Help me please?

[The Cheshire Cat]

In about two weeks from now, I have to hand-write an essay, about 5 pages long in 3 hours, about a historical figure from the 19th or 20th century. Ofcourse I wanted to choose someone who played an important role in the communist history; Stalin. I am still allowed to change though, so if someone has a better idea please tell me.

But here comes the question. Since my class and teacher are capitalists, I want to write an essay that shows what communism really is. I can play this two ways now: choose the 'Stalinist' approach and tell the good things about the USSR, like free healthcare and housing, full employment and how many people miss the USSR.

I could also choose the Trotskyist approach, saying that Stalin was not a communist and that real socialism has never been achieved in history of mankind. Also, I need two read 2 books as sources.

Any suggestions on how to show the best side of communism and about two books? Personally I prefer the Trotskyist way, since I'm not a Stalinist, but how would you play this?

[piet11111]

I would write about someone else so that you wont make things more difficult for yourself then it needs to be to get a good grade.

Odds are likely that by choosing such a controversial figure that your grade will suffer for it if your teacher is a dick.

Also Marx was from the 19th century he wouldn't be so controversial as stalin would be.

[NorwegianCommunist]

You should do what you feel like, but my suggestion is that you choose Josef Stalin!
Like you said, he provided warmth, housing, free healthcare and work for everybody!
He was a hero and a role model for all the communist across the world.

You should write everything that Stalind did, because he built USSR to a even more stronger and better country then it was before he took over.
Brag about all the good things that he did, so that your teacher also learns from what you write.
5 pages is actually too little to write about Josef Stalin.

I wish you the best of luck on that essay and if the teacher gives you a bad grade just because he is a capitalist; complain to the principal etc ;)

[The Young Pioneer]

I agree with piet. Either write on Marx or write about a less-controversial, less infamous, figure.

Not sure many people have heard of Hoxha so that'd probably be safe.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I would write about someone else so that you wont make things more difficult for yourself then it needs to be to get a good grade.

Odds are likely that by choosing such a controversial figure that your grade will suffer for it if your teacher is a dick.

Also Marx was from the 19th century he wouldn't be so controversial as stalin would be.

Don't worry about the grades, my teacher is a nice guy, though he might give me a lower grade because he thinks I am partially lying to him. But even then it would not matter, since my other grades are really good, so a low grade would not make a real difference.

The thing is that capitalists never say communism is bad because Marx was a bloody dicator, but they say it is bad because Stalin was a bloody dictator (their words, not mine). So if I want to convince them, I have to choose a controversial figure.

[Caj]

Since my class and teacher are capitalists, I want to write an essay that shows what communism really is. I can play this two ways now: choose the 'Stalinist' approach and tell the good things about the USSR, like free healthcare and housing, full employment and how many people miss the USSR.

I could also choose the Trotskyist approach, saying that Stalin was not a communist and that real socialism has never been achieved in history of mankind. Also, I need two read 2 books as sources.

I'd take the Trotskyist approach. If you want to show "what communism really is", taking a pro-Stalinist position isn't going to be helpful. You'd just be perpetuating the myth that free healthcare, housing, and full employment equal socialism.

If you do choose the Trotskyist approach, perhaps one of the books you read could be Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed. If you choose the Stalinist approach, maybe Stalin's Foundations of Leninism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why don't you just try and take a relatively non-biased academic approach to the topic?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You have two weeks? Ok, if you want to go with the Trotskyist approach (which I would advise) read this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm

Summary, if you don't wanna read all that

http://www.trotsky.net/revolution_betrayed.html

If you can spend most of the day reading, you can finish it in about 3 days. You'll be glad you did.That will be a start. The Trotskyist view is that elements of socialism can and did exist-early Soviet Russia, Spain, and elsewhere. The problem is that whenever socialism has been attempted its been viciously attacked. Russia after the Revolution was invaded by a dozen countries and had a viscous civil war, with 21 governments on what had been Russian territory. The country was devastated, the economy setback decades, and the working class virtually destroyed. The Bolsheviks were counting on help from a successful revolution in Germany. There was a German revolution, but tragically it failed.

The question the Bolsheviks then faced was, "what the hell do we do now?" That was the context for the battle between Stalin and the Left opposition.

The Revolution became degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship.

You might want to browse though the theory section of the main Trotskyist groups

http://www.socialistworld.net/view/19

http://www.marxist.com/

http://www.socialistaction.org/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1967/party.htm

This might seem like a lot to read but its possible to get though this in a day or so.

Trotsky's autobiography. Its a quick read and very good

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/

If you have time I could recommend
http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Armed-Trotsky-1879-1921-Vol/dp/1859844413


Issac Deutscher's bio of the Old Man. Its an intense read and would take about 3 weeks to get though. It is controversial among Trotskyists, Deutscher has been accused of being a "back door Stalinist". Still, for me its been among the most awesome books I've ever read.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I'd take the Trotskyist approach. If you want to show "what communism really is", taking a pro-Stalinist position isn't going to be helpful. You'd just be perpetuating the myth that free healthcare, housing, and full employment equal socialism.

If you do choose the Trotskyist approach, perhaps one of the books you read could be Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed. If you choose the Stalinist approach, maybe Stalin's Foundations of Leninism.

Thank you for your answer, I guess your right. I will order the book soon to see if it will help with my essay.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Why don't you just try and take a relatively non-biased academic approach to the topic?

I'm sorry but my knowledge of the English language is very basic:(
What exactly do you mean with that?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm sorry but my knowledge of the English language is very basic:(
What exactly do you mean with that?

that basing an academic work on a revleft tendency is not a good idea

[The Cheshire Cat]

You have two weeks? Ok, if you want to go with the Trotskyist approach (which I would advise) read this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm

Summary, if you don't wanna read all that

http://www.trotsky.net/revolution_betrayed.html

If you can spend most of the day reading, you can finish it in about 3 days. You'll be glad you did.That will be a start. The Trotskyist view is that elements of socialism can and did exist-early Soviet Russia, Spain, and elsewhere. The problem is that whenever socialism has been attempted its been viciously attacked. Russia after the Revolution was invaded by a dozen countries and had a viscous civil war, with 21 governments on what had been Russian territory. The country was devastated, the economy setback decades, and the working class virtually destroyed. The Bolsheviks were counting on help from a successful revolution in Germany. There was a German revolution, but tragically it failed.

The question the Bolsheviks then faced was, "what the hell do we do now?" That was the context for the battle between Stalin and the Left opposition.

The Revolution became degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship.

You might want to browse though the theory section of the main Trotskyist groups

http://www.socialistworld.net/view/19

http://www.marxist.com/

http://www.socialistaction.org/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1967/party.htm

This might seem like a lot to read but its possible to get though this in a day or so.

Thank you for your help, it is alot but that makes me happy since it will improve my essay. I will start reading it first thing in the morning:)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like, you could write the paper not from a specific approach, not with a point of view, not pro-Trotsky or pro-Stalin, just kind of a biography of Stalin and facts related to his life/rise to power, and mention what both his justifications for what he did was, as well as the criticisms that people have made against him. Hope that makes sense.

[piet11111]

So if I want to convince them, I have to choose a controversial figure.

But you will never be able to convince them about communism being right in a 5 page essay.

