Stalin's and Mao's purges

[Blanquist]

Why did the people who were purged accept their fate?

These men were leaders, fought in wars, etc, but ended being complete cowards. I don't understand it.

I think the only one in China who tried to do something was Lin Biao but everyone else just went along with it. Guys who survived but had their children or wives killed then just went back to work like business as usual.

[Zulu]

Why did the people who were purged accept their fate?

These men were leaders, fought in wars, etc, but ended being complete cowards. I don't understand it.


Zinoviev&Kamenev were to be shot together (whey were always together on everything, it seems) and Zinoviev fell to his knees begging the NKVD officers to spare his life (although he knew they couldn't do anything), so that Kamenev had to talk some dignity into him.

Bukharin wrote a letter to Stalin begging to let him drink poison instead of being shot. He also confessed that he agreed to slander himself because he thought that it was somehow necessary to help advance the communist cause.

Some were tricked into "cooperation with the prosecution" by false promises, some "cracked" under torture, and some, imagine that, were genuinely guilty of anti-soviet activity. But in many cases it was maybe just a cruel test by Stalin: even if somebody was not guilty of actual spying and conspiring against the Soviet Union, but allowed such a thought, even momentarily, that was it for them.

Some military refused to slander themselves, even under torture, and that saved their lives. They were pardoned shortly before or after the Nazi invasion. Most notably that was the story of Marshal Rokossovsky, but there were others.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The purges in both countries were conducted over the course of years and often secretly;the people which were condemned to death often didn't even know about their fate until it was too late, so I do not believe you can call them cowards for not fighting back.

[Zulu]

the people which were condemned to death often didn't even know about their fate until it was too late

That's not true. Yezhov knew very well what was coming to him for about a whole year. He drank vodka all that time.

They simply realized that fighting back (or even running) would make them genuinely guilty, or at least would be used as evidence of their guilt.

[Prometeo liberado]

For many the concept of discipline within the party and/or movement was a very serious matter. At the end of the day this was what separated you from a bourgeoisie liberal, you were so down that even if the Party wanted you dead it was better than turning. Agree with it or not some would rather go out like that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why did the people who were purged accept their fate?

I've read somewhere that some have speculated that it may have had something to do with Russian culture, and maybe some thought that if they thoroughly repented for their "sins" they would not be killed. Some went over-the-top with the grovelling, stuff like the people's bullet is not fit to be fired through my treasonous brain etc. Real secular religion stuff.

[daft punk]

Why did the people who were purged accept their fate?

They didnt, the Trotskyists tried to fight the repression. Kamenev, Zinoviev and others were tricked into making false confessions.


Zinoviev&Kamenev were to be shot together (whey were always together on everything, it seems) and Zinoviev fell to his knees begging the NKVD officers to spare his life (although he knew they couldn't do anything), so that Kamenev had to talk some dignity into him.
Is this supposed to be amusing or something? The murder of two innocent people?



Bukharin wrote a letter to Stalin begging to let him drink poison instead of being shot. He also confessed that he agreed to slander himself because he thought that it was somehow necessary to help advance the communist cause.

He was also told his wife would be spared if he 'confessed'.



Some were tricked into "cooperation with the prosecution" by false promises, some "cracked" under torture, and some, imagine that, were genuinely guilty of anti-soviet activity.

None were guilty of anti-soviet activity.

[Khalid]

Purging does not mean killing people. Millions were purged and they continued their lives. Many purged members also joined back the Party.

[daft punk]

Purging does not mean killing people. Millions were purged and they continued their lives. Many purged members also joined back the Party.

and many were sent to the gulag to be shot, thousands and thousands of the best socialists.

[Omsk]

None were guilty of anti-soviet activity.


Leon Trotsky was not engaged in anti-Soviet activity?

[Zulu]

Is this supposed to be amusing or something? The murder of two innocent people?
This is supposed to be illustrative of how brave they were.





He was also told his wife would be spared if he 'confessed'.
Yeah, bargaining to slander yourself is one of the "real communists'" virtues, isn't it?





None were guilty of anti-soviet activity.
Many of them were Trotsky's informants or passing information to Trotsky's informants. That's called a spy ring.

