Stalinism

[Bloodwerk]

I have a question about the ideologies of Joseph Stalin.
I know that some people consider him a great leader, while some call him a tyrant and a murderer.
So far, I've read that his ideologies are a deviation from the original Marxist-Leninist ones, his methods were indeed harsh, but I acknowledge them to a certain degree because he did them all for the good of the country.

I can search wikipedia for this anytime, but I want the people of Revleft to help me on this. What's your take on it? Was he really a great leader, or a tyrant?
Help this newbie out :D

[khad]

It's an honest question. Let's keep this one civil, people.

[Sputnik_1]

tyrant, with a cult of personality phenomenon around him, destroyer of communism's good name, which reenforced the negative propaganda of communism and misinformation. That sounds like an honest answer to me.

[Thirsty Crow]

So far, I've read that his ideologies are a deviation from the original Marxist-Leninist ones, his methods were indeed harsh, but I acknowledge them to a certain degree because he did them all for the good of the country.

You've got it wrong.
There was no Marxism-Leninism prior to Stalin's Foundations of Leninism; it was under his rule that the more or less coherent ideology of Marxism-Leninism - which some of the communists would call effective Stalinism - was formed. Another matter is just how did "Leninism" come off as a coherent political ideology, and what are the relations between the politics and the ideology of the Soviet state during Lenin's time and Stalin.

In short, I don't think that it is correct to posit a total break - a betrayal of the revolution, like Trotskyists do; it is, from my limited perspective, a matter of both continuity (most importantly, in the negative acttions towards organs of direct proletarian rule; though, what differed was the justification and the concrete material conditions, of course) and discontinuity (the theory of "socialism in one coutnry" being a prime example).

[Jimmie Higgins]

So far, I've read that his ideologies are a deviation from the original Marxist-Leninist ones, his methods were indeed harsh, but I acknowledge them to a certain degree because he did them all for the good of the country.
Well I think that's the issue, USSR policy was based on what was best for the country, not what will help the working class struggle and so questions of if this policy were "bad" or "good" have to be seen in this context. Some of the reforms were probably very nice and made life easier for people in Russia, others were disastrous and harmful, but neither advanced working class self-emancipation in Russia or outside. In fact, the interests of what was best for the country meant that struggles elsewhere were often actively subverted so that Russia could prevent revolution or upheavals in some places from unsettling peace or their status-quo arrangements with the capitalist west. In other places where worker's or oppressed people's movements were encouraged by Russia, again, it was to serve the interests of Russia, not advance worker's self-emancipation in those places. In fact Cuba had a non-communist revolution and Russia allied with them and Cuba then officially adopted Russian Marxist-Leninism but the goal was trade deals for both parties, not worker's power.

So good or bad effects of Russian policies can be debated back and forth and their merits compared, but even at best, Russia was not a society run by the working class and their actions show that they were often actually on the wrong side of those struggles.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

Stalin acknowledged himself that he did not contribute to Marxist theory in any significant way (there is no "Stalinist" school of Marxism). The excesses of Stalin(ism) that were dismantled after his death in the 50's -- of which Lysenkoism and the cult of personality and war Communism and purges are probably the most well known but far from a comprehensive list -- had to be undone and they were (de-Stalinization). This did not occur only in the USSR but also in Eastern Europe (which ties in to the bullshit Hungarian Revolution as well).

It is also true that the Comintern had many problems and appears in retrospect to have blown in the wind violently on nearly every question, but the welfare of the Soviet Union was the welfare of world Socialism at that time. Trotsky (:laugh:) says that Stalin's crime was trying to implement "Socialism in one country", of which everything else is an extension.

This is true to a degree, but misses the point. The German Revolution -- which Lenin had hoped to link up with and thereby give the Soviets the advanced country partner it desperately needed -- FAILED. In 1917-1918. There were reasons but it's not important at this moment for me to explain it. This was the death knell of "world revolution" in the short term. Trotsky clearly knew that everything hinged on this fact, which is why he is forced to concoct the alternate history that there was a window of opportunity in 1923 for the Communists to overcome the fascists in Germany. Wasn't gonna happen (thank you, Social Dems). This has much to do with the Comintern policy of targeting the "social fascists" even more so than the real fascists in the '30s.

Maybe the dissolution of the USSR -- 70 years later -- proves the fallacy of "Socialism in one country" on some level, but that's a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for the Trots to crow over, no? And it's irrelevant because Socialism existed, and the first order must always be defense.

No amount of "mistakes" supercedes that so long as it retains it's Socialist character. I mean, Stalin killed almost every old Bolshevik, and probably out of paranoia and without any real reason (especially Bukharin -- although there was a real split there over how to implement collectivization). Interestingly, all of the old Bolsheviks were later reformed... except Trotsky.

What you should know about Stalin is that he pulled Russia out of more than 1000 years of feudal muck, kicking and screaming all the way. Then they did what they themselves deemed impossible -- rebuild from desolation and ruin (after the Civil War) and become an industrial superpower and beat back world fascism (almost singlehandedly).

Then, after the Great War, they rebuilt from absolute smoldering ruin again, to become a superpower.

Finally, Stalinism has become a more than less catch-all term for the centralization that accompanies "war Communism". Thus, Brezhnev was a Stalinist as well in most accounts. There is a kernel of truth here -- the Soviet Union more or less dissolved because they couldn't take any more war while everyone in the West seemed to be driving fast cars and watching big screen TVs.

Forget about Stalin "the man" -- even Trotsky admits that Uncle Joe is not The Devil but more of a historical piece of the puzzle. He was a master of political intrigue and that's why he beat out Trotsky. Trotsky and all of his lame followers -- who the man himself would mostly disown -- can't get over the fact that their guy (he) lost. Big fucking deal. That's not a good enough reason to justify anything.

As for my personal approach to Stalin: I try to add a little levity since there is such a dire aura attached to him. My two favourite stories are that his idea of revolutionary discipline included masturbating almost to completion, and when his son tried to shoot himself, but survived, Stalin quipped "He can't even shoot straight".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Authoritarian state capitalist. Still has a personality cult. Not sure why communists still argue about Stalin vs. Trotsky. They're both dead, and even if one accepts one or the other was correct, their historical context is long past.

[Thirsty Crow]

Authoritarian state capitalist. Still has a personality cult. Not sure why communists still argue about Stalin vs. Trotsky. They're both dead, and even if one accepts one or the other was correct, their historical context is long past.
Just this remark: while all of the historical debates can be seen, and often really are, pointless revolutionary scholasticism, still you can sometimes flesh out someone's politics in a farily coherent manner from these. Thus, for instance, one's conception of the relationship between the party and the class can be brought to the fore fairly easily when discussig the "enternal" issue of Kronstadt.

[Koba1917]

Authoritarian state capitalist. Still has a personality cult. Not sure why communists still argue about Stalin vs. Trotsky. They're both dead, and even if one accepts one or the other was correct, their historical context is long past.

I disagree, mostly because to understand theory, you have to understand it's historical practice. Even if you disagree with Marxism-Leninism, it's good to look at history and see what happened, how it happened and what were it outcomes. Though I do agree that the whole Stalin Vs. Trotsky flame war can get rather idiotic sometimes, though it does hold some truth theoretically in debating Trotskyism Vs. Marxism-Leninism.

[Искра]

As Menocchio said Marxism-Leninism is just another name for Stalinism as this ideological concept was created by Stalin, so that he can ideologically justify his position as USSR’s “top-shot”. From that point essentially purpose of Marxism-Leninism had become justification of Stalin’s actions.

Since you are coming from Macedonia I think that it’s important for me to answer you on your question regarding Stalin who “perverted ML”. That concept belongs to Titoism. After Tito-Stalin split in late 40’s Yugoslav intelligentsia started to develop their theoretical justification for split with Stalin, since then Stalin was no.1 authority within Communist International and if you don’t agree with him or his politic.... well you were in deep shit. So, Yugoslav intelligentsia started to develop “new theory” which was also based on ML and its called Titoism. So, they accused Stalin for “perverting ML” because of his beurocracy etc. But that’s just rhetoric, since after all ML is perversion of Marxism.

ML is based upon idea of “socialism in one country” which is oxymoron. Socialism can only be achieved on international level and internationalism has always been one of the strongest components of Marxism. Concept of “socialism in one country” brought bourgeoisie nationalist ideas into Marxism. Also, one big problem with ML is that it promotes capitalist economics under red flag banner.

[Zealot]

He was one of the greatest revolutionaries of all time. Any questions throw me a PM, ask a question, start a thread or anything you want :)

Come at me revisionists, I destroy all your lies.

[Koba1917]

ML is based upon idea of “socialism in one country” which is oxymoron. Socialism can only be achieved on international level and internationalism has always been one of the strongest components of Marxism. Concept of “socialism in one country” brought bourgeoisie nationalist ideas into Marxism. Also, one big problem with ML is that it promotes capitalist economics under red flag banner.

Step 1. Claim that Socialism is impossible in one country with no reasoning or facts.

Step 2. Claim that the idea of Socialism in one Country is somehow Nationalist and that anyone that supports it is against Proletariat Internationalism.

Step 3. Claim that Marxist-Leninists are secret evil Capitalists that want to rule the world.







And yes that was a childish response.

[Zealot]

ML is based upon idea of “socialism in one country” which is oxymoron. Socialism can only be achieved on international level and internationalism has always been one of the strongest components of Marxism.

Yes because world revolution happens overnight, in every single country, as history has shown. Not.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes because world revolution happens overnight, in every single country, as history has shown. Not.
That's a clasic straw man argument from the arsenal of Marxists-Leninists. The point is precisely not that acheived socialism - a stateless, classless and moneyless society - amounts to a simultaneous international revolution. As Marx has already pointed out, it's true of course that proletarians will be confronted with the territorial state and a bourgeoisie who have historically been tied in to a specific territory, but capital, as a social relation, is not territorial in this limited sense as are the institutions of bourgeois rule, but rather global - a global social relation of production.
From there on and considering the international character of modern production (and consequent modern way of life), it follows that in order that socialism might be acheived, it needs a radical transformation of social relations of production on a global scale.