But maybe you should go with Engels and his experiences that made him write the condition of the working class in England.
As a man from a bourgeois background turning to communism because he was moved by the dreadful conditions of the english working class he would be a great example of how communism is a necessity for the people instead of just being a political choice.

And because old fred rarely gets any time in the spotlight besides being know as that guy that bankrolled marx.

[The Cheshire Cat]

It really isn't that important and is isn't really academic, since I'm only in High School. I do plan on making it a nice essay though. But why do you think it's wrong to base it on a Revleft tendency?

[Franz Fanonipants]

p.s. a five page hand written essay sounds like a nightmare

[Franz Fanonipants]

It really isn't that important and is isn't really academic, since I'm only in High School. I do plan on making it a nice essay though. But why do you think it's wrong to base it on a Revleft tendency?

because revleft tendency wars are the dumbest shit and not constructive/intellectual in any way

[The Cheshire Cat]

Like, you could write the paper not from a specific approach, not with a point of view, not pro-Trotsky or pro-Stalin, just kind of a biography of Stalin and facts related to his life/rise to power, and mention what both his justifications for what he did was, as well as the criticisms that people have made against him. Hope that makes sense.


Yes, that does make sense, but I'm afraid it would make little impression on my teacher that way. Like most teachers, he is often telling bad things about communism, saying that Lenin didn't like democracy and stuff. My goal is to make him think twice in the future before he says something like that. If I partially defend Stalin, he be less interested in the essence of the essay.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yes, that does make sense, but I'm afraid it would make little impression on my teacher that way. Like most teachers, he is often telling bad things about communism, saying that Lenin didn't like democracy and stuff. My goal is to make him think twice in the future before he says something like that. If I partially defend Stalin, he be less interested in the essence of the essay.

then write an essay where you aren't going to have to contend with reactionary bullshit from your teacher

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Detail the history of socialism with its "good" parts and its "bad" parts.Use hard concrete facts and compare to capitalist society. Forget about the tendency war.

[The Cheshire Cat]

But you will never be able to convince them about communism being right in a 5 page essay.

But maybe you should go with Engels and his experiences that made him write the condition of the working class in England.
As a man from a bourgeois background turning to communism because he was moved by the dreadful conditions of the english working class he would be a great example of how communism is a necessity for the people instead of just being a political choice.

And because old fred rarely gets any time in the spotlight besides being know as that guy that bankrolled marx.

I know I will not be able to convince him, but I feel like I have to give it a shot anyway. And I will think about writing about Engels, I just have to gather some more info on him.

P.S
Why are 95 percent of all important communist men born in a bourgeoisie background?

[NorwegianCommunist]

I'd take the Trotskyist approach. If you want to show "what communism really is", taking a pro-Stalinist position isn't going to be helpful.

Stalin was a real communist. He was a hero for the Soviet people.
Trotsky would be a bad choice for the essay.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ummm..Trotskyism isn't just a "revleft tendency". The Trotskyist movement is, in western countries, whether one agrees with it or not, the largest revolutionary socialist movement today.The CWI and SWP in the UK, the CWI is the largest communist group in Iceland, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Hong Kong

[The Cheshire Cat]

then write an essay where you aren't going to have to contend with reactionary bullshit from your teacher

No, I don't think he is anti-communist or something, so maybe, if I confront him, I will be able to change his mind in favor of communism. If all history teachers were communist, this would be a far better world.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Detail the history of socialism with its "good" parts and its "bad" parts.Use hard concrete facts and compare to capitalist society. Forget about the tendency war.

I'm not really planning on going Trotskyism all the way, but I think that, when you tell the hard facts about Stalin, you will sound like a Trotskyist real quick.

[Ostrinski]

I would only go with Stalin if he's someone you already know a lot about. If not, then I'd choose someone less controversial.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No, I don't think he is anti-communist or something, so maybe, if I confront him, I will be able to change his mind in favor of communism. If all history teachers were communist, this would be a far better world.

as a communist history teacher, i'll let you in on something: he will not be changed.


P.S
Why are 95 percent of all important communist men born in a bourgeoisie background?

thats because focusing on individual men in the 19th and early 20th century will more often than not give you guys born in a bourgeois background

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ummm..Trotskyism isn't just a "revleft tendency". The Trotskyist movement is, in western countries, whether one agrees with it or not, the largest revolutionary socialist movement today.The CWI and SWP in the UK, the CWI is the largest communist group in Iceland, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Hong Kong

i'm glad to know about the relevance of trotskyite politics

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not really planning on going Trotskyism all the way, but I think that, when you tell the hard facts about Stalin, you will sound like a Trotskyist real quick.

dutchhighschool.txt

[piet11111]

I know I will not be able to convince him, but I feel like I have to give it a shot anyway. And I will think about writing about Engels, I just have to gather some more info on him.

Seems to be the best bet and Engels would be very hard to refute if you emphasize the british working class living conditions and how Engels was shocked by it.


P.S
Why are 95 percent of all important communist men born in a bourgeoisie background?

Because the working class where being worked to death in the factory's from their early teens having little to no education and no time to read or otherwise develop themselves between work sleep and eating and of course that bane of all existence church.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its a five page essay? Perhaps you could try to describe what socialism is, the general Marxist view of the working class democratically running society. Then several paragraphs about Trotsky's life. The was a debate and symbiosis between the thought of Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky's major accomplishments were the "Theory of Permanent Revolution" and "The Theory of Combined and Uneven Development" This sounds like a lot but its actually easy. Wikipedia explains this. Anyway Trotsky's ideas changed Lenin's view of whether Russia was ready to move beyond capitalism into socialism.

After that you may want to describe the horrible situation Russia faced after the Civil War. Then the power struggle after Stalin turned the Communist Party into his own patronage system with t6he "Lenin levy"

This might seem over whelming but it can go fast.

You shouldn't have to order books, you could probably find what you need on the Marxist Internet Archive.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm not really planning on going Trotskyism all the way, but I think that, when you tell the hard facts about Stalin, you will sound like a Trotskyist real quick.

I meant more tell the hard facts about socialism-forget about Stalin and Trotsky.Be critical of Stalin and Trotsky and take the route of describing the history of world socialism; how it developed,the reactions of imperialists, its contributions and theories. This will more than fill your five pages.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I'm afraid I cant do it about communism in general. I has to be about a specific person and his life only.

[The Cheshire Cat]

You shouldn't have to order books, you could probably find what you need on the Marxist Internet Archive.

I have to order books, it's part of the essay. Besides, I would rather read books that articles on the internet anyway.

[The Cheshire Cat]

dutchhighschool.txt

I'm sorry, but what do you mean exactly?:confused:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm afraid I cant do it about communism in general. I has to be about a specific person and his life only.

Ah, I see, sorry, I must have missed that part.

In such case I would simply write about Lenin.Other than that Marx would be a good bet.

[The Cheshire Cat]

as a communist history teacher, i'll let you in on something: he will not be changed.

Are you sure? Because he does seem to like an old Socialist dutch parliament member. Mainly because they were born in the same city, but still. It's a start.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Ah, I see, sorry, I must have missed that part.

In such case I would simply write about Lenin.Other than that Marx would be a good bet.

I think Lenin is a nice subject also. He doesn't seem to be very fond of Lenin so maybe I could change his view on him a little bit. About Marx I know little, same as with Engels I'm afraid.