[daft punk]

Leon Trotsky was not engaged in anti-Soviet activity?

Trotsky was trying to save socialism, Stalin was trying to destroy it. Trotsky did not want to change anything except replace the dictatorship with workers democracy.

As you well know.


This is supposed to be illustrative of how brave they were.



Yeah, bargaining to slander yourself is one of the "real communists'" virtues, isn't it?



Many of them were Trotsky's informants or passing information to Trotsky's informants. That's called a spy ring.
No, the Trots didnt slander themselves, Vinoviev and Kamenev were never Trots.
A spy ring would not be necessary if it was socialist.

[Omsk]

Trotsky was trying to save socialism, Stalin was trying to destroy it. Trotsky did not want to change anything except replace the dictatorship with workers democracy.

As you well know.



Hey,hey there,stop with this silly straw-man arguments.

Just reply: Was Trotsky engaged in activity that was,from common view-point,anti-Soviet?(Anti CPSU)

Answer with a simple yes,or no.

[Zulu]

No, the Trots didnt slander themselves, Vinoviev and Kamenev were never Trots.

That's because the Trotskyists were genuinely guilty of spying for the most part.





A spy ring would not be necessary if it was socialist.
The "necessity" of the spy ring is peripheral here. It existed, and its participants were guilty of spying and as such had to be punished as the law required.

People who spied for the Soviet Union on Germany, Britain and the US were good guys, but it would be naive say that those states were bad because of their punishment of the discovered Soviet spies. Those states were bad for other reasons. The same train of thought must be applied to the Soviet Union, if one wishes to criticize it in an intellectual manner (rather than in a cheap propaganda manner, like you're doing it).

[Rooster]

Leon Trotsky was not engaged anti-Soviet activity?

If by anti you mean that Trotsky was involved with pro-soviet activity, then yes, he was.

[daft punk]

"Trotsky was trying to save socialism, Stalin was trying to destroy it. Trotsky did not want to change anything except replace the dictatorship with workers democracy.

As you well know. "



Hey,hey there,stop with this silly straw-man arguments.

Just reply: Was Trotsky engaged in activity that was,from common view-point,anti-Soviet?(Anti CPSU)

Answer with a simple yes,or no.

It is not straw man. Stalin destroyed any chance of socialism in Russia and elsewhere around the world, deliberately, to preserve his privileged position as dictator at the head of a bureaucratic dictatorship.

It is a monstrous lie to call his regime socialist. He killed all the socialists. Stalin was the negation of Bolshevism.

What the fuck is the common point of view? People believe all sorts of things.

Trotsky believed in preserving the workers state. However he understood that to do that the masses would need to consciously pursue a socialist programme, with mass participation, and that would mean the end of Stalin's dictatorship.

What do you mean by anti-Soviet?
anti - the workers state?

or anti- Stalin's dictatorship?

Please stop parroting lies from the 1930s and think for a bit.


That's because the Trotskyists were genuinely guilty of spying for the most part.

spying? Spying on what?




The "necessity" of the spy ring is peripheral here. It existed, and its participants were guilty of spying and as such had to be punished as the law required.

People who spied for the Soviet Union on Germany, Britain and the US were good guys, but it would be naive say that those states were bad because of their punishment of the discovered Soviet spies. Those states were bad for other reasons. The same train of thought must be applied to the Soviet Union, if one wishes to criticize it in an intellectual manner (rather than in a cheap propaganda manner, like you're doing it).

Hilarious. People like Leopold Trepper, who spent years risking their lives spying for Russia got thanked with 10 years in jail.

In fact Stalin ignored Trepper's warning of a German invasion and so the Germans moved 1200km into Russia and nearly took Moscow.

And in fact, Trepper and co were doing all this against orders, they had been told to return to Moscow. Stalin didnt want to upset his new chum Hitler at the time, you see. Also Stalin executed Trepper's boss, who organised the pro-Russian spy rings.

You have the nerve to talk about intellectual criticism, while defending the slaughter of all the best socialists in Russia on made up ludicrous charges?