And while we're at the issue of international revolution and the role of the Soviet state, here's an illuminating piece on its role in the very incipient stages of Soviet Russia: http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/turkey.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Elrgoldner/turkey.html)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Step 1. Claim that Socialism is impossible in one country with no reasoning or facts.How can an under-developed semi-industrial country with a population in which workers are a minority, achieve working class rule win isolation without the aid of industrial workers of more developed regions?

The USSR had to go through an accumulation period in order to industrialize, but workers probably wouldn't want to volunteer - let alone vote - to have extreme exploitation for a period of time in order to achieve this accumulation. Therefore, restricting democracy and worker's self-organization was necessary in order to push through that accumulation phase.


Step 2. Claim that the idea of Socialism in one Country is somehow Nationalist and that anyone that supports it is against Proletariat Internationalism.As USSR apologists at the time openly said, Russia was to be defended above all else. In their view to not defend Russia first was to not defend socialism. So, yes, the definitely did see preserving Russia as fighting for Socialism even if that meant CPs in other countries were encouraged to make peace with liberals as to not rock the boat for Russia. On top of that there's the fact that Russia put down worker's movements and uprisings in their "sphere of influence". And that a lot of Russian USSR-nostalgia today is at least partially based in a sense of former imperial glory, not hope of establishing worker's power.


Step 3. Claim that Marxist-Leninists are secret evil Capitalists that want to rule the world.M-Ls may not be, but the ruling people of Russia did basically industrialize and then easily switched from being elite party members to elite capitalists. And I don't think they wanted to rule the world - that's cold war scare tactics for the US-block to justify their imperial ambitions and aggression. Russia elites were basically just trying to hold onto rule of Russia which put them in the position of having to compete with the West and creating their own buffer-zones and imperial clients for securing resources.

[Искра]

Step 1. Claim that Socialism is impossible in one country with no reasoning or facts.
Socialism can only be achieved trough World revolution. Capitalism is global economical system and it can only be destroyed by World revolution. Facts that prove my theses are quite simple and they are “gathered” around the fact so called “socialist countries” were not socialist at all. USSR was not just state capitalist regime – it was an imperialist force. Also, it used its repressive apparatus against all proletarian forces, from different leftists’ groups/organisations/fractions to unions and workers in strike. It was also class society.


Step 2. Claim that the idea of Socialism in one Country is somehow Nationalist and that anyone that supports it is against Proletariat Internationalism.
Stalin said in 1936’s interview for Pravda that proletarian internationalism is nothing but a “tragicomical misunderstanding”. Soviet actions in Spain, where they suppressed workers revolution (or what could become something like that), or the fact that they sold Greek communists to British government – prove that. Also, to create state you need nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology of every state and it’s essentially for state to exist. Every state has is political nation, its nationalistic myths and rhetoric. Just look at “Великая Отечественная Война” for example. “Home”, “homeland”, “motherland” etc. It’s hardly rhetoric of proletarian internationalism.


Step 3. Claim that Marxist-Leninists are secret evil Capitalists that want to rule the world.
I didn’t mention word “evil” since I’m not moralist. I said that ML is promoting capitalism under red flag banner. All “socialist countries” were capitalist regimes. Workers didn’t own means of production and they were alienated of their work. Means of production were controlled by state beurocracy which was ruling class in “socialist countries” – hence they were class societies. Also, “socialist countries”, especially post-WW2 Soviet Union were imperialist. Just look what Soviet Union did with their “companies” in post-war Eastern Bloc countries.


And yes that was a childish response
Flaming doesn’t make your right, you know?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes because world revolution happens overnight, in every single country, as history has shown. Not.As Lenin said, Revolution should be seen as a process, not a single event. So in Russia there was a long series of events that can be grouped into the Revolution. In Egypt today liberals see "revolution" as merely toppling Mubarak and changing the people on top whereas this is really more of an ongoing revolution (as we can see today) where the old ruling class is on the defensive as all classes engage in a struggle to push for their various interests.

The Russian Revolution was part of a whole series of upheavals and revolutions all over Europe. The much more modest (in comparison) uphevals of the so-called Arab sppring also show how revolutions are not isolated but are often come in a wave due to the interconnections of the capitalist system.

[Искра]

Also, I would like to point out that Bolsheviks really believed in World revolution, well at least some of them. For example Bukharin was advocating “revolutionary war” in which Russian proletariat should help German proletarian to complete their revolution and then they should all go further and further. Russians would help West “military” while West will help them with recourse because they were semi-feudal country. That strategy failed and I’m not here to advocate it, because I have some concerns with it, but I just wanted to show that idea of “socialism in one country” came out of defeat and it wasn’t purpose of October Revolution.

[Thirsty Crow]

Also, I would like to point out that Bolsheviks really believed in World revolution, well at least some of them. For example Bukharin was advocating “revolutionary war” in which Russian proletariat should help German proletarian to complete their revolution and then they should all go further and further. Russians would help West “military” while West will help them with recourse because they were semi-feudal country. That strategy failed and I’m not here to advocate it, because I have some concerns with it, but I just wanted to show that idea of “socialism in one country” came out of defeat and it wasn’t purpose of October Revolution.
What you are describing here is one position of the left wing of the party on the issue of peace with invading imperial Germany. And that position, of revolutionary war, was untenable, unviable and utterly catastrophic for the war torn Russian working class and peasantry. But there was also another alternative to Brest Litovsk proposed (at the moment, I can't remember who exactly put forward this position) - that of defensive guerilla war, which was perceived as an internationalist aid for the development of German revolution.

[Inner Peace]

Stalin= cult of personality,Never blame Him he isn't guilty of anything blame some one else for what he has done.

I call Stalin an murderer.

[Искра]

But there was also another alternative to Brest Litovsk proposed (at the moment, I can't remember who exactly put forward this position) - that of defensive guerilla war, which was perceived as an internationalist aid for the development of German revolution.
Bukharin also proposed that later.

You have really good biography of him translated on our language. Cohen: Buharin i boljševička revolucija.

[Bloodwerk]

Thanks for the great responses so far guys.:)

[Jose Gracchus]

Under the First Five Year Plan, real wage levels for workers fell to a tenth (yes, a 90% loss of real purchasing power) of what they had been under the NEP. Subsequently, Stalin had over 700,000 people shot (this according to his own official records).

Sympathize with that if you really must.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I'm going to end this right now. Stalin's government killed about 1 million in a period of 30 years. If that didn't happen, Germany would have destroyed the soviet union due to them not industrializing fast enough. He had the rest of the world against him, (the USA actually invaded the soviet union at one point when Lenin was in power) while it really doesn't justify the murders, it is a small conciliation compared if Trotsky took power. I do believe with all me heart that it was much better than feudalism

EDIT: I dont think this is what you want, is it?

[Thirsty Crow]

Trotsky and the Left Opposition had been ardent supporters of industrialization, both for reasons of expanding the productive powers and wiping out any possibility of counter-revolution from within (the perceived danger of kulaks and other elements profiting from NEP) years prior to Stalin's presiding over the beginning of it so this "what if Trotsky took power" makes no sense at all.
Also, another issue is that imprisoning and executing the old Bolshevik guard really does not stand in relation to the issue of industrialization, in any direct sense, so attributing all segments of the repression to a single imperative factor of industrialization is entirely erroneous - an ideological mystification, in fact.

[Geiseric]

Stalinism's only lesson is the idea that we need to be on the watch for people who will take advantage of hard times for their own benefit, and that more democracy needs to be allowed in socialist politics however if the counter revolution wasn't so brutal, I doubt that the beuracracy would have been so strong.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Stalinists are apologists for Stalin's genocides against ethnic groups like Chechen and Kalmyk people in the 1940s as "collective punishment" for alleged "collaboration" with Nazis. I didn't know it was possible for little 11 year old Chechen children to collaborate with Nazis, but there you go. Because of that, they apparently deserved to get forced onto cattle cars to possibly die or even just get shot down like a dog.

"Anti-revisionists" are, as such, apologists for genocide/ethnic cleansing. They may have some authentic Socialist leanings aside from that, but I cannot forgive apologism for such atrocities.

[Mr. Natural]

Bloodwerk, Macedonia? There are other RevLefters from the former Yugoslavia, but I believe you're our only Macedonian. Welcome! Perhaps sometime you could provide us with a snapshot of Macedonian politics, which should be fascinating.

As for Stalin, I'm going to comment on his psychology, not his politics, which are abundantly discussed. My comments come from memory; I don't have access to the several biographical works I've read on him.

My assessment: Stalin was a mass-murdering sociopath. He was very cold and without conscience. His ruthless will to personal power is what I think of when I think of him.

Stalin was a product, in my opinion, as was Hitler, of brutal physical beatings throughout childhood. Monsters are made, not born. Stalin's drunken father left home when Stalin was about eight years old, but he continued to receive daily? thrashings from his mother, with whom he was to have little contact as an adult. There is an almost poignant scene that took place long after he took power in which Stalin briefly visited his mother and, in their short conversation, plaintively asked her why she had beaten him so much.

Stalin, like the other boys in his Georgian town, spent much of his time with a street gang engaging in fights. However, his left arm was injured in a tram accident and became frozen at an angle. Photos of him in adulthood usually show him holding a pipe to conceal his infirmity.

I strongly believe this crippled arm is of great significance, for it forced Stalin to learn to conntrol people psychologically, not physically. Stalin became the boss of his gang in which he was the weakest member, and he would merge this ability to control others with his drive to personal power.

I'll now fast-forward to the conditions of the Russian Revolution. Russia, with an illiterate peasantry composing 80% of the population, was infertile ground for socialist revolution, although Lenin and the Bolsheviks managed to pull it off. However, the resulting Soviety Union had been devastated by WW I and the harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the resulting invasion by troops from 17 Western nations (the US secretly sent 11,000) and 75,000 soldiers from Japan, and by an impossibly brutal civil war.

