" lynchings and murders carried out by these courts, 1 or 2 of the victims were "guilty" of whatever it was they were unfortunate enough to be accused of.

Ismail

23rd December 2015, 11:47

Which only occurred once French and Norwegian forces were defeated. There were hundreds of thousands of Russian/Ukranian/Baltic troops that 'switched' sides once the war began or once they were captured.You seem to have forgotten that Pétain and others were angling towards the capitulation of France even before the Nazis had fully defeated the country. Vidkun Quisling and many other collaborators had been more or less openly sympathetic to fascism since the prior decade as well, and obviously such politicians and military men were not welcome in the USSR. Many expected the defeat of the Soviets in the initial period of the Nazi invasion, but there was no plot within the Red Army or within the party or government to surrender to the advancing Nazi forces.

It is not surprising that many in the Baltics "switched sides" considering that soviet power came to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia only a year earlier. Not coincidentally anti-Semitism was also much more widespread in those areas, as in Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine, for the same reason.

The fact is, Stalin tried to kill Tukhachevsky in 1930 using the same charges. The charges against Tukhachevsky were completely concocted, they had no relation to reality.
Except you have no proof for it.Furr, all the way back in 1986, gave numerous examples of independent confirmation of Tukhachevsky's pro-German and right-wing politics as well as evidence of him conspiring against the Soviet state: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/tukh.html

Besides the sources in his article there's others too, for example Pertinax (pseudonym of André Géraud, a respected French journalist and political conservative) wrote (as published in the New York Times on February 16, 1944): "The diplomatic negotiation to which I refer has not been disclosed to this day. It was made known by trustworthy Polish sources to evidence the danger of internal disruption that threatened Soviet Russia around 1935-36. Then Marshal Tukhachevsky and a number of leading generals in the Red Army plotted the downfall of the bolshevist regime, a crime for which they had to pay with their lives in June, 1937. Polish officials had direct knowledge of what had been planned to pass because emissaries from Marshal Tukhachevsky approached the Warsaw government—and the Berlin government also—for the definite purpose of finding out on what terms Poland and Germany would agree to remain neutral and even friendly while the great counter-revolution was being carried out... the men who had charge of Poland believed that the Ukraine could be induced to separate from Russia."

It is known that Poland did desire to retake the Ukraine (one of its main foreign policy goals since the Russian Civil War) and discussed this possibility with the Germans in the period leading up to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact. The Soviets themselves had proposed the joint defense of the USSR and Poland beforehand, but anti-communism and territorial ambitions were more important to the Polish colonels than security against Nazi Germany.

Furthermore J. Arch Getty, Erik Van Ree, and other historians who clearly cannot be called "Stalinist" (or inclined towards the USSR, for the matter) affirm that, whatever the veracity of the charges against Tukhachevsky, by all accounts Stalin in his public and private correspondence and speeches did genuinely believe in said charges. He didn't make them up. This has to be especially so in the case of Tukhachevsky considering that the mainstream bourgeois account is that the Nazis had supposedly "duped" Stalin with false intelligence, as noted in Furr's article.

Yes, collective punishment for ethnic groups. How does it change anything I said?You referred to it as a "pathology," whereas the motives were not pathological, they were based on military matters.

My knowledge on the intricacies of wars is admittedly poor, no matter what sort of war, so I won't get into wartime effectiveness and whatnot.

Furthermore, the killing of Tukhachevsky and the Soviet high command was disastrous.According to Robert W. Thurston, the extent of the purges in the armed forces was exaggerated. Many of those who were dismissed from their posts during 1936-38 were reinstated by 1940. Furthermore, a Gorbachev-era (1989-1990) "Soviet military commission that investigated these convictions [of Red Army officers] found that about 10 percent were 'justified,' though why was not specified." (Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1996, pp. 122-123.)

Ah, now the argument is that "Well, I don't dismiss the 'cases' ". Ridiculous. Most of the cases were fabricated and had little if any merit. My comparison to a trial of a Black person in a Southern court, stands. I am sure, in the multitude of "lawful" lynchings and murders carried out by these courts, 1 or 2 of the victims were "guilty" of whatever it was they were unfortunate enough to be accused of.When I talk about trials I am generally referring to the Moscow Trials, which need to be distinguished from local NKVD trials held across the country and whose standards were indeed generally found wanting. To compare the Moscow Trials "to the trial of a Black person in a Southern court" is asinine and I would be glad to point out the many reasons why. Even comparing local trials to those of lynch courts is silly.