"Those states were bad for other reasons. The same train of thought must be applied to the Soviet Union,"
no idea what that means. They were bad because they were capitalist/fascist and Russia was bad because it was Stalinist ie anti-socialist.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I have read that Alexander Schliapnikov never confessed, but nonetheless was murdered by the NKVD. Am curious as to whether any of the Stalin apologists wish to address the case of this genuine proletarian revolutionary.

Part of the reason for the confessions of many of the old Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin involved threats made against their family members combined with promises of leniency if they confessed. I do not see how confessions obtained under these circumstances can be granted any credibility. Most bourgeois courts would not allow such tainted evidence and we ought to surpass bourgeois courts in terms of justice. Apologias for the Stalin and Mao era purges are something that reactionaries can use to discredit us before the working class.

[Prometeo liberado]

I have read that Alexander Schliapnikov never confessed, but nonetheless was murdered by the NKVD. Am curious as to whether any of the Stalin apologists wish to address the case of this genuine proletarian revolutionary.

Part of the reason for the confessions of many of the old Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin involved threats made against their family members combined with promises of leniency if they confessed. I do not see how confessions obtained under these circumstances can be granted any credibility. Most bourgeois courts would not allow such tainted evidence and we ought to surpass bourgeois courts in terms of justice. Apologias for the Stalin and Mao era purges are something that reactionaries can use to discredit us before the working class.

I think confessions like these were meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Credibility as defined by those who hold power I suppose. Bourgeois courts have not set the standard as far as credibility and unbiased behavior goes. I would rather go about seeking answers and accountability for the purge going on in our own working class communities today. There are more poor people incarcerated in America today than Stalin or Mao could ever dream up on their best days. And not a word said.

[Drosophila]

They didnt, the Trotskyists tried to fight the repression. Kamenev, Zinoviev and others were tricked into making false confessions.



If Trotsky was so opposed to Stalin's purges then why was he one of the chief proponents of the Red Terror in the early USSR?

[Omsk]

It is not straw man. Stalin destroyed any chance of socialism in Russia and elsewhere around the world, deliberately, to preserve his privileged position as dictator at the head of a bureaucratic dictatorship.

It is a monstrous lie to call his regime socialist. He killed all the socialists. Stalin was the negation of Bolshevism.

What the fuck is the common point of view? People believe all sorts of things.

Trotsky believed in preserving the workers state. However he understood that to do that the masses would need to consciously pursue a socialist programme, with mass participation, and that would mean the end of Stalin's dictatorship.

What do you mean by anti-Soviet?
anti - the workers state?

or anti- Stalin's dictatorship?

Please stop parroting lies from the 1930s and think for a bit.



Blah blah blah blah

I asked you,was Trotsky engaged in activity against the Soviet state.[When Stalin was the leader of the USSR]

I will answer.Yes he was.

By anti-Soviet activity i dont mean that Trotsky was attacking the Kremlin with bombs,anti-Soviet activity was also writing against the USSR.He wrote against the USSR.He engaged in anti-Soviet activity.

My question was clear,you couldnt even answer it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is what happens when communism is turned into a religion with an official dogma one must follow or else face the Inquisition.

[daft punk]

If Trotsky was so opposed to Stalin's purges then why was he one of the chief proponents of the Red Terror in the early USSR?

This makes no sense. The 'red terror' was simply part of the civil war, in which the Reds were fighting White and foreign armies to defend the revolution.

Stalin's purges were to crush the revolution.



Blah blah blah blah

I asked you,was Trotsky engaged in activity against the Soviet state.[When Stalin was the leader of the USSR]

I will answer.Yes he was.

By anti-Soviet activity i dont mean that Trotsky was attacking the Kremlin with bombs,anti-Soviet activity was also writing against the USSR.He wrote against the USSR.He engaged in anti-Soviet activity.

My question was clear,you couldnt even answer it.

No, he was writing to defend the social revolution in the USSR. Stalinism was killing it, and in 1989 it was no more.

[Omsk]

No, he was writing to defend the social revolution in the USSR.


He was writing against the CPSU and Stalin = USSR.
He was engaged in anti-Soviet activity,like the opportunist you mentioned before,Andre Gide.

[daft punk]

David Cameron and the Conservative Party = UK?