So war and famine destroyed what little there was of the Russian society and economy and devastated the ranks of workers and reds, and in this destroyed country, amidst the chaos, Stalin cunningly amassed power and became the godfather of the Soviet Union.

Stalin was quite bright and a voracious reader. His underlings soon learned not to bullshit him, for he knew the details. They also learned Stalin had no loyalties and that when his eyes turned yellow, the object of his ire was finished.

Stalin was no Marxist: Marxists are human liberationists. A perverted Marxism was but a tool for Stalin's ambition. "Socialism in one country" meant that all other communist parties had to serve the Soviet Union (read Stalin), and Stalin's perverted "diamat" did severe, continuing damage to Marx's and Engels' materialist dialectic.

I consider Hitler and Stalin to be psychic twins. Alice Miller's For Your Own Good contains 55 pages on Hitler's horrendous childhood that convincingly show how Hitler was "made." However, if you did a good job in the Nazi Party, you were usually promoted. In contrast, loyal Marxists who accomplished much for the Soviet Union were often arrested, tortured, and shot.

Just prior to WW II, Stalin had his rival Tukachevsky, the hero of the civil war, brutally beaten and shot. Tukachevsky's written "confession" is blood-splattered. Then Stalin executed two other marshalls and 16 army commanders. Stalin and Stalinism produced countless other occurrences in which dedicated Marxists were slaughtered.

Why? Stalin was a mass-murdering psychopath.

[m1omfg]

(sigh) Great Man Theory again...

[Collectorgeneral]

I smell revisionists in here....

[kashkin]

I smell revisionists in here....

Oh dear, people are thinking for themselves aren't just toeing the party line.

[kowalskil]

Stalin= cult of personality,Never blame Him he isn't guilty of anything blame some one else for what he has done.

I call Stalin a murderer.

Me too, on a very large scale.

[Comrade Hill]

I seriously wonder if the ultra-left LibComs ever get tired of whining and crying about the deaths under Stalin. It seems like they cry more about Stalin than the 1 billion people who supposedly died as a result of capitalism.

Okay, the deaths in the labour camps (and purges) under Stalin were bad and it shouldn't have happened. However, something needed to be done (like deportation or re education) when it came to almost HALF OF THE POPULATION collaborating with the Nazis. Do you LibComs understand what being practical is?

With capitalism and fascism prevailing everywhere else, and with an underindustrialized economy, do you honestly think that we can just have a lawless society, where we can all hold hands with the state?

And, really, don't we already have the capitalists to do the bourgeois cold war propaganda? We do not need the left engaging in the same. Enough already.

It is time for you guys to start arguing from a practical viewpoint, not just an ethical one.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

when it came to almost HALF OF THE POPULATION collaborating with the Nazis. Do you LibComs understand what being practical is?


lol, source please? Half the population? Is that something you took out of the air?

[Искра]

Do you LibComs understand what being practical is?
Do you understand what being communist is?

It has something to do with not collaborating with capitalists and fascists :)

[Comrade Hill]

lol, source please? Half the population? Is that something you took out of the air?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5042


In the case of the Chechen-Ingush and the Crimean Tatars, collaboration with the Nazis was massive, involving most of the population. To try to isolate and punish "only the guilty" would have been to split the nation up, and would likely have indeed destroyed the nationality. Instead, the national group was kept together, and their population grew.

Not "half of the USSR" my apologies.


Quote:
Do you LibComs understand what being practical is?
Do you understand what being communist is?

It has something to do with not collaborating with capitalists and fascists


On really? Being a communist means ignoring your material conditions, and the objective world that surrounds you, in the name of communism?

Collaborating with the petty-bourgeois is not the same thing as collaborating with fascists. The USSR was enemies with Germany, remember?

And also, can you please answer my question?

[Искра]

Here's another section of Grover Furr's latest great work
Go play with Barbie dolls :rolleyes:

[tir1944]

The deportation of Chechens was a big mistake IMO.
It just wasn't right.

[Comrade Hill]

The deportation of Chechens was a big mistake IMO.
It just wasn't right.

So then what would've been right?

[Искра]

On really? Being a communist means ignoring your material conditions, and the objective world that surrounds you, in the name of communism?So, material conditions mean that you shoud co-op with capitalists, nationalists and fascists? Or that you should make genocide of certain ethnical groups?

Marxism is a political ideology with it's sets of ideas and principles. If you do not follow them you are not a communist/Marxist but a revisionist. And that is exactly what Marxism-Leninism is - a revisionism.

To me it's quite absurd amout of passion you people put into defending class collaboration and denying imperialist character of SU.

[tir1944]

Hmm,i just read that Furr's article you linked to,and what i previously thought as "more right"-namely deporting only the guilty ones would have indeed led to an even greater evil:the destruction of these nationalities through the lack of young men.



In the case of the Chechen-Ingush and the Crimean Tatars, collaboration with the Nazis was massive, involving most of the population. To try to isolate and punish "only the guilty" would have been to split the nation up, and would likely have indeed destroyed the nationality. Instead, the national group was kept together, and their population grew.

I assume that my readers, like I myself, support punishing individuals for the crimes of individuals. However, the Nazi collaboration of these groups was so massive that to punish the individuals involved would have endangered the survival of these ethnic groups as groups. It would have meant depleting these groups of young men, through imprisonment and execution, leaving very few young men for the young women to marry.

[kashkin]

So, destroy them as ethnic groups anyway?

[阿部高和]

It's an honest question. Let's keep this one civil, people.

Well so much for that:


tyrant, with a cult of personality phenomenon around him, destroyer of communism's good name, which reenforced the negative propaganda of communism and misinformation. That sounds like an honest answer to me.

[阿部高和]

Anyways, my opinion on Stalin: his industrial prowess and capacity for economic reasoning transformed the Soviet state from a society on the brink of complete collapse to creating a powerhouse that reckoned with the United States.

Stalin is also much more instrumental in defeating fascism in World War 2, Despite what the Anglo and American historic revisionists may try to paint.

[Искра]

Anyways, my opinion on Stalin: his industrial prowess and capacity for economic reasoning transformed the Soviet state from a society on the brink of complete collapse to creating a powerhouse that reckoned with the United States.
Do you have same amount of admiration for Queen Elizabeth or whoever transformed England from agrarian to industrial society? I tought that "communists" (ouch, hard word) job is some other kind of a transformation - from capitalism to socialism. Also, I don't see how can becoming an imperiaist force be something positive or worth admiration.


Stalin is also much more instrumental in defeating fascism in World War 2, Despite what the Anglo and American historic revisionists may try to paint.xBut you also forget cooperation with Nazis, capitalists, imperialist policy before and after WW etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What you should know about Stalin is that he pulled Russia out of more than 1000 years of feudal muck, kicking and screaming all the way.

Oh god, let's just cut out the bullshit Stalinist myth-making, shall we? Russia was well on it's way to becoming a mature industrial capitalist state without Stalin's help, as represented by industrial hubs such as Moscow (textiles), Petrograd (heavy industry), the Donetz (coal), Baku (oil) and the Ukraine (steel). Likewise liberal reformers in Russia had succeeded in overturning many of the retrograde policies of old (the abolition of serfdom, of course, but also things like the abolition of corporal punishment in 1863, etc.)

Listening to Stalinists talk about Russia pre-Stalin, you get the idea that it was some giant corvee system run by knights and nobles. :rolleyes:

[Comrade Hill]

Do you have same amount of admiration for Queen Elizabeth or whoever transformed England from agrarian to industrial society? I tought that "communists" (ouch, hard word) job is some other kind of a transformation - from capitalism to socialism. Also, I don't see how can becoming an imperiaist force be something positive or worth admiration.


Just because we support the transformation of societies doesn't mean we support capitalism.

The transformation of capitalism is always led by the worker anyways. So we support it.



But you also forget cooperation with Nazis, capitalists, imperialist policy before and after WW etc.

So? If someone gives you a hand in life, you take it, not matter who it is. Being friends with your enemies destroys your enemies (in some ways).

When they backstab you, then you are ready to strike. The bourgeoisie will hand us the tools for revolution.

[阿部高和]

Oh god, let's just cut out the bullshit Stalinist myth-making, shall we? Russia was well on it's way to becoming a mature industrial capitalist state without Stalin's help, as represented by industrial hubs such as Moscow (textiles), Petrograd (heavy industry), the Donetz (coal), Baku (oil) and the Ukraine (steel).

These industries don't develop themselves. Are you saying they spontaneously became productive with no catalyst?


Likewise liberal reformers in Russia had succeeded in overturning many of the retrograde policies of old (the abolition of serfdom, of course, but also things like the abolition of corporal punishment in 1863, etc.)

And? This has nothing to do with with Stalin.


Listening to Stalinists talk about Russia pre-Stalin, you get the idea that it was some giant corvee system run by knights and nobles. :rolleyes:

Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound? Russia before the revolution was famous for it's depraved poverty and contemporary hunger. The Volga famine, for example (which they still use pictures of to attempt to make the Ukranian famine look more large-scale than it was).

[Thirsty Crow]

So? If someone gives you a hand in life, you take it, not matter who it is. Being friends with your enemies destroys your enemies (in some ways).

This is just great, absolutely great :lol:
So, aiding Nazi war machine economically is just okay then? Your friends with your enemies and that will destroy those enemies because you're helping them to produce weaponry. For fuck's sake.

[Os Cangaceiros]

These industries don't develop themselves. Are you saying they spontaneously became productive with no catalyst?

:confused: I don't know how to respond to this...I'm not sure what you're getting at.


And? This has nothing to do with with Stalin.

Yes exactly.


Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound? Russia before the revolution was famous for it's depraved poverty and contemporary hunger. The Volga famine, for example (which they still use pictures of to attempt to make the Ukranian famine look more large-scale than it was).