[piet11111]

I have to order books, it's part of the essay.


Can they force you to buy physical copy's of books ?
Why not use free E-books ?


Besides, I would rather read books that articles on the internet anyway.

Can't disagree with you there.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I would only go with Stalin if he's someone you already know a lot about. If not, then I'd choose someone less controversial.

Currently I'm reading a book about him, Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia by Robert something, and I have another unread book lying here in my book collection, so when I'm done with these two I hope to know something about him.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Can they force you to buy physical copy's of books ?
Why not use free E-books ?

Well, it's not exactly forcing, but it is the same with the calculator for my maths class. They don't care wether you have one or not, but if you fuck up the tests because you don't want to spent 120 euro's on a decent calculator, you will have to face the consequenses. So essentially you don't really have a choice.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If you want to write about Engels (might be a bit easier, to be honest) and you have to order a book

http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-General-Revolutionary-Friedrich-Engels/dp/080509248X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329604186&sr=1-1

This is very good.

As far as the Marxist Internet archive, they have entire books there, not just articles.Most of the major Marxist classics are there.

[The Cheshire Cat]

If you want to write about Engels (might be a bit easier, to be honest) and you have to order a book

http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-General-Revolutionary-Friedrich-Engels/dp/080509248X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329604186&sr=1-1

This is very good.

As far as the Marxist Internet archive, they have entire books there, not just articles.Most of the major Marxist classics are there.

Thanks for the link, I will Take a look at the book to see if engels is interesting enough to write 5 pages about:)

And for the internet archives, I just cant concentrate enough to read full length books online. Besides, I like the feeling of paper pages between my fingers, and books often smell nice. Like wisdom, almost:)

[Ismail]

P.S
Why are 95 percent of all important communist men born in a bourgeoisie background?There are lots of proletarian-born communists who contributed to revolution or to otherwise working-class struggles. Ernst Thälmann is a good example. Even Albania had a few leading communists of humble backgrounds in the 1930's, notably Pilo Peristeri (a tinsmith), while some others were carpenters, a shoemaker's apprentice, a tailor's apprentice, etc.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I'd personally pick Lenin, or portray Stalin In his Marxist-Leninist context. Westerners have been taught that Stalin was a corrupt, incompetent, and murderous figure, which is far from true, so I suggest you try to disprove these things.

Use the 1936 Constitution as evidence of what Stalin really stood for.
Use the Roy Howard-Stalin interview.
Use demographics of death rates in the USSR under Stalin, and compare it to the British Empire at the time.
Use Grover Furr's Krutschev Lied as a source, and use tons of quotes that either Stalin said or what others said about him.
Point out the economic and social benefits the Stalin developed.
Disregard 1984 as Liberal garbage/Trotskyist Revisionism.:D
Use Stalin's daughter's, Kaganovich's,and Molotov's memoirs as sources that will discredit opposition against him.
Show as much Demographic evidence as possible, and as many credible sources as possible. Attack generalizations about Stalin as opinion-filled, and baseless. Blame Krutschev and the Cold War for the current picture of Stalin.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Disregard 1984 as Liberal garbage/Trotskyist Revisionism.:D


@OP: Don't even mention 1984 or Animal Farm unless you are talking about the divide between socialists and communists.Even if you do go with this part keep it short and concise as neither really have much to do with any historical figure directly (not unless you are writing about Orwell...).

[GoddessCleoLover]

Based upon your characterization of the teacher, I recommend avoiding Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, and writing your essay on Rosa Luxemburg.

[Crux]

I'd
Use Grover Furr's Krutschev Lied as a source
:laugh: I forget what is Furr's academic credentials in this field again?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Teaches English Literature. Makes sense that his credentials are in the field of fiction as fiction seems to be his strong suit.

[Ismail]

:laugh: I forget what is Furr's academic credentials in this field again?Who cares? Does anyone ask what the academic credentials of Tony Cliff, Ted Grant, James P. Cannon, Gerry Healy, David North, and all sorts of other prominent Trotskyists are? They've certainly written a lot on all sorts of subjects from math to history in the form of articles and published books.

Grover Furr has been a professor for over 30 years and has published books in Russia alongside prominent Russian personalities and academics. He clearly has wide access to all sorts of sources in English, Russian and some other languages on various aspects of Soviet history. No one has ever claimed that Grover Furr is a historian, just like no one claims the aforementioned Trots are. It's still amusing though that it is the "Stalinists" who tend to actually have some basic academic credentials in the first place. Besides Furr, Ludo Martens (an actual honest-to-god trained historian) comes to mind.

As Furr noted against David Horowitz's claims against him:

The "qualifications" game is nonsense. Every faculty member has to develop and teach courses outside his area of specialty.

The real, valid questions to ask include these:

Has the professor thoroughly prepared his course by studying the major research on the subject in question?
Does the professor attempt to be objective, reaching his conclusions according to the best evidence available?
Does the professor make explicit the underlying assumptions governing the differing viewpoints or perspectives expressed by experts on this subject?
Does the professor clearly state his own perspective; method, and presuppositions?
Does the professor encourage students to question all statements and viewpoints, including -- especially -- his own?

Neither Horowitz nor his "researcher", DiPippo, asked any of these questions about my teaching. In fact, neither of them ever interviewed a single student in any of my courses, or obtained a single complaint from any individual student!

Furthermore, Robert Conquest, the famous, anti-communist, and hugely dishonest historian of the USSR, is a poet. He has no academic degree in poetry or literature. Yet he has written about literature. Victor Davis Hansen, neo-con political commentator on any subject under the sun, is a Classicist.

What are THESE neocon liars' "qualifications"? Do Horowitz et al. complain that THEY are writing as "amateurs guided by political agendas"?

For that matter, what are Horowitz’s, or DiPippo’s, "qualifications"? They make basic, flagrant errors about Soviet history, and then accuse me of not agreeing with their nonsense.

I have done a great deal of research on the Vietnam War, and use the best research available. It is no mistake that the truth about the Vietnam War – truth as established by the best research – fails to support American and French imperialism in Vietnam.

Like "conservatives" generally, Horowitz and DiPippo are not interested in the truth.

[Drosophila]

Unless you feel like putting up with hundreds of contradicting documents about Stalin, choose someone else.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I dropped the idea of Stalin since he is simply too controversial and I have yet to make up my mind about him. I do want to choose a communist person that is a little controversial, though, just to annoy my teacher a little bit, so I'm thinking about Lenin right now. I might also go with Marx or Engels, but at this time I know very little about them so I will have to study alot and I don't have much time to learn about them.

Does anyone know 2 good books about Lenin which you can read in 2 weeks?

[Mr. Natural]

Student, I really, really appreciate the openness you bring to RevLeft. Many here are stoutly resistant to anything they haven't heard before despite being stuck in place within global capitalism.

Orwell would be a fascinating topic for you, and there is much material on him.

I have another suggestion. You Dutch have your own Marxist tradition. How about Anton Pannekoek and Dutch council communism? Pannekoek began as an astronomer and came to strongly advocate bottom-up forms of communism (as did Marx and Engels). In this, Pannekoek and others advocating workers' councils opposed Lenin, who they felt was dictatorial, and Lenin responded with Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

Pannekoek, as a scientist, came to advocate Machism, an idealist science that generated many bright but impractical ideas and was also opposed by Lenin. Pannekoek was also a major opponent of social Darwinism.