:laugh:

[Drosophila]

This makes no sense. The 'red terror' was simply part of the civil war, in which the Reds were fighting White and foreign armies to defend the revolution.

Stalin's purges were to crush the revolution.




No, he was writing to defend the social revolution in the USSR. Stalinism was killing it, and in 1989 it was no more.

You have yet to back these claims with any sources.

[Omsk]

Why are you laughing?

Stalin and the CPSU represented the USSR,the state.

He wrote against them,against the Soviet state.

He was active in anti-Soviet activity.

Why are you amazed?

I though you Trotskyists were proud of his attacks on the USSR.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2361547#post2361547)
"This makes no sense. The 'red terror' was simply part of the civil war, in which the Reds were fighting White and foreign armies to defend the revolution.

Stalin's purges were to crush the revolution.




No, he was writing to defend the social revolution in the USSR. Stalinism was killing it, and in 1989 it was no more. "



You have yet to back these claims with any sources.

What, specifically, do you want support for?

It is obvious the "red terror" was just a name of part of the civil war.

Stalin's purges, well, it is a fact that Trotskyists and other Marxists were purged and killed. Their policy was for socialism. Socialism evolves into communism. In communism there is no bureaucracy, no government, no state, and has 100% democracy. Every person is part time worker and part time planner. There are no countries, no inequality whatsoever.

Did Stalin take the USSR in that direction? Not remotely. The only thing he did was to collectivise, which Trotsky had been urging for the last 5 years (and Stalin kicked him out for doing that), and that was forced, forced on the people by Stalin, and forced on Stalin by circumstances. Just a year earlier he had been considering denationalising the land!

Think about that, if your plan is socialism, why would you be talking about denationalising the land in 1927.

No, from 1924-8 Stalin went over to right wing free market policies, he did the exact opposite of what Trotsky and Lenin wanted. They wanted the rich taxed, the poor peasants enticed into coops via subsidies, and industry built. Stalin did none of that (ok he built some industry and a bout 3% of the peasants joined coops). The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

You really need to read the Platform of the Opposition from 1927 to have any clue about this era and the era that followed it, a violent lurch to a pseudo left, ultraleft in fact, Third Period in which the Nazis were allowed into power.

[Joseph S.]

Here we go again yes Stalin eat baby's you happy now?
Want a frikking friutecake?
:rolleyes:

[daft punk]

Why are you laughing?

Stalin and the CPSU represented the USSR,the state.

He wrote against them,against the Soviet state.

He was active in anti-Soviet activity.

Why are you amazed?

I though you Trotskyists were proud of his attacks on the USSR.

No this is just stupid. Trotsky was trying to save the revolution from Stalin's bureaucratic dictatorship. It is perfectly obvious from all his writings and actions. Have you ever read any? Even some Stalinists can see that. Trotsky said that if the dictatorship persisted it would end up capitalist and that was what happened.

Go read Platform of the Opposition from 1927 and post a thread telling me what faults you can find in it.

I challenge you.


Here we go again yes Stalin eat baby's you happy now?
Want a frikking frutecake?
:rolleyes:

Well, he did kill children obviously, but I dont think he actually ate them. It's possible, he was a crazy sadist.

What is a frutecake?

[Omsk]

No this is just stupid. Trotsky was trying to save the revolution from Stalin's bureaucratic dictatorship. It is perfectly obvious from all his writings and actions. Have you ever read any? Even some Stalinists can see that. Trotsky said that if the dictatorship persisted it would end up capitalist and that was what happened.




I really dont understand you.

All right,lets do this again,so your Trotskyite way of thinking can overcome this barrier.

Trotsky wrote against the "Stalinist Dictatorship"


Do you understand now?

[daft punk]

"Trotsky was trying to save the revolution from Stalin's bureaucratic dictatorship. It is perfectly obvious from all his writings and actions. Have you ever read any? Even some Stalinists can see that. Trotsky said that if the dictatorship persisted it would end up capitalist and that was what happened. "


I really dont understand you.

All right,lets do this again,so your Trotskyite way of thinking can overcome this barrier.

Trotsky wrote against the "Stalinist Dictatorship"


Do you understand now?