There are a lot of places in the world today that are stricken by "depraved poverty and contemporary hunger". That doesn't make them "feudal".

[阿部高和]

:confused: I don't know how to respond to this...I'm not sure what you're getting at.

There was an economic policy in place that made those factories productive, and it wasn't the NEP.




Yes exactly.

So why even mention it?





There are a lot of places in the world today that are stricken by "depraved poverty and contemporary hunger". That doesn't make them "feudal".

But pre-Revolutionary Russia was feudal; Aside the point, however, history isn't mutually exclusive: it's not a one edged sword. Stalin did kill millions. he also saved Russia's economy and did more to defeat the tide of fascism in Europe than any other leader. It goes both ways because it went both ways.

[Искра]

Just because we support the transformation of societies doesn't mean we support capitalism.

The transformation of capitalism is always led by the worker anyways. So we support it.



So? If someone gives you a hand in life, you take it, not matter who it is. Being friends with your enemies destroys your enemies (in some ways).

When they backstab you, then you are ready to strike. The bourgeoisie will hand us the tools for revolution.

The best part of this is discussion is moment when I don't really have to say anything anymore... I just have to quote this and put this emoticon: :rolleyes:

[Commissar Rykov]

Anyways, my opinion on Stalin: his industrial prowess and capacity for economic reasoning transformed the Soviet state from a society on the brink of complete collapse to creating a powerhouse that reckoned with the United States.

Stalin is also much more instrumental in defeating fascism in World War 2, Despite what the Anglo and American historic revisionists may try to paint.
How did Stalin manage to accomplish all of that on his own? A wiggle of his mustache? My hell as much as I get tired of Stalin is the bane of all existence in regards to USSR I am just as tired of the Stalin singlehandedly won the Second World War, Industrialized the USSR, and gave the USSR Atomic Weapons...like that is some wonderful accomplishment anyways.

Last I knew that was a collective effort and Russia was already industrializing under the Czar as was documented by Lenin in his work The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Industrialization was further amplified once the Bolsheviks came into power and then seesawed once the Left Opposition was thrown out as Bukharin wanted to keep the NEP going and not push for rapid Industrialization as Trotsky and the Left Opposition called for. Ironically Stalin abandoned the Bukharin slow development and then took up the rapid industrialization that the Left Opposition had previously called for though he faced even tougher resistance with the Kulaks even more deeply entrenched into the Soviet Bureaucracy and Economy.

[阿部高和]

How did Stalin manage to accomplish all of that on his own? A wiggle of his mustache? My hell as much as I get tired of Stalin is the bane of all existence in regards to USSR I am just as tired of the Stalin singlehandedly won the Second World War, Industrialized the USSR, and gave the USSR Atomic Weapons...like that is some wonderful accomplishment anyways.

I can't say much to the subject of Stalin's military prowess as I don't know how much of that is really the generals on the ground or Stalin's doing, but Stalin often personally wrote the economic plans himself or at least was instrumental in their construction.

[Commissar Rykov]

I can't say much to the subject of Stalin's military prowess as I don't know how much of that is really the generals on the ground or Stalin's doing, but Stalin often personally wrote the economic plans himself or at least was instrumental in their construction.
Stalin's military prowess was garbage he was much more a politically gifted administrator than he was anything else. He got egg on his face more than once during the Civil War and the complete breakdown of STAVKA during the opening days of Operation Barbarossa was unacceptable regardless of which side of the fence one is on.

[Rooster]

Anyways, my opinion on Stalin: his industrial prowess and capacity for economic reasoning transformed the Soviet state from a society on the brink of complete collapse to creating a powerhouse that reckoned with the United States.

You know nothing of history or what actually happened. His industrial prowess and capacity (what ever that means) save the USSR from the brink of collapse? What collapse? You mean the first five year plan, which Uncle Joe derided as pie in the sky dreams when Trotsky came up with them?

[Rooster]

But pre-Revolutionary Russia was feudal; Aside the point, however, history isn't mutually exclusive: it's not a one edged sword.

No, it wasn't feudal. Direct me to any examples of feudal economic modes of production that persisted then.


Stalin did kill millions. he also saved Russia's economy and did more to defeat the tide of fascism in Europe than any other leader. It goes both ways because it went both ways.

No, it wasn't. Except that he gave the Nazis a free hand in Europe. The other powers in Europe declared war while the USSR got into bed with them. Then Stalin was jumped by surprise. The Red Army defeated the nazis in spite of Stalin.

[Comrade Hill]

This is just great, absolutely great :lol:
So, aiding Nazi war machine economically is just okay then? Your friends with your enemies and that will destroy those enemies because you're helping them to produce weaponry. For fuck's sake.

Ah, another LibCom having yet another wet dream about Stalin and Hitler. You are beginning to disgust me.

Hitler must've loved Stalin so much that he decided to invade Russia.

And Stalin must've loved the Nazis so much that he decided to kill them during the Great Purge.

You criticize Stalin for the purges against Nazis, then you criticize Stalin for being too friendly with the Nazis.

I'll be waiting for you to create another problem out of thin air, since that is what the anti-soviet anti-nazi (well actually some were pro-nazi) Western cold war apologists like to do.

[Nox]

Well, considering that the USSR was never Socialist to begin with, I think he was a great leader. He greatly improved the agriculture and industry of the USSR (we're talking multiple thousands of percent of industrial growth) and decisions he made were crucial in defeating Nazi Germany.

On the other hand, he wasn't a Communist or a Socialist, he was just some beaurecrat running a state capitalist regime.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Put it this way, if you've read even just the Communist Manifesto and nothing else, do you really get the impression that any period of Socialism/communism will be remembered, by bourgeois and leftist historians alike, as the 'period of xyz person'?

I don't wish to get involved in using subjective terms like tyrant or totalitarian, as they're not really helpful to any meaningful discussion. What I will say, is that Stalin certainly had his flaws, and it seems as though the entire Bolshevik system allowed for someone like Stalin to amass an enormous amount of power - though perhaps not to the extent that the bourgeois historians will tell you! - and for the bureaucracy that was in place under his rule to amount perhaps more power than him, certainly more entrenched power over a longer period of time.

So yeah, whilst you cannot argue with increases in living standards, healthcare et al., that doesn't really make Socialism. Socialism is solely about the working class' relationship to the means of production, for Socialism is an ideology of revolution and emancipation, not of reforms and rises in key living indicators.

I repeat, Socialism is about the working class' relationship to the means of production, in a direct sense, in order to end their exploitation by ANY third party, be it the capitalistic ruling class under the free-market, or the state, or the bureaucracy, or any political party claiming to act in the interests of the working class towards Socialism.

[black magick hustla]

if only the masses knew the truth about uncle stalin, we would be living ina gaint collective farm utopia by now. grover furr, ludo martens, etc, brave kngiths of the night march on forward

[Thirsty Crow]

You criticize Stalin for the purges against Nazis, then you criticize Stalin for being too friendly with the Nazis.
Only in your sorry ass imagination am I doing that.
To elaborate, there were no Nazis purged in the 30s, or ever (I assume that you're referring to the "Great Purge", and you don't even now your history right)


I'll be waiting for you to create another problem out of thin air, since that is what the anti-soviet anti-nazi (well actually some were pro-nazi) Western cold war apologists like to do.
Yeah yeah, cold war and all that jazz. It must be really cute to live as in a fantasy where the might USSR is still with us, along with the escalating cold war.
And to clarify what you're imputing me here: I get it, I do know that some of the capitalist apologia in fact equates Stalin with Hitler, the USSR and Nazi Germany. I did no such thing. If I did, you will surely be able, as a rational person, to provide evidence.
And if you're asking me, no, I think that opinion is total ahistorical bullshit. But I do think that the pact represents an imperialist agreement on both sides. It's beyond me how any such regime might be considered a workers' state.

How about answering some of the points raised: how is aiding the nazi war machine economically tantamount to "being firends with your enemies" which "destroys your enemies"?

Oh yeah, I don't identify my politics as libertarian communist. Nice try, but nope.

[Potato]

Well, considering that the USSR was never Socialist to begin with, I think he was a great leader. He greatly improved the agriculture and industry of the USSR (we're talking multiple thousands of percent of industrial growth) and decisions he made were crucial in defeating Nazi Germany.

yeah Koba was probably pretty damn busy industrializing entire Soviet Union all by himself while plowing the shit out of the Ukrainian breadbasket to feed some million hundred people

and i thought working two shifts sucks

[Bronco]

These industries don't develop themselves. Are you saying they spontaneously became productive with no catalyst?



And? This has nothing to do with with Stalin.



Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound? Russia before the revolution was famous for it's depraved poverty and contemporary hunger. The Volga famine, for example (which they still use pictures of to attempt to make the Ukranian famine look more large-scale than it was).

If you look at the years leading up to the Revolution it's pretty clear that Tsarist Russia was undergoing a process of Industrialisation and Modernisation, look at the work of Sergie Witte for example; he encouraged foreign investment, constructed the Trans-Siberian line and the production of coal increased significantly, while there were also improvements in the output of pig iron, oil, grain and industrial output was also upped, they were leading Europe by far where GDP was concerned during "the great spurt" (although they were of course starting from a much lower level). That's no defence of Witte, the economy became too reliant on foreign loans, he neglected light engineering areas of the economy and agriculture (something Stolypin would try to solve a few years later) and there was widespread unemployment but the fact is that Russia was not this purely feudal country that only began to industrialise under Stalin; it was happening before then

[Nox]

yeah Koba was probably pretty damn busy industrializing entire Soviet Union all by himself while plowing the shit out of the Ukrainian breadbasket to feed some million hundred people

and i thought working two shifts sucks

Firstly, I agree with what you're trying to say about him not physically doing any of that, the workers were the ones who did it - but the USSR was far from a workers state, Stalin was an absolute dictator who decided everything that happened, including the five-year plans which caused the industrialisation with which victory in WW2 wouldn't have been possible.