This exhausts my knowledge of Pannekoek and the council communists. Perhaps, whatever your choice of person, you would then gift us with a summary of your research.

It's almost red, red tulip time in Holland. My red-green best.

[daft punk]

In about two weeks from now, I have to hand-write an essay, about 5 pages long in 3 hours, about a historical figure from the 19th or 20th century. Ofcourse I wanted to choose someone who played an important role in the communist history; Stalin. I am still allowed to change though, so if someone has a better idea please tell me.

But here comes the question. Since my class and teacher are capitalists, I want to write an essay that shows what communism really is. I can play this two ways now: choose the 'Stalinist' approach and tell the good things about the USSR, like free healthcare and housing, full employment and how many people miss the USSR.

I could also choose the Trotskyist approach, saying that Stalin was not a communist and that real socialism has never been achieved in history of mankind. Also, I need two read 2 books as sources.

Any suggestions on how to show the best side of communism and about two books? Personally I prefer the Trotskyist way, since I'm not a Stalinist, but how would you play this?

Pretty straightforward. Try to explain the different viewpoints and the established facts.

Start with why the revolution happened, this is spelled out in In Defence Of October, a 10 minute read.

Explain that before April 1917 the Bolsheviks supported the Provisional Government, but Lenin had come to the same conclusion as Trotsky, that the revolution must take place.

Describe the civil war, war communism, the famine and the NEP.

Explain how Trotsky wanted to end the NEP and Stalin used this against him to get rid of him.

Then explain why Stalin was forced to adopt, in a crude way, Trotsky's plan to collectivise.

Mention the ensuing famine as collectivisation was forced through

Next, the purges.

you should mention the Third Period 1928-34 where Stalin's policies zigzagged to the 'left'. You should mention the rise of fascism.

After the war the countries set up in Eastern Europe were ostensibly run by coalitions attempting capitalism, but this failed. Or was it just a ruse to get satellite states?

Finally, when he snuffed it, Khruschev stuck the boot in and slated him for the purges and so on.

Tons to write about.

[daft punk]

Why don't you just try and take a relatively non-biased academic approach to the topic?

exactly, with a subtle Trotskyist undercurrent obviously (if you were non-biased you would end up in the Trot camp anyway)

ok here is one short thing you can read

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm


Thank you for your answer, I guess your right. I will order the book soon to see if it will help with my essay.

which book? Anyway, you can read them at marxists.org


Like, you could write the paper not from a specific approach, not with a point of view, not pro-Trotsky or pro-Stalin, just kind of a biography of Stalin and facts related to his life/rise to power, and mention what both his justifications for what he did was, as well as the criticisms that people have made against him. Hope that makes sense.

Exactly, try to give Stalin's reasons for the purges and assassinations, and the Trotskyist answer to them (that all charges were made up and false confessions extracted)

mention SIOC, popular fronts, the united front, two stage theory, permanent revolution, stagism. Google those therms.


But you will never be able to convince them about communism being right in a 5 page essay.


I dont think he should try


I know I will not be able to convince him, but I feel like I have to give it a shot anyway. And I will think about writing about Engels, I just have to gather some more info on him.

P.S
Why are 95 percent of all important communist men born in a bourgeoisie background?
easier to write about Stalin, much easier.


I'm not really planning on going Trotskyism all the way, but I think that, when you tell the hard facts about Stalin, you will sound like a Trotskyist real quick.

This is true, and try to avoid that by mentioning some Stalinist shit to balance it out, them critique the Stalinist stuff. Try to stay objective, factual, dont give too may opinions, but you can say you tend to believe the Trot line relative to the Stalinist one maybe. I mean for exmple, on the purges wikipedia says it is universally acknowledged that the charges were made up. It's not wrong to form an opinion.

[Omsk]

So he should read Trotsky's words on Stalin?

For a non-biased approach to the topic?


What?



@Student: You could mention how the USSR under his leadership saved millions who would perish under the Nazis.
Concentrate on the GPW.

If you want,i could give you a lot of information about his private life.

Ask away comrade,please.I'd like to help you.

[daft punk]

I'd personally pick Lenin, or portray Stalin In his Marxist-Leninist context. Westerners have been taught that Stalin was a corrupt, incompetent, and murderous figure, which is far from true, so I suggest you try to disprove these things.

Use the 1936 Constitution as evidence of what Stalin really stood for.

Yeah, because everyone know that what you write on a bit of paper is definitely gonna happen, like when Hitler said all his socialist-sounding soundbites.



Use the Roy Howard-Stalin interview.

good one, he says he is not trying to spread world revolution. Master of understatement.



Use demographics of death rates in the USSR under Stalin, and compare it to the British Empire at the time.

Yes, mention the millions purged and killed in Britain, the London Show Trials and whatnot. Mention the millions dead in famine in England. Only kidding. They didnt really happen.




Use Grover Furr's Krutschev Lied as a source, and use tons of quotes that either Stalin said or what others said about him.

This Furr Guy seems to be a right hardcore Stalinist.



Point out the economic and social benefits the Stalin developed.
which were due to the planned economy, despite being hampered by the Stalinist bureaucracy, but were eventually crushed by it.



Disregard 1984 as Liberal garbage/Trotskyist Revisionism.:D
Use Stalin's daughter's, Kaganovich's,and Molotov's memoirs as sources that will discredit opposition against him.

Use Stalin's wife's suicide, as she watched her friends disappearing one by one



Show as much Demographic evidence as possible, and as many credible sources as possible. Attack generalizations about Stalin as opinion-filled, and baseless. Blame Krutschev and the Cold War for the current picture of Stalin.

Yes, blame Khrushchev for the forced collectivisation, the purges, the sabotage of revolutions, the purges of communists (actually he was involved in it so you can do a bit).


I dropped the idea of Stalin since he is simply too controversial and I have yet to make up my mind about him. I do want to choose a communist person that is a little controversial, though, just to annoy my teacher a little bit, so I'm thinking about Lenin right now. I might also go with Marx or Engels, but at this time I know very little about them so I will have to study alot and I don't have much time to learn about them.

Does anyone know 2 good books about Lenin which you can read in 2 weeks?

Noooo! Stick to Uncle Joe!


So he should read Trotsky's words on Stalin?

For a non-biased approach to the topic?


What?



@Student: You could mention how the USSR under his leadership saved millions who would perish under the Nazis.
Concentrate on the GPW.

If you want,i could give you a lot of information about his private life.

Ask away comrade,please.I'd like to help you.
I'd like to help you. You need it. It was the Stalinists policies which allowed Hitler to take power in the first place. Did you forget that?

The Red Referendum - Stalinists form alliance with Nazis, Trostky says will go down in history as what not to do.
Social fascism, Stalinists refuse to join forces with another nominally Marxist party to block the fascists rise to power.

At the time the Nazis grew 700% to become second biggest party, the KPD says things are looking up because they have grown 40%.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Student, I really, really appreciate the openness you bring to RevLeft. Many here are stoutly resistant to anything they haven't heard before despite being stuck in place within global capitalism.

Orwell would be a fascinating topic for you, and there is much material on him.