What's not to understand? Trotsky wrote against the Stalinist dictatorship yeah. Because he was a socialist and they were killing socialism.

[Omsk]

Trotsky wrote against

He was engaged in hostile activity.

You just proved my point,thank you.

[daft punk]

Hostile to the anti-socialist regime.

Trotsky's actual crime was to tell the truth about Russia. And to call for democratic socialism.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Strong vanguards exist for a reason; Trosky just didnt get the reason. He wanted a vanguard, but a weird one in which members are more concerned with philosophy than the real advancement of socialism. Trotsky could blabber on and on forever about "deformed worker's states" and permanent revolution, but Stalin was the one who actually led the largest nation in the world, defeated fascism, saved a Party that was breaking apart, and made the Soviet Union the second most powerful nation on the planet.

[daft punk]

Strong vanguards exist for a reason; Trosky just didnt get the reason. He wanted a vanguard, but a weird one in which members are more concerned with philosophy than the real advancement of socialism. Trotsky could blabber on and on forever about "deformed worker's states" and permanent revolution, but Stalin was the one who actually led the largest nation in the world, defeated fascism, saved a Party that was breaking apart, and made the Soviet Union the second most powerful nation on the planet.

Ok, that was a nice story, but this is what happened:

1924-8. Stalin gets control, does the exact opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised. Lenin and Trotsky said tax the rich to keep them down, use the money to build industry and to subsidise coops for the poor peasants. Stalin did the opposite and kicked Trotsky out.

1928 Events prove Trotsky right on everything - China, the economy. Stalin faces massive problems. He admits nothing, but is forced to embark on the collectivisation Trotsky had advocated. Juts a year earlier the fuckwit had been talking about denationalising the land!

1928-34 the Third Period. Stalin is forced to collectivise, as Trotsky predicted, by kulak uprisings an shortfalls in the economy. He does it too late, too quickly, very brutally, in the wrong ways (remember they were advised to entice the poor peasants into coops via subsidies). And for the wrong reasons, ie to save his ass.

1934. Stalinist policies means the Nazis are in power. Trotsky gives up on the Comintern and says the Russian workers need to start building a new party.

1934-8 Stalin kills a million kulaks, ethnic minorities and socialists. He sabotages the revolution in Spain, continues supporting the vicious communist murdering Chiang Kai-shek.

1945. Stalinist parties are advised to stick to Two Stages, building capitalism hand in hand with the mythical progressive bourgeoisie, who turn out to be mythical. In Poland they dont even exist, the Nazis killed them. Just like Stalin killed the Polish Communists.

[Omsk]

And what happened from 1938-1945?

The Nazis flew to the moon?

[Rooster]

And what happened from 1938-1945?

The Nazis flew to the moon?

Well, during the first part, the bureaucracy instigated a harsh policy of labour discipline where pregnant women, the sick and women without child support, were sent to courts, fined and jailed all for the sake of productivity and if you notice, there was no mention about doing this to help combat the nazis at all, considering you know, the whole hitler-stalin pact. Then you know, the whole disastrous thing called Operation Barbarossa happened.

And yes, Stalin defeated the nazis all by himself but he had no control over all of those people who were innocently killed during his reign. I guess one point of having omnipotence is that you can choose when to have it.

[Omsk]

there was no mention about doing this to help combat the nazis at all

Except it was all done just for that cause - the fight against Hitler.


considering you know, the whole hitler-stalin pact.

Too bad the pact was one of the best political and dimplomatic decisions of the whole period.Without the pact,the Nazis might have won,and the "allies" would have succeeded in their mission.



Then you know, the whole disastrous thing called Operation Barbarossa happened.




Fighting the worlds most powerful war mechanism is quite easy,right?


And you failed to mention how the Soviets turned the course of the war from a total defeat to a complete victory over the Nazis?


And yes, Stalin defeated the nazis all by himself

Maybe in your faulty Trotsykite logic.
He was in charge of the defense,with other generals,and due to a huge number of his decisions,[and orders of the day] many battles were won,and he could take as much credit as the best Soviet generals.


but he had no control over all of those people who were innocently killed during his reign.

Where did i note such a thing.,