Secondly, his collectivisation (in the long run) greatly improved the agriculture of the USSR and contributed to the funding of industrialisation, which again was crucial in the victory in WW2.

I am 100% of the opinion that Stalin was a disgrace to communism. But at the end of the day, victory in WW2 would not have happened without some of the decisions he made.

[Commissar Rykov]

Firstly, I agree with what you're trying to say about him not physically doing any of that, the workers were the ones who did it - but the USSR was far from a workers state, Stalin was an absolute dictator who decided everything that happened, including the five-year plans which caused the industrialisation with which victory in WW2 wouldn't have been possible.

Secondly, his collectivisation (in the long run) greatly improved the agriculture of the USSR and contributed to the funding of industrialisation, which again was crucial in the victory in WW2.

I am 100% of the opinion that Stalin was a disgrace to communism. But at the end of the day, victory in WW2 would not have happened without some of the decisions he made.
Stalin wasn't an absolute dictator it is this kind of reasoning I find to be completely logically empty and void of facts. That one is willing to excuse the excesses and problems created by the Soviet Bureaucracy and blame it on one person is not only anti-Materialistic but is also not supported by the facts. The reality is if the Soviet Bureaucracy hadn't been there and hadn't so deeply entrenched itself via economic policies it wouldn't have mattered whether Stalin was General Secretary or not it just so happens he was and he helped give it a hand in its entrenchment.

[freethinker]

Stalin wasn't an absolute dictator it is this kind of reasoning I find to be completely logically empty and void of facts. That one is willing to excuse the excesses and problems created by the Soviet Bureaucracy and blame it on one person is not only anti-Materialistic but is also not supported by the facts. The reality is if the Soviet Bureaucracy hadn't been there and hadn't so deeply entrenched itself via economic policies it wouldn't have mattered whether Stalin was General Secretary or not it just so happens he was and he helped give it a hand in its entrenchment.

so says the stalnist..

no he was an absolute dictator that murdered the original revolutionaries allied with the nazis and was shocked to find out:

What the people that vow to destroy all communists betrayed me I can't believe it!

[Comrade Hill]

so says the stalnist..

no he was an absolute dictator that murdered the original revolutionaries allied with the nazis and was shocked to find out:

What the people that vow to destroy all communists betrayed me I can't believe it!

First of all, to answer the guy above me, the pact that they made with the Nazis was supposed to help the SOVIET UNION as well, it was a pact that Hitler would not invade the Soviet Union.

As for this post right here, I want to let you know that there is no such thing as a "Stalinist." Stalinism as an ideology does not exist, only Marxism-Leninism. A Stalinist is a name given to Marxist-Leninists by revisionists.

[Commissar Rykov]

so says the stalnist..

no he was an absolute dictator that murdered the original revolutionaries allied with the nazis and was shocked to find out:

What the people that vow to destroy all communists betrayed me I can't believe it!
Useless, baseless ad hom. I didn't know a Non-Aggression Pact = Military Alliance. Honestly if this is the kind of "intellectual" response I am going to get to my point that sole blame can never be placed on Stalin I should probably find something else to discuss.:rolleyes:

[freethinker]

Useless, baseless ad hom. I didn't know a Non-Aggression Pact = Military Alliance. Honestly if this is the kind of "intellectual" response I am going to get to my point that sole blame can never be placed on Stalin I should probably find something else to discuss.:rolleyes:

Really???
Helping the Germans invade Poland not an alliance?
Really??

I don't care about a so called non aggression pact the Soviet Union helped the Nazis carve up Eastern Europe... Joseph Stalin even attempted to cover up Hilter's persecution towards the Jews before operation barbarous

So I'm not the brightest guy in the world.. But can you really defend someone that for a time helped the Third Reich? :confused:

[Commissar Rykov]

Really???
Helping the Germans invade Poland not an alliance?
Really??

I don't care about a so called non aggression pact the Soviet Union helped the Nazis carve up Eastern Europe... Joseph Stalin even attempted to cover up Hilter's persecution towards the Jews before operation barbarous

So I'm not the brightest guy in the world.. But can you really defend someone that for a time helped the Third Reich? :confused:
Are we discussing the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? No what a red herring. I can't tell if you are trolling at this point or you have a problem reading as I haven't done any of the things you are accusing me of.:rolleyes:

[Red Rosa]

You talk about revisionism and yet you defend Stalin. Revisionist is, as someone already stated earlier, someone who deviates from Marxism. And you are doing exactly that by defending Stalin.
Stalin deviated from Marxism concentrating all power, political, theoretical an economical in his and only his hands. Marx would never agree on this since he always stated that all these powers should be in the hands of proletariat with party in head of it, working in benefit of working class as a whole (Lenin also deviated from this when he, among other things, stated that a socialist belongs to the party and not himself; Marx would reply that socialist, if he is a party member, belongs to proletariat and proletarian revolution, not just party, but we are not talking about Lenin here). Socialism is supposed to be, according to Marx, a stage in revolution in which society as a whole works for society as a whole. I really can't see how state capitalism, totalitarian power, refusal of concept of international socialism etc. has anything to do with that.

[freethinker]

Are we discussing the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? No what a red herring. I can't tell if you are trolling at this point or you have a problem reading as I haven't done any of the things you are accusing me of.:rolleyes:

Alright... I see you like to belittle your opponents..
What is secret about invading Poland.. hmm
but I would rather move on...

How can you say that Stalin was not an absolute dictator?

[Commissar Rykov]

Alright... I see you like to belittle your opponents..
What is secret about invading Poland.. hmm
but I would rather move on...

How can you say that Stalin was not an absolute dictator?
I only belittle those who use ad-homs and act like idiots without having a clue what they are talking about. Then using strawmen in order to further attack the argument I was making.

Stalin wasn't in complete control the Soviet Bureaucracy was in control of various arms of the Soviet State. Even Trotsky himself never said something as stupid as Stalin was complete dictator. Stalin was nothing more than another cog in the Soviet Bureaucracy and the only people I see calling him a supreme ultimate totally badass warlord who singlehandedly destroyed Socialism are a few people trolling around here and highly emotional Bourgeois Historians. Show me the proof that Stalin had almighty control over every aspect of Soviet Society as that is the most hilarious claim so far right next to the claim that Stalin industrialized the USSR and plowed all the fields in the Ukraine by himself.

[freethinker]

I only belittle those who use ad-homs and act like idiots without having a clue what they are talking about. Then using strawmen in order to further attack the argument I was making.

Stalin wasn't in complete control the Soviet Bureaucracy was in control of various arms of the Soviet State. Even Trotsky himself never said something as stupid as Stalin was complete dictator. Stalin was nothing more than another cog in the Soviet Bureaucracy and the only people I see calling him a supreme ultimate totally badass warlord who singlehandedly destroyed Socialism are a few people trolling around here and highly emotional Bourgeois Historians. Show me the proof that Stalin had almighty control over every aspect of Soviet Society as that is the most hilarious claim so far right next to the claim that Stalin industrialized the USSR and plowed all the fields in the Ukraine by himself.

Show you the truth?
Dose murdering 80,000 of your military officers and doing away with all political opponents count as an absolute dictator because if it is not then I am obviously an evil capitalist trying to destroy what little good there is in the world.. oh the holdmore so many dead Ukrainian peasants those were the good days...


So Please tell me the real definition of absolute dictator because I am obviously a disgruntled reactionary...
:blushing:

[Commissar Rykov]

Show you the truth?
Dose murdering 80,000 of your military officers and doing away with all political opponents count as an absolute dictator because if it is not then I am obviously an evil capitalist trying to destroy what little good there is in the world.. oh the holdmore so many dead Ukrainian peasants those were the good days...


So Please tell me the real definition of absolute dictator because I am obviously a disgruntled reactionary...
:blushing:
Still not going to show proof. Why is it so hard for people like you to accept that Stalin didn't have total control over the USSR? Is your "analysis" and knowledge of the operation of the Soviet Union that primitive? I am glad you are into the Great Man Theory put out by Bourgeois Historians but it is a shit analysis of history and has always been. So are you going to show me a source where Stalin pure source of evil singlehandedly destroyed Socialism? Or are you going to finally admit that that Stalin was just another piece in the Soviet Bureaucracy?

Is this really that hard? Fucks sake.

[Agent Equality]

Stalin wasn't an absolute dictator it is this kind of reasoning I find to be completely logically empty and void of facts. That one is willing to excuse the excesses and problems created by the Soviet Bureaucracy and blame it on one person is not only anti-Materialistic but is also not supported by the facts. The reality is if the Soviet Bureaucracy hadn't been there and hadn't so deeply entrenched itself via economic policies it wouldn't have mattered whether Stalin was General Secretary or not it just so happens he was and he helped give it a hand in its entrenchment.

But then one could argue that the problem lies in Leninism itself as an ideology and the policies and doctrine of Lenin and co. in establishing this bureaucracy to begin with. Without the vanguard party fiasco in the first place, there would be no bureaucracy or party ranks to allow Stalin's rise to power, and we would never be arguing about this.

[Comrade Hill]

But then one could argue that the problem lies in Leninism itself as an ideology and the policies and doctrine of Lenin and co. in establishing this bureaucracy to begin with. Without the vanguard party fiasco in the first place, there would be no bureaucracy or party ranks to allow Stalin's rise to power, and we would never be arguing about this.

At lot of the deaths an oppression that went on really had nothing to do with the theory of Marxism-Leninism....it had more to do with war.

I think it is completely ignorant to blame the effects of war on Marxism-Leninism....but that's just me.

[Red Rosa]

But then one could argue that the problem lies in Leninism itself as an ideology and the policies and doctrine of Lenin and co. in establishing this bureaucracy to begin with. Without the vanguard party fiasco in the first place, there would be no bureaucracy or party ranks to allow Stalin's rise to power, and we would never be arguing about this.