I have another suggestion. You Dutch have your own Marxist tradition. How about Anton Pannekoek and Dutch council communism? Pannekoek began as an astronomer and came to strongly advocate bottom-up forms of communism (as did Marx and Engels). In this, Pannekoek and others advocating workers' councils opposed Lenin, who they felt was dictatorial, and Lenin responded with Leftwing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

Pannekoek, as a scientist, came to advocate Machism, an idealist science that generated many bright but impractical ideas and was also opposed by Lenin. Pannekoek was also a major opponent of social Darwinism.

This exhausts my knowledge of Pannekoek and the council communists. Perhaps, whatever your choice of person, you would then gift us with a summary of your research.

It's almost red, red tulip time in Holland. My red-green best.

Thank you for the compliment, I don't really know how to respond to it:)

As for Pannekoek (which means pancake, in case you didn't know. Just thought is was a fun fact), I know very little about him. My teacher mentioned him once or twice, but that's pretty much it, so I will probably not chose him, although I think he is an interesting subject to do some more research on.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Pretty straightforward. Try to explain the different viewpoints and the established facts.

Start with why the revolution happened, this is spelled out in In Defence Of October, a 10 minute read.

Explain that before April 1917 the Bolsheviks supported the Provisional Government, but Lenin had come to the same conclusion as Trotsky, that the revolution must take place.

Describe the civil war, war communism, the famine and the NEP.

Explain how Trotsky wanted to end the NEP and Stalin used this against him to get rid of him.

Then explain why Stalin was forced to adopt, in a crude way, Trotsky's plan to collectivise.

Mention the ensuing famine as collectivisation was forced through

Next, the purges.

you should mention the Third Period 1928-34 where Stalin's policies zigzagged to the 'left'. You should mention the rise of fascism.

After the war the countries set up in Eastern Europe were ostensibly run by coalitions attempting capitalism, but this failed. Or was it just a ruse to get satellite states?

Finally, when he snuffed it, Khruschev stuck the boot in and slated him for the purges and so on.

Tons to write about.

Thanks for your help, I can use this answer as some sort of skeleton for my essay, with some changes ofcourse.

[The Cheshire Cat]

So he should read Trotsky's words on Stalin?

For a non-biased approach to the topic?


What?



@Student: You could mention how the USSR under his leadership saved millions who would perish under the Nazis.
Concentrate on the GPW.

If you want,i could give you a lot of information about his private life.

Ask away comrade,please.I'd like to help you.

Thank you, I would apreciate the information on his private life. I think it will be useful for my essay and to understand more about him.
Do you have a link of some sort, or should I ask more specific questions?

[The Cheshire Cat]

Yeah, because everyone know that what you write on a bit of paper is definitely gonna happen, like when Hitler said all his socialist-sounding soundbites.


good one, he says he is not trying to spread world revolution. Master of understatement.


Yes, mention the millions purged and killed in Britain, the London Show Trials and whatnot. Mention the millions dead in famine in England. Only kidding. They didnt really happen.



This Furr Guy seems to be a right hardcore Stalinist.

which were due to the planned economy, despite being hampered by the Stalinist bureaucracy, but were eventually crushed by it.


Use Stalin's wife's suicide, as she watched her friends disappearing one by one



Yes, blame Khrushchev for the forced collectivisation, the purges, the sabotage of revolutions, the purges of communists (actually he was involved in it so you can do a bit).



Noooo! Stick to Uncle Joe!


I'd like to help you. You need it. It was the Stalinists policies which allowed Hitler to take power in the first place. Did you forget that?

The Red Referendum - Stalinists form alliance with Nazis, Trostky says will go down in history as what not to do.
Social fascism, Stalinists refuse to join forces with another nominally Marxist party to block the fascists rise to power.

At the time the Nazis grew 700% to become second biggest party, the KPD says things are looking up because they have grown 40%.


Thabk you for the information, I have to give my subject to my teacher in 10 min. and I will say Stalin because of all the extra help I suddenly can get on this subject.

About the deaths in de British Empire, millions did die in the British colonies in Africa and in countries in Asia under British control. And think about the Gaza conflict, which is partially caused by GB since they gave parts of Palestine, which was under their control, to the Zionists.

But again, thanks for the help.

[The Cheshire Cat]

My essay is now officialy about Stalin. I've got some more information from the teacher about the essay, and now I have to come up with 1 main question and several secundairy questions about Stalin, like: Who was Stalin, What is stalinism, etc. Does anyone have some good suggestions?

[daft punk]

Yeah, "who was Stalin", secondary questions, what was "Stalinism" and why did he kill Trotsky? Was it personal?

You could have a very brief bit about his early life.

I think you need to bear in mind two things:

1. Stalin evolved, so Stalinism emerged gradually from 1924 to 1936.

2. To explain what Stalin and Stalinism was all about you can compare him to his arch enemy Trotsky, and their mutual leader Lenin.

Basically Stalin had no special theory, he reacted to events in particular ways.

To summarise the essence, I would say (and maybe dont put this so bluntly in the essay) Stalin was the personification of the objective conditions at the time. What he did and said reflected what was happening.

For a great example of this, here is Trotsky explaining the same phenomenon re Hitler

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

Just read the first couple of paragraphs or so, you will get a good feel for the Marxist view on how 'great men' are thrown up by history itself. 'Great men' of course are not great in the every day sense, they play big historical roles.

So, what were the objective conditions?

Well, the revolution was isolated, in a backward country, and basic Marxism says socialist economy is gonna be more or less impossible to set up. But of course you have to try.

The Bolsheviks had set up the NEP as a temporary retreat, a partial privatisation of the economy. Lenin wanted to halt the retreat. He didnt want sudden forced collectivisation or anything, he wanted a nice gradual winning over of the poor peasants into cooperatives via subsidies, funded by taxing the rich.

This is basically where Trotsky fell out with Stalin, see my thread called Platform of the Opposition, if you havent already seen it, and read the Intro at least .

Then you should have a pretty clear picture of the split between the Left Opposition and Stalin's regime.

Stalin's ally on the right was Bukharin.

Zinoviev and Kamenev initially sided with Stalin for a couple of years, went over to Trotsky, and then in 1927 when Trotsky was being kicked out they both capitulated to Stalin and turned on Trotsky. I think they were just scared of Stalin tbh.

Have a read of the thread on forced collectivisation, it's not long.


Bear in mind the following:

1928-34 the Third Period - Stalin takes a sharp turn to an ultraleft position, in appearance anyway. This ends with the Nazis coming to power in germany and Trotsky gives up on the Comintern as a dead loss.

Then the Purge, the Moscow Trials. And the sabotage of the revolution in Spain.

See Vadim Rovovin re the purge (2 books) and on Spain, Antony Beevor and Felix Morrow. I know you wont have time to read them but at least look them up.

[daft punk]

Do you understand why the NEP was set up? This is key.

[Omsk]

I'd like to help you. You need it. It was the Stalinists policies which allowed Hitler to take power in the first place. Did you forget that?

The Red Referendum - Stalinists form alliance with Nazis, Trostky says will go down in history as what not to do.
Social fascism, Stalinists refuse to join forces with another nominally Marxist party to block the fascists rise to power.

At the time the Nazis grew 700% to become second biggest party, the KPD says things are looking up because they have grown 40%.

What is going on here?Why are just creating strawman arguments?