This anarchist cry is really getting old; if you have a vanguard party it's inevitabily going to be authoritarian and opressive and live off backs of proletariat. It's like party members can't do anything to prevent opressivness of their party, it sounds as though party as such controls its members and not the other way around. If you remove political, theoretical and economic power which is needed in proletarian struggle (which could only be achieved through party), proletarian struggle shall be depoliticised and powerless. What's important is that, in short, party, with its leadership, serves the working class and not the other way around. Which is achievable. And by the way, if proletariat led itself through the revolution (which is organizationally impossible), who says that among them certain power hungry individuals and groups won't occur? (that's one of the reasons why party is important, to use their knowledge in order to stop these kinds of bourgeois aspirations)
Partyless proletarian struggle is not a guarantee that there won't be any power hungry people as much as the existance of proletarian struggle with party isn't a guarantee that the party will be authoritarian and subject the rest of the working class to their own personal interests.

Donovan, as for Stalin not being a dictator, yes, he was a dictator. What he didn't "bless" was absolutely wrong and should have been eliminated. Maybe you approve of this, but your approval or lack of it doesn't change facts.
Perhaps what's the most conspicious stalinist revisionist element is the existance of wage labour, the existance of labour as a commodity. If this is not a deviation from Marxism, i don't know what is.

[Comrade Hill]

Donovan, as for Stalin not being a dictator, yes, he was a dictator. What he didn't "bless" was absolutely wrong and should have been eliminated. Maybe you approve of this, but your approval or lack of it doesn't change facts.
Perhaps what's the most conspicious stalinist revisionist element is the existance of wage labour, the existance of labour as a commodity. If this is not a deviation from Marxism, i don't know what is.

Wage labour had to be done....it's not like we had a "choice."

Not all decisions were made by Stalin. Do you know what that means? It means he is not a dictator. A dictator is someone with absolute power.

Marxism-Leninism, like what Karl Marx originally wanted, was a scientific approach to communism. What in the world is anarchism? All we know about anarchism is that they don't support dictatorship of the proletariat, and they want a magical global revolution and they want every form of hierarchy to go away. This is anarchist theory, which has nothing to do with Marxism.

If you intend on trying to apply Anarchist theory to Marxist theory, can you tell me how this will be done? How can you possibly eliminate the bourgeoisie, and the state all at once? What is your PLAN?

[Red Rosa]

Wage labour had to be done....it's not like we had a "choice."
Can you explain this?


Not all decisions were made by Stalin. Do you know what that means? It means he is not a dictator. A dictator is someone with absolute power.

As I said, what he did not bless didn't go. So, if you can't do something without one man's approval, that means he is a dictator after all. Especially since we know how people who didn't agree (or some other more stupid reason) ended up, for example Zinoviev, Kirov, Kamenev...


Marxism-Leninism, like what Karl Marx originally wanted, was a scientific approach to communism. What in the world is anarchism? All we know about anarchism is that they don't support dictatorship of the proletariat, and they want a magical global revolution and they want every form of hierarchy to go away. This is anarchist theory, which has nothing to do with Marxism.
If you intend on trying to apply Anarchist theory to Marxist theory, can you tell me how this will be done? How can you possibly eliminate the bourgeoisie, and the state all at once? What is your PLAN?

I'm afraid your reading abilities are a little bit low. I wasn't, in fact advocating anarchism (i was critizising te fact it denies dictatorship of the proletariat), and I wasn't going to apply Anarchism to Marxism.
My plan which is not mine but Marx's, could not of coure be given as a recipe. But, some general points could be expressed - because it cannot be done right away, because we can't abolish private ownership, wage labour, market, etc. we need dictatorship of the proletariat. (and of course, to have a strong line to be able to stop and defeat counterrevolution)
I said it already how this transitional period to communism should look like. In this transitional period, economically, the workers would be on wage labour in the first peirod, but in the late period it would start to go away, as well as the political aspect of society, as well as the state, blah blah, i suppose you know this. Now tell me how does, as I already said, state capitalism and totalitarian power come to this? And don't tell me that Stalin wanted a communist society because he didn't.

[kowalskil]

... And don't tell me that Stalin wanted a communist society because he didn't.

Lenin and Stalin were leaders of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship. The country the first laboratory in which this idea, formulated by Marx, was implemented.

By the way, Rosa Luxemburg would agree with this.
.

[Comrade Hill]

Can you explain this?


How can you eliminate wage labour when it didn't even exist beforehand?

They were going from a fuedal society to a state capitalist to a Socialist economy. They had to industrialize and build a working class by force, or else they would've lost WW2 and they wouldn't have been able to fend off the Nazis with untrained peasants...

You complain that the proletariat did not take power, but the people who took power of the state was a mix of professional workers and ex-peasants. The Soviet state was build by revolutionary means and you do not give any credit to this.

Just because wage labour exists does not mean they are capitalist.....there was no private property, and production was organized according to a single plan, state owned enterprises, unlike in capitalism, could not decide how much to produce. Wage labour may have existed, but labor was not considered a commodity in the Soviet Union. The workers of the state bought commodities produced by the state.....their labor was directly social, just like how a socialist economy is supposed to be.



As I said, what he did not bless didn't go. So, if you can't do something without one man's approval, that means he is a dictator after all. Especially since we know how people who didn't agree (or some other more stupid reason) ended up, for example Zinoviev, Kirov, Kamenev...


This is quite a foolish analogy....the ability to approve of decisions does not make someone a dictator.....decisions to do things had to be first VOTED on by the central committee, before Stalin could "bless" it. Could Stalin force anybody to vote for something? Who actually did the trials? Stalin or the NKPD?

I am not trying to defend Stalin as a "moral" person, or anything like that. He approved of some brutal decisions. But if you think about it, what place do "morals" have in a time of war?



I'm afraid your reading abilities are a little bit low. I wasn't, in fact advocating anarchism (i was critizising te fact it denies dictatorship of the proletariat), and I wasn't going to apply Anarchism to Marxism.
My plan which is not mine but Marx's, could not of coure be given as a recipe. But, some general points could be expressed - because it cannot be done right away, because we can't abolish private ownership, wage labour, market, etc. we need dictatorship of the proletariat. (and of course, to have a strong line to be able to stop and defeat counterrevolution)
I said it already how this transitional period to communism should look like. In this transitional period, economically, the workers would be on wage labour in the first peirod, but in the late period it would start to go away, as well as the political aspect of society, as well as the state, blah blah, i suppose you know this. Now tell me how does, as I already said, state capitalism and totalitarian power come to this? And don't tell me that Stalin wanted a communist society because he didn't.

"In the late period the state would begin to go away?" when exactly is the "late period?" You certainly don't mean right away do you?

If Stalin did not want a communist society, then why did he write books on how to implement a socialist economy for the transition to communism? You think he just enjoyed pretending to advocate for things?

[Red Rosa]

How can you eliminate wage labour when it didn't even exist beforehand?

They were going from a fuedal society to a state capitalist to a Socialist economy. They had to industrialize and build a working class by force, or else they would've lost WW2 and they wouldn't have been able to fend off the Nazis with untrained peasants...

You complain that the proletariat did not take power, but the people who took power of the state was a mix of professional workers and ex-peasants. The Soviet state was build by revolutionary means and you do not give any credit to this.

When did this socialist economy occur? They went from half feudal society to NEP (which you meant when you said state capitalism, I supporse) which was a combination of private and state capital (yes, i know there was more state property than private, but it still was a combination) and not just state capitalim, and which Lenin wouldn't have to implement at all had he listened to Marx who wrote that only in high levels of capitalism socialist revolution could and must happen, economically (you can't have socialism in poverty, and capitalism is the best way to accumulate capital fast) and socially (you can't start a revolution without at last half of the proletariat willing to start it).
If the revolution isn't realized according to Marx and only him (if you call me a marxist fundamentalist i shall take it as a compliment, just so you know :) ) if at the end you still have wage labour and means to abolish it but not will to do so because you enjoy being in priviliged class of, what we in my country call(ed) the red bourgeoise, then you aren't being revolutionary, you are being a revisionist, and I don't care about good intentions or the books they wrote or sweet talk they talked. deeds are what matters.


Just because wage labour exists does not mean they are capitalist.....there was no private property, and production was organized according to a single plan, state owned enterprises, unlike in capitalism, could not decide how much to produce. Wage labour may have existed, but labor was not considered a commodity in the Soviet Union. The workers of the state bought commodities produced by the state.....their labor was directly social, just like how a socialist economy is supposed to be.

How wasn't labour a commodity if there was a wage labour? How was it socialist when few people who led the state made economic decisions and not all society?



"In the late period the state would begin to go away?" when exactly is the "late period?" You certainly don't mean right away do you?

If i say LATE period, i certainly don't mean right away, or else i would have written "early period" or "right away".


If Stalin did not want a communist society, then why did he write books on how to implement a socialist economy for the transition to communism? You think he just enjoyed pretending to advocate for things?

And how did he think he was gonna do that? By beurocrating state apparatus, by distancing himself from the masses, by dictating what is good and was is bad (the fact that he did this not only with political and economic matters but also theoretical matters speaks enough about his perverse and power hungry personality)? The guy was pathologically paranoid, cruel, brutal (and don't tell me "those were the circumstances" or "you can't expect a person to be moral in war times"), the Great Purge, the killings of the Old Bolsheviks, etc., etc.?! Come on. How can a man like that be associated with anything socialist?!

[tir1944]

Wage labor certainly did exist in Tzarist Russia which was a capitalist country with significant leftovers of feudalism on the countryside.

[freethinker]

Thank you Rosa Very much... :)
I am not quite as deep as you are with your posts but you pretty much said everything me and the others have been trying to do here

[Meditation]

just reading 7000 days in Siberia stalin is an idiot even hes own daughter hated him
i hate stalin and you should to he is the one who made socialism look bad

[Rodrigo]

The answer to the topic? Just read my signature.

[Rodrigo]

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/ :thumbup1:

[Die Rote Fahne]

Wage labor certainly did exist in Tzarist Russia which was a capitalist country with significant leftovers of feudalism on the countryside.

It also existed under Stalin.

[tir1944]

...and Lenin.
What conclusion should we make out of this?

[Искра]

...and Lenin.
Was Soviet Union realy under Lenin? This question is actualy up to debate. For example there's really big difference between "bolshevisation" and "stalinisation" of communist parties. During Lenin's time fractions within Bolshevik party existed and Lenin wasn't able to enforce his wishes all the time.


What conclusion should we make out of this?
That Soviet Union was state capitalist society.

Same impression you could get from reading Stalin's work on Soviet economy, where he claims that profit is not what makes some society capitalist - but maximum profit, cause profit can be achived in socialism :rolleyes:

[Commissar Rykov]

Was Soviet Union realy under Lenin? This question is actualy up to debate. For example there's really big difference between "bolshevisation" and "stalinisation" of communist parties. During Lenin's time fractions within Bolshevik party existed and Lenin wasn't able to enforce his wishes all the time.


That Soviet Union was state capitalist society.

Same impression you could get from reading Stalin's work on Soviet economy, where he claims that profit is not what makes some society capitalist - but maximum profit, cause profit can be achived in socialism :rolleyes:

10th Party Congress abolished fractions in the Party under the demands of Lenin to end them.

[MarxSchmarx]

Step 1. Claim that Socialism is impossible in one country with no reasoning or facts.

Step 2. Claim that the idea of Socialism in one Country is somehow Nationalist and that anyone that supports it is against Proletariat Internationalism.

Step 3. Claim that Marxist-Leninists are secret evil Capitalists that want to rule the world.







And yes that was a childish response.


Yes because world revolution happens overnight, in every single country, as history has shown. Not.


I smell revisionists in here....


Oh dear, people are thinking for themselves aren't just toeing the party line.


Do you understand what being communist is?

It has something to do with not collaborating with capitalists and fascists :)


Go play with Barbie dolls :rolleyes:


if only the masses knew the truth about uncle stalin, we would be living ina gaint collective farm utopia by now. grover furr, ludo martens, etc, brave kngiths of the night march on forward

If your name is on this this list, you are hereby warned for one-liners, unproductive comments and generally disregarding this notice here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2303985&postcount=2

to keep this thread civil.

[Tim Finnegan]

Lenin and Stalin were leaders of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship. The country the first laboratory in which this idea, formulated by Marx, was implemented.
That is not how historical materialism works. http://beaty625.com/smilies/cringe.gif

[Uncle Rob]

I have a question about the ideologies of Joseph Stalin.
I know that some people consider him a great leader, while some call him a tyrant and a murderer.
So far, I've read that his ideologies are a deviation from the original Marxist-Leninist ones, his methods were indeed harsh, but I acknowledge them to a certain degree because he did them all for the good of the country.

I can search wikipedia for this anytime, but I want the people of Revleft to help me on this. What's your take on it? Was he really a great leader, or a tyrant?
Help this newbie out :D

A Marxist-Leninist does not hold anyone above the masses. We recognize the individual contributions of people insofar they play historical importance with regards to the oppressed classes- this is the case with Stalin. His contributions to the international working class movement were enormous, as well as the development of the first socialist state. This is not to say however he was perfect - far from it. But in regards to his mistakes it is only fair to look at the situation objectively and actually give critical examination to the policies he enacted, which he fought against, and those that had very little to do with him directly.

As far as "murder" goes, I suppose it could be attributed to him. But before one jumps to empty moralistic conclusions we must stop and think about why he felt the need for people to die. Many who were targeted by the communist party were real enemies of the state. It is NOT a deviation of Marxism to forcefully dispose of such enemies for force plays a great historical importance especially when socialism and the new rule of the proletariat is at stake. I would even go as far to say that there has been no successful revolution in history without the use of violence.

As for his theories, there was little to no deviation overall. Stalin did not and admitted that he contributed nothing to Marxist thought. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head in regards to Stalin that was a deviation was the patriotism he espoused during the the Great Patriotic War. This to me is an error of an unforgivable degree considering proletarian internationalism could have served just as well to boost moral other than patriotism which for me is very often saturated with social-chauvinism which was the case for the Soviet Union during this time. This patriotism I believe was a consequence of a Socialist country that faced economic and political isolation, and if this is the case I cannot find much room to blame Stalin for this but rather for his desire to go along with it.

All and all I believe Stalin has merit. Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb in one try, nor is it conceivable we will get socialism right on the first try. Historical Materialism is a science and with any science there is always trial and error. Although many will not admit it, we do really owe a lot to him, for it was he that showed us where errors arise in the process of building socialism, and if we allow ourselves to view the soviet experience objectively, learn from his successes as well as his errors, when the next workers state arises we will certainly go much farther than he did.

[Die Rote Fahne]

A Marxist-Leninist does not hold anyone above the masses. We recognize the individual contributions of people insofar they play historical importance with regards to the oppressed classes- this is the case with Stalin. His contributions to the international working class movement were enormous, as well as the development of the first socialist state. This is not to say however he was perfect - far from it. But in regards to his mistakes it is only fair to look at the situation objectively and actually give critical examination to the policies he enacted, which he fought against, and those that had very little to do with him directly.

As far as "murder" goes, I suppose it could be attributed to him. But before one jumps to empty moralistic conclusions we must stop and think about why he felt the need for people to die. Many who were targeted by the communist party were real enemies of the state. It is NOT a deviation of Marxism to forcefully dispose of such enemies for force plays a great historical importance especially when socialism and the new rule of the proletariat is at stake. I would even go as far to say that there has been no successful revolution in history without the use of violence.

As for his theories, there was little to no deviation overall. Stalin did not and admitted that he contributed nothing to Marxist thought. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head in regards to Stalin that was a deviation was the patriotism he espoused during the the Great Patriotic War. This to me is an error of an unforgivable degree considering proletarian internationalism could have served just as well to boost moral other than patriotism which for me is very often saturated with social-chauvinism which was the case for the Soviet Union during this time. This patriotism I believe was a consequence of a Socialist country that faced economic and political isolation, and if this is the case I cannot find much room to blame Stalin for this but rather for his desire to go along with it.

All and all I believe Stalin has merit. Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb in one try, nor is it conceivable we will get socialism right on the first try. Historical Materialism is a science and with any science there is always trial and error. Although many will not admit it, we do really owe a lot to him, for it was he that showed us where errors arise in the process of building socialism, and if we allow ourselves to view the soviet experience objectively, learn from his successes as well as his errors, when the next workers state arises we will certainly go much farther than he did.

What's your definition of socialism?

[Uncle Rob]

What's your definition of socialism?

A means of production that are owned by the state.

[Commissar Rykov]

A means of production that are owned by the state.
That isn't socialism.:bored:

[Uncle Rob]

That isn't socialism.:bored:

Enlighten me.

[Belleraphone]

a means of production that are owned by the state.
lol, that's not socialism.

[Commissar Rykov]

Enlighten me.
Socialism is where the Workers themselves are in charge of the means of production not some cryptic word such as the State. The State can be in control of the means of production in various capitalist systems that hardly makes them socialist. The Proletariat must be in charge of the means of production and thus the State apparatuses created by the Revolution in order to manage society all while these apparatuses wither away. Stating that the State must be in control of the means of production doesn't mean the Workers should be and thus isn't socialism by any Marxist definition.

[Uncle Rob]

lol, that's not socialism.

If you consider yourself a decent socialist I would advise arming me with the knowledge a proletarian requires to achieve class-consciousness rather than scoffing at me like school teacher does to a slow student.

[Uncle Rob]

Socialism is where the Workers themselves are in charge of the means of production not some cryptic word such as the State. The State can be in control of the means of production in various capitalist systems that hardly makes them socialist. The Proletariat must be in charge of the means of production and thus the State apparatuses created by the Revolution in order to manage society all while these apparatuses wither away. Stating that the State must be in control of the means of production doesn't mean the Workers should be and thus isn't socialism by any Marxist definition.

The state is not a cryptic word. It's a force standing above society in a society that has irreconcilable class antagonism. Under socialism we still have class antagonisms and therefore the need of a state albeit not a state in the capitalist sense, but in a proletarian sense with features distinct to it's class character.

The only way the state will cease to exist is if the material basis for classes is eroded which is not something that is magically ready made when the proletariat comes to power but constitutes a long and protracted historical epoch rife with further struggle.

In a sense you are right when you say it was not a Marxist definition, I did not specify the class character. That is a blunder I admit and should not have left the issue up for assumption.

[Omsk]

I see a lot of the posters in this thread are interested in the ideologies of Stalin and his state,for starters,read this:

Our Disagreements (January 5, 1921)
On the Death of Lenin (January 30, 1924)
The Foundations of Leninism (April, 1924)
Trotskyism or Leninism? (November 19, 1924) [Alternate Translation]
The October Revolution & the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924)
Concerning Questions of Leninism (January 25, 1926)
Revolution in China and Tasks of the Comintern (May 24, 1927)
The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now (October 23, 1927)
Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (June 20, 1950)

(Those are,for this question,relevant publications.)

First understand that Stalin is not a simple political entity,he is a mosaic of different opinions,acts,and thoughts.
I hope comrades that are not for civil discussion,won't ruin the thread.

[Commissar Rykov]

The state is not a cryptic word. It's a force standing above society in a society that has irreconcilable class antagonism. Under socialism we still have class antagonisms and therefore the need of a state albeit not a state in the capitalist sense, but in a proletarian sense with features distinct to it's class character.

The only way the state will cease to exist is if the material basis for classes is eroded which is not something that is magically ready made when the proletariat comes to power but constitutes a long and protracted historical epoch rife with further struggle.