+ Thats the worst analyisis i'v ever read on RevLeft.The most -non- Marxist thing i saw.(Well,i guess thats the Trotskyite way of thinking,if something is wrong - Blame it on Stalin)

And i think you need help to overcome your problem of mindless line repeating.

@Student: just ask more specific questions.

[daft punk]

"I'd like to help you. You need it. It was the Stalinists policies which allowed Hitler to take power in the first place. Did you forget that?

The Red Referendum - Stalinists form alliance with Nazis, Trostky says will go down in history as what not to do.
Social fascism, Stalinists refuse to join forces with another nominally Marxist party to block the fascists rise to power.

At the time the Nazis grew 700% to become second biggest party, the KPD says things are looking up because they have grown 40%. "




What is going on here?Why are just creating strawman arguments?

+ Thats the worst analyisis i'v ever read on RevLeft.The most -non- Marxist thing i saw.(Well,i guess thats the Trotskyite way of thinking,if something is wrong - Blame it on Stalin)

And i think you need help to overcome your problem of mindless line repeating.

@Student: just ask more specific questions.

All these words, but what are you saying? There is nothing of substance here. You say I am creating strawmen but give no reasons or examples. A strawman is misrepresenting your opponents position. What have I misrepresented, in your mind?

I'm obviously not saying the KPD deliberately helped the fascists into power, even they weren't that stupid.

Let me ask you three questions

1. Do you think that the ultra-sectarian policies of the KMT at the time helped? The KPD broke away from an alliance with the SPD just at the worst possible time, when fascism was on the rise. Do you think that the millions of workers who voted social democrat were 'social fascists'? If it was true, why did the KPD later try to unite with the SPD as Trotsky had advised all along? By then it was too late. Do you think Trotsky was right when he waned that the fascists would crush the workers movement unless the workers movement united? (Clue - they didnt unite and the workers movement was crushed)

"Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern) (Comintern) during the early 1930s, which believed that social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) was a variant of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) because, in addition to a shared corporatist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) economic model, it stood in the way of a complete and final transition to communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

"Trotsky's criticism Leon Trotsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky) argued against the accusations of "Social Fascism". In the Bulletin of the Opposition of March 1932 he declared:
"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"For a Workers' United Front Against Fascism B.O. No. 32 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm) However, in the same essay, Trotsky made it clear that any cooperation with the social democrats was only tactical and temporary, and that in the final analysis, the social democracy would have to be defeated and subverted by the revolutionary faction:"

2. The fascist and communists had a brief alliance in 1931. Do you support working with fascists? Against a nominally Marxist party? Or was Trotsky right when he said it would go down in history as what not to do? Here is some reading on this:
"As late as mid-July, the majority of the Central Committee of the KPD rejected suggestions that the party should take part in the referendum campaign alongside the Nazis and against the Social Democrats. However, on 22 July, under pressure from the ECCI and Stalin himself, the KPD joined the anti-Social Democratic front. The KPD said it would transform the campaign into a ‘Red Plebiscite’. [26] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1993/trotsky4/05-nazis.html#n26)"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1993/trotsky4/05-nazis.html#p3

3. The KPD said things were looking up when the Nazis grew 700%. Do you think that was a wise perspective, just because the KPD had grown 40%? Does not the former outweigh the latter mathematically by many times?

4. What do you think of Trotsky's claim that after this fiasco of historic proportions, the Comintern failed to admit or analyse mistakes? This was what really pissed him off, it's bad enough making terrible mistakes, but to then just gloss over the destruction of the German workers movement, once the best hope of world socialist revolution, it just unforgivable.


Ok thats more than three. Please answer them anyway, in detail, with examples and links, solid evidence, and if you want any support from me I can try to do that also (provide evidence for what I have said that is). The only thing I'm not sure of off the top of my head is where the KPD said things were looking up at the time the Nazis grew 700%, but I'm sure the people who wrote that knew what they were on about. Everything else is easily verified.

For a timeline of the rise of fascism, the KPD's policies, and Trotsky's analysis go here:

Leon Trotsky on

THE RISE OF HITLER
AND DESTRUCTION OF THE GERMAN LEFT



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm

includes interviews, election results etc


1928 May: Reichstag elections (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/elect.htm#a285) return the SPD to cabinet with Chancellor Hermann MÜller. KPD get a third of the SPD’s vote (Nazis get less than a tenth). This SPD leadership is further right than before and opts for something called the Great Coalition—including the People’s Party—and holds power for about two years.
Meanwhile, the Comintern adopts the ultra-left doctrine of the Third Period and something called social fascism. The doctrine says the collapse of the world’s capitalist nations is supposedly following a handy pattern:



The First Period (1917-1924): Capitalist crisis and revolutionary upsurge;
The Second Period (1925-1928): Capitalist stability;
The Third Period (now): Capitalist crises return and proles are ready to rise up again.

The Comintern concludes it’s time to end Second Period collaboration with Social Democrats (and their powerful working class base). In the case of Germany, it means these SPD workers are really just “social fascists,” a sort of left wing of fascism.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Yeah, "who was Stalin", secondary questions, what was "Stalinism" and why did he kill Trotsky? Was it personal?

I'm sorry, but I don't really know wether your being sarcastic here or not.


1928-34 the Third Period - Stalin takes a sharp turn to an ultraleft position, in appearance anyway. This ends with the Nazis coming to power in germany and Trotsky gives up on the Comintern as a dead loss.

Why did Trotsky give up on the Comintern here? Just because they wanted the KPD to see the SPD as their enemies? (and thus making the rise of fascism even easier?)


And the sabotage of the revolution in Spain.

How exactly did he sabotage it?

[Omsk]

All these words, but what are you saying? There is nothing of substance here. You say I am creating strawmen but give no reasons or examples. A strawman is misrepresenting your opponents position. What have I misrepresented, in your mind?



I expressed myself in a wrong way,what i wanted to say is that you used a completely non-Marxist method of describing and analizing events;Hitler rose to power because of Stalin?Stalin was not in the position to do something like that,common single men cant change history to such an extent.

And as i thought,you flew to a discussion i am not interested in,and you started your rant,and i really dont plan to answer the points you raised,as we are not talking about the pre-war strategy of the KPD.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Do you understand why the NEP was set up? This is key.

Not really sure anymore, first I thought it was a tactical retreat made up by Lenin.

But now you say it was made up by the Bolsheviks and Lenin wanted to stop it?

So I know it was a tactical retreat and it gave birth to the NEPmen and that Stalin later made an end to the NEPmen with his purges, but I don't know much more than that.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Daft Punk (or anyone else) could you please consider answering the two series of questions I asked last? It might be important for my essay. Thank you.

[daft punk]

Not really sure anymore, first I thought it was a tactical retreat made up by Lenin.

But now you say it was made up by the Bolsheviks and Lenin wanted to stop it?

So I know it was a tactical retreat and it gave birth to the NEPmen and that Stalin later made an end to the NEPmen with his purges, but I don't know much more than that.

Yes, it was a tactical retreat. I dunno who first proposed it at the time, Trotsky had suggested it a year earlier but it was rejected at that time. I guess Lenin was a prime mover.

Lenin talked about 'halting the retreat' a year later in his speech to the 1922 Congress (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm). He didn't mean it suddenly ending, just for the Bolsheviks to be more positive, not to let the rich people get the upper hand.