In a sense you are right when you say it was not a Marxist definition, I did not specify the class character. That is a blunder I admit and should not have left the issue up for assumption.
You are confusing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with the lower phase of Communism known as Socialism. The State Apparatuses created by the Revolution in order to preserve the Revolution are there specifically during the DoP in order to protect the Proletariat and suppress the Bourgeoisie and other antagonistic classes. Yet it is still should be in the hands of the Proletariat. The lower phase of Communism dubbed Socialism by Lenin is a phase where the class warfare has been completely stamped out and what divisions you do have are problems with the still somewhat bourgeoisie discrepancies in pay are being hammered out. The State at that point has withered away to be a simple management of the economy fully in the hands of the Workers. The point of the lower phase of communism is to change the social conditions and relations towards labor and thus eliminate what discrepancies still exist in the system.

[Uncle Rob]

You are confusing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with the lower phase of Communism known as Socialism. The State Apparatuses created by the Revolution in order to preserve the Revolution are there specifically during the DoP in order to protect the Proletariat and suppress the Bourgeoisie and other antagonistic classes. Yet it is still should be in the hands of the Proletariat. The lower phase of Communism dubbed Socialism by Lenin is a phase where the class warfare has been completely stamped out and what divisions you do have are problems with the still somewhat bourgeoisie discrepancies in pay are being hammered out. The State at that point has withered away to be a simple management of the economy fully in the hands of the Workers. The point of the lower phase of communism is to change the social conditions and relations towards labor and thus eliminate what discrepancies still exist in the system.


No I'm not. Socialism implies that there are still economic and social inequalities among individuals. It also implies that we are dealing with one or a handful of countries for if we were to have no class antagonism then we would have no need for a state and would therefore already find ourselves in the higher phase of communism.

Marx called it the lower phase of communism because the term can be loosely applied considering common ownership is legitimized through the medium of the state which is also under proletarian control.

I digress, we are deviating from the topic at hand. Do you have a point to make or is it time for another resounding game of "Bash the Stalinist"?

[Commissar Rykov]

No I'm not. Socialism implies that there are still economic and social inequalities among individuals. It also implies that we are dealing with one or a handful of countries for if we were to have no class antagonism then we would have no need for a state and would therefore already find ourselves in the higher phase of communism.

Marx called it the lower phase of communism because the term can be loosely applied considering common ownership is legitimized through the medium of the state which is also under proletarian control.

I digress, we are deviating from the topic at hand. Do you have a point to make or is it time for another resounding game of "Bash the Stalinist"?
I already stated there are inequalities but there are not classes they would have been liquidated by the DoP that is the whole point of the DoP. I suggest rereading Lenin's The State and Revolution. Socialism is about closing the gaps that exist due to an outdated labor method and implementing a new one. Please spare me your martyrdom complex as well you opened up this little can of worms not myself. Unless you are trying to claim that MLs believe that the State having control over the means of production = socialism in which case I can see why you need the martyr complex.

[Uncle Rob]

I already stated there are inequalities but there are not classes they would have been liquidated by the DoP that is the whole point of the DoP. I suggest rereading Lenin's The State and Revolution. Socialism is about closing the gaps that exist due to an outdated labor method and implementing a new one. Please spare me your martyrdom complex as well you opened up this little can of worms not myself. Unless you are trying to claim that MLs believe that the State having control over the means of production = socialism in which case I can see why you need the martyr complex.

I'm very familiar with Lenin's particular work. But thank you for the suggestion.

[Rooster]

Uncle Rob, did you just imply that class antagonisms just wither away? :confused:

[Commissar Rykov]

Uncle Rob, did you just imply that class antagonisms just wither away? :confused:
Yes he did and gave the glorious notion that socialism is when the bureaucracy controls the economy. I would cry but I just don't care.

[Uncle Rob]

Yes he did and gave the glorious notion that socialism is when the bureaucracy controls the economy. I would cry but I just don't care.

I recall saying the material basis for classes should be eroded, but I certainly didn't intend to imply that classes will wither away.

I don't recall saying a bureaucracy should control the economy but if that's how you choose to frame what I said I'm in no place to stop you.

[Belleraphone]

If you consider yourself a decent socialist I would advise arming me with the knowledge a proletarian requires to achieve class-consciousness rather than scoffing at me like school teacher does to a slow student.
Okay, sure. Basically socialism means that the means of production are in the hands of those that work in them. For example, the workers in the factory collectively decide how to run it. This is a basic, dictionary definition. The fact that you don't know this really says a lot. The state is a hierarchical, top-down institution that will just exploit the workers. All you're doing is saying we should take the property away from the bourgeois and give it to the state. I sure do miss the days before the bourgeois, where everything was owned by the king and we worked only to benefit his majesty, or in this case, our "dear leader." :laugh:

[Rooster]

I recall saying the material basis for classes should be eroded, but I certainly didn't intend to imply that classes will wither away.

So, if the material basis for classes erodes then classes er.... just disappear? Or do they erode proportionally to their material basses being eroding? Nope, I'm still seeing the same thing....unless, eroding and withering are different things now?

[GallowsBird]

I can't be the only one that isn't surprised that this thread keeps descending into the gutter coming back out soaking wet and before it can wash of any sewage dives back in again?

I wish we enlightened minds of RevLeft can actually have political debates without name-calling, making spurious claims, calling each other "reactionaries" (a word that has lost all reason) or posting "witty" oneliners. :glare:

To the OP, I suggest reading about this subject from Leftist websites like Marxist.org. And I would try to find as many different perspectives as possible from the arious leftist movements rather than for example just stiking to Marxist-Leninist sites (which will be more pro, obviously) or Trotskyist ones (which will be anti). And I would suggest weighing the evidence and coming to your own conclusions.

I hope this post was somewhat helpful... :che:

[Rooster]

If you consider yourself a decent socialist I would advise arming me with the knowledge a proletarian requires to achieve class-consciousness rather than scoffing at me like school teacher does to a slow student.

Heh, I just noticed that this thread was bumped. Must have missed this. So, Uncle Rob, do you think depriving workers of any role in the maintenance or running of the work place, any local democracy or even any political discussion helped workers to arrive at class conciousness?


I can't be the only one that isn't surprised that this thread keeps descending into the gutter coming back out soaking wet and before it can wash of any sewage dives back in again?

I wish we enlightened minds of RevLeft can actually have political debates without name-calling, making spurious claims, calling each other "reactionaries" (a word that has lost all reason) or posting "witty" oneliners. :glare:

To the OP, I suggest reading about this subject from Leftist websites like Marxist.org. And I would try to find as many different perspectives as possible from the arious leftist movements rather than for example just stiking to Marxist-Leninist sites (which will be more pro, obviously) or Trotskyist ones (which will be anti). And I would suggest weighing the evidence and coming to your own conclusions.

I hope this post was somewhat helpful... :che:

And you could write a post that had any content in it.

[GallowsBird]

And you could write a post that had any content in it.

Yes I know I could. What of it? :cool:










But seriously. Look slightly bellow and you'd see I was making a valid suggestion. I think some topics are too "controversial" for RevLeft and it is best to get the perspectives of various tendancies from their own websites or other online resources. I am really not sure why you are getting so defensive unless you think you are one of the members derailing debates and making them into "sh!t-slinging" contests; something I have never accused you of.

[Invader Zim]

Come at me revisionists, I destroy all your lies.

Is it a lie that there was within the USSR a heirarchical system that benefitted the political elites within the society? Is it a lie that the Stalin regime reconstituted homophobic laws that had previously been dismantled? Is it a lie that the regime employed slave labour as a tool of political repression on a truly massive scale, with slave labourers numbering in the millions? Is it a lie that millions perished as a direct result of the regimes policies?

Destroy away.

[Tim Finnegan]

If you consider yourself a decent socialist I would advise arming me with the knowledge a proletarian requires to achieve class-consciousness rather than scoffing at me like school teacher does to a slow student.
The first thing to realise would be that class conciousness isn't something possessed by individuals, but something which exists between individuals. It's about organisation as a class-for-itself, not about individual knowledge of economics, history, or politics. Marx, you'll remember, makes a point of noting the virtual absence of Marxists in the Paris Commune.

[A Marxist Historian]

The first thing to realise would be that class conciousness isn't something possessed by individuals, but something which exists between individuals. It's about organisation as a class-for-itself, not about individual knowledge of economics, history, or politics. Marx, you'll remember, makes a point of noting the virtual absence of Marxists in the Paris Commune.

A useful point, which raises further considerations.

Yes, class consciousness is something existing between individuals. But, obviously the question is which individuals? Class consciousness does not spring out fullblown as a group consciousness of the entire worldwide class-in-itself economic category of folk who objectively relate to the means of production in the proletarian fashion.

So you get trade union consciousness, enterprise consciousness, the consciousness of privileged and not-so-privileged layers of the working class, of male workers, of white workers, etc. etc.

On this basis gets erected all sorts of backward forms of class consciousness and lack thereof within the working class, fostered by the divisions created by bourgeois society.

So you need an organization of the advanced, representing in nucleus the consciousness of the world working class as a whole, which, as Marx explained in the Manifesto, due to its objective nature has nothing to lose except its chains, as socialism is the only possible route for its liberation.

In short, you need a world party of the vanguard of the working class, of the Leninist type. A tribune of the whole people, leading all the oppressed to liberation, as so well explained by Lenin in What Is To Be Done.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

When has that ever actually existed, anywhere, as Lenin imagined it?

[A Marxist Historian]

When has that ever actually existed, anywhere, as Lenin imagined it?

I think they got pretty close to that in the first years of the Bolshevik Revolution. Surely you've read John Reed's Ten Days That Shook The World? That's pretty much exactly what he describes, seems to me.

Of course, given the huge social backwardness of Tsarist Russia, that was pretty fragile, and dissipated to a considerable degree with the defeats of the world international revolution that Lenin had pinned his hopes to.

It has to be recognized that Stalin and his pragmatic pipe dream of "socialism in one country" with all its unpleasant features was *popular* with workers in the 1920s, given the demoralization going on.

When workers started to figure out that the criticisms of the Left Opposition had some real validity, the Staliniists moved hastily to crush them before things got out of hand.

-M.H.-