I would say 2 key documents are that speech and Platform of the Opposition from 1927 in which Trotsky explains how Stalin has deviated from what Lenin wanted.

In particular, Lenin wanted the rich heavily taxed, so they did not get too powerful and challenge for power, and the money to be used for building industry and also subsidising co-operatives for poor peasants. This was a kinda backdoor way to socialism, enticing the peasants into communal farming. Stalin did none of that, he allowed the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor (read the intro to the Platform of the Opposition) and so with their wealth came desire for power, and it came to a head just after Trotsky was expelled.

[daft punk]

The purpose of the NEP was to kickstart agriculture, which was on its arse. There was a famine in fact. So it was to be a temporary freemarket to encourage the peasants to work hard and grow food.



Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2364932#post2364932)
"Yeah, "who was Stalin", secondary questions, what was "Stalinism" and why did he kill Trotsky? Was it personal? "

I'm sorry, but I don't really know wether your being sarcastic here or not.

No I was being serious




Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2364932#post2364932)
"1928-34 the Third Period - Stalin takes a sharp turn to an ultraleft position, in appearance anyway. This ends with the Nazis coming to power in germany and Trotsky gives up on the Comintern as a dead loss. "
Why did Trotsky give up on the Comintern here? Just because they wanted the KPD to see the SPD as their enemies? (and thus making the rise of fascism even easier?)

Well, the mistakes in Germany were terrible, and afterwards the Comintern didnt even bother to discuss it or admit any mistakes, so Trotsky finally wrote them off, bear in mind Stalin had been consolidating his dictatorship for 6 years. Trotsky was forced into exile in 1928, kicked off the Central Committee in 1926. His followers were terrorised from 1926.



Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2364932#post2364932)
"And the sabotage of the revolution in Spain. "
How exactly did he sabotage it?

have a quick read of this
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201

should only take 10 minutes.

[daft punk]

I expressed myself in a wrong way,what i wanted to say is that you used a completely non-Marxist method of describing and analizing events;Hitler rose to power because of Stalin?Stalin was not in the position to do something like that,common single men cant change history to such an extent.

And as i thought,you flew to a discussion i am not interested in,and you started your rant,and i really dont plan to answer the points you raised,as we are not talking about the pre-war strategy of the KPD.

Hitler got into power because the German workers were divided. The communists stopped working with the social democrats at precisely the wrong time. They called the social democrats 'social fascists', and even had a brief electoral pact with the Nazis!

[Ismail]

Hitler got into power because the German workers were divided. The communists stopped working with the social democrats at precisely the wrong time. They called the social democrats 'social fascists', and even had a brief electoral pact with the Nazis!To quote an older post of mine:

It is true that ultra-leftist errors were made, but at the same time these errors did not come into being because of the Comintern. ComradeOm (who does not like Stalin one bit) made good posts on this subject, noting that the KPD was always bound by sectarian errors. As ComradeOm once said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1099937&postcount=14), "Trotsky was also in power during the early twenties when the United Front strategy singularly failed to capitalise on turmoil in Germany during that crucial period. His own analysis of fascism also happens to pre-date the ComIntern's by a full two years. What a visionary"

And in another post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1154541&postcount=2):

With all that said and done I believe that the idea that the KPD and SPD could have made up and simply stopped Hitler to be a delusion born of desperation, sectarianism, and hindsight. These were two parties that had engaged in a bitter civil war not a decade previously and remained fiercely competitive rivals. Certainly the SPD could was hardly a natural ally for communists or socialists - the policy of social fascism makes far more sense when you consider that it followed the massacre of 33 workers by SPD police on May Day 1929 (Berlin's Bloody May)

That last point deserves stressing - social fascism was only adapted by the KPD in 1929. By this time there was a decade of mutual and unforgiving animosity between both 'Marxist' parties. Blame the KPD for its own undeniable failures but don't pretend that sectarianism on its part, or the puppet masters in Moscow, were the cause, or enablers, of Hitler's rise. If you must have a scapegoat then pick the decision of the SPD leadership to betray its working class support by taking the reigns of the bourgeois state and becoming an undeniable party of reactionAlso:

"A genuine misunderstanding within the ranks of the Comintern also existed. First, it did not consider seriously the possibility that conclusions could be drawn from the Italian experience. This was seen somehow as an event unique to backward, peripheral societies, and not to advanced, 'democratic' ones. Second, the Comintern on the whole tended to equate any military/authoritarian regime with fascism. Third, its dim view of social democracy as 'social fascist' was by no means new. It had used the term as early as 1924, prior to Stalin's ascendancy, when describing social democracy's role in bringing about post-war capitalist stabilization in Germany, and in doing so it had cooperated with the right-wing paramilitary Frei Korps.

Fourth, the German SPD was responsible for expelling KPD members from trade unions and killing 25 May Day demonstrators in Berlin, in 1929. Fifth, the Grand Coalition government headed by the Social Democratic Herman Müller was antagonistic towards the Soviet Union. Indeed, from a Soviet point of view the capitalist West had been hostile towards it since 1917, whatever the political hue of their governments. Sixth, while the Comintern's optimism about the rapid demise of Hitler was simplistic, this in part derived from an economism found in Marxism and Marx himself. Unemployment throughout the advanced capitalist countries had reached record levels, and few predicted that Hitler would be able to bring about a dramatic revival of the German economy...

However, even if [Trotsky's] united front recommendations, 'from above and below' were in fact implemented by a KPD leadership, the difficulties in achieving cooperation need acknowledgement. The SPD leadership had a deep distrust of the KPD, and treated the occasion offer of cooperation with a good deal of cynicism... A final obstacle to unity lay in a sociological fact: the overwhelming bulk of SPD members were relatively well-paid and unionized, while the KPD consisted largely of the unemployed."
(Jules Townshend. [I]The Politics of Marxism: The Critical Debates. New York: Leicester University Press. 1996. pp. 117-118.)

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2366993#post2366993)
"Hitler got into power because the German workers were divided. The communists stopped working with the social democrats at precisely the wrong time. They called the social democrats 'social fascists', and even had a brief electoral pact with the Nazis! "


To quote an older post of mine:

"It is true that ultra-leftist errors were made, but at the same time these errors did not come into being because of the Comintern. ComradeOm (who does not like Stalin one bit) made good posts on this subject, noting that the KPD was always bound by sectarian errors. As ComradeOm once said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1099937&postcount=14), "Trotsky was also in power during the early twenties when the United Front strategy singularly failed to capitalise on turmoil in Germany during that crucial period.

Er, what? Trotsky had some power in 1923 but he was blocked by Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev from going to Germany, and Stalin was opposed to any revolution. No the KPD wasn't always sectarian, they called off the revolution precisely because they couldn't get agreement from the social democrats.



His own analysis of fascism also happens to pre-date the ComIntern's by a full two years. What a visionary"

Two years is a long time in the period 1931-33. In September 1930 the Nazis increased their vote by 700%. The KPD paid no attention. Two and a bit years later the Nazis were in power and the German workers movement crushed as Trotsky had predicted.

Immediately after this election Trotsky wrote:

"The big bourgeoisie, making up a negligible part of the nation, cannot hold power without the support of the petty bourgeoisie of the city and the village, that is, of the remnants of the old, and the masses of the new, middle classes. In the present epoch, this support acquires two basic forms, politically antagonistic to each other but historically supplementary: Social Democracy and fascism."

"The big German bourgeoisie is vacillating at present; it is split up. Its disagreements are confined to the question: Which of the two methods of cure for the social crisis shall be applied at present? The Social Democratic therapy repels one part of the big bourgeoisie by the uncertainty of its results, and by the danger of too large levies (taxes, social legislation, wages). The surgical intervention of fascism seems to the other part to be uncalled for by the situation and too risky. In other words, the finance bourgeoisie as a whole vacillates in the evaluation of the situation, not seeing sufficient basis as yet to proclaim an offensive of its own “third period,” when the Social Democracy is unconditionally replaced by fascism, when, generally speaking, it undergoes a general annihilation for its services rendered. The vacillations of the big bourgeoisie – with the weakening of its basic parties – between the Social Democracy and fascism are an extraordinarily clear symptom of a prerevolutionary situation. With the approach of a real revolutionary situation, these vacillations will of course immediately come to an end."

Here, within days of the election Trotsky outlines how the big bourgeoisie can swing over to back fascism.

"Fascism in Germany has become a real danger, as an acute expression of the helpless position of the bourgeois regime, the conservative role of the Social Democracy in this regime, and the accumulated powerlessness of the Communist Party to abolish it Whoever denies this is either blind or a braggart."

"In 1923, Brandler [5], in spite of all our warnings, monstrously exaggerated the forces of fascism. From the wrong evaluation of the relationship of forces grew a hesitating, evasive, defensive, cowardly policy. This destroyed the revolution. Such events do not pass without leaving traces in the consciousness of all the classes of the nation. The overestimation of fascism by the Communist leadership created one of the conditions for its further strengthening. The contrary mistake, this very underestimation of fascism by the present leadership of the Communist Party, may lead the revolution to a more severe crash for many years to come."

Are you taking this in? A clear prophecy of the danger. Yet the KPD formed an alliance with the Nazis a few months later!







And in another post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1154541&postcount=2):
Quote:
With all that said and done I believe that the idea that the KPD and SPD could have made up and simply stopped Hitler to be a delusion born of desperation, sectarianism, and hindsight. These were two parties that had engaged in a bitter civil war not a decade previously and remained fiercely competitive rivals. Certainly the SPD could was hardly a natural ally for communists or socialists - the policy of social fascism makes far more sense when you consider that it followed the massacre of 33 workers by SPD police on May Day 1929 (Berlin's Bloody May)

That last point deserves stressing - social fascism was only adapted by the KPD in 1929. By this time there was a decade of mutual and unforgiving animosity between both 'Marxist' parties. Blame the KPD for its own undeniable failures but don't pretend that sectarianism on its part, or the puppet masters in Moscow, were the cause, or enablers, of Hitler's rise. If you must have a scapegoat then pick the decision of the SPD leadership to betray its working class support by taking the reigns of the bourgeois state and becoming an undeniable party of reaction "

Yeah, calling for a united front is sectarianism, right! If it is true that unity was hopeless, why did the KPD seek an alliance with the SPD at the last moment? Yes the SPD leaders were reactionary, but not all the workers were. Trotsky was not calling for a Popular Front but a temporary United one. It is so ironic to hear people (Stalinists) who support communists and capitalists in government together, saying that the communist and social democrat workers shouldn't have tried to temporarily unite to prevent the destruction of the German left by fascism.

Utterly horrendous that people blithely excuse these disastrous policies.





Also:

"A genuine misunderstanding within the ranks of the Comintern also existed. First, it did not consider seriously the possibility that conclusions could be drawn from the Italian experience. This was seen somehow as an event unique to backward, peripheral societies, and not to advanced, 'democratic' ones. Second, the Comintern on the whole tended to equate any military/authoritarian regime with fascism. Third, its dim view of social democracy as 'social fascist' was by no means new. It had used the term as early as 1924, prior to Stalin's ascendancy, when describing social democracy's role in bringing about post-war capitalist stabilization in Germany, and in doing so it had cooperated with the right-wing paramilitary Frei Korps.

Fourth, the German SPD was responsible for expelling KPD members from trade unions and killing 25 May Day demonstrators in Berlin, in 1929. Fifth, the Grand Coalition government headed by the Social Democratic Herman Müller was antagonistic towards the Soviet Union. Indeed, from a Soviet point of view the capitalist West had been hostile towards it since 1917, whatever the political hue of their governments. Sixth, while the Comintern's optimism about the rapid demise of Hitler was simplistic, this in part derived from an economism found in Marxism and Marx himself. Unemployment throughout the advanced capitalist countries had reached record levels, and few predicted that Hitler would be able to bring about a dramatic revival of the German economy...

However, even if [Trotsky's] united front recommendations, 'from above and below' were in fact implemented by a KPD leadership, the difficulties in achieving cooperation need acknowledgement. The SPD leadership had a deep distrust of the KPD, and treated the occasion offer of cooperation with a good deal of cynicism... A final obstacle to unity lay in a sociological fact: the overwhelming bulk of SPD members were relatively well-paid and unionized, while the KPD consisted largely of the unemployed."
(Jules Townshend. [I]The Politics of Marxism: The Critical Debates. New York: Leicester University Press. 1996. pp. 117-118.)

Blah blah blah. A lot of bits and pieces. Of course it wasnt in the bag or anything, it was complicated, historical animosity etc.

The fact is the Comintern ended the Second Period at exactly the wrong time, they had been cooperating with the SPD up to the point where the Nazis grew massively, well, just before, in 1928, before May 1929. And 25 dead is not quite as bad at the Nazis in power.

Trotsky, September 1930:

"What will the Communist Party “defend”? The Weimar Constitution? No, we will leave that task to Brandler. The Communist Party must call for the defense of those material and moral positions which the working class has managed to win in the German state. This most directly concerns the fate of the workers’ political organizations, trade unions, newspapers, printing plants, clubs, libraries, etc. Communist workers must say to their Social Democratic counterparts: “The policies of our parties are irreconcilably opposed; but if the fascists come tonight to wreck your organization’s hall, we will come running, arms in hand, to help you. Will you promise us that if our organization is threatened you will rush to our aid?” This is the quintessence of our policy in the present period. All agitation must be pitched in this key."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1930/300926.htm

Tell me you dont agree with that last statement in bold.

[Connolly Was There1916]

You should do what you feel like, but my suggestion is that you choose Josef Stalin!
Like you said, he provided warmth, housing, free healthcare and work for everybody!
He was a hero and a role model for all the communist across the world.

You should write everything that Stalind did, because he built USSR to a even more stronger and better country then it was before he took over.
Brag about all the good things that he did, so that your teacher also learns from what you write.
5 pages is actually too little to write about Josef Stalin.

I wish you the best of luck on that essay and if the teacher gives you a bad grade just because he is a capitalist; complain to the principal etc ;)

I am as left-wing as anyone but how can you describe Stalin as a hero and a role model despite how many people he had killed?

[Ismail]

I am as left-wing as anyone but how can you describe Stalin as a hero and a role model despite how many people he had killed?Depends on how they died.

Again, we're generally talking about unintended famines and "excesses" during the Great Purges. It isn't like, say, the Khmer Rouge where they systematically took people they didn't like and shot them for wearing glasses or whatever.

[Drosophila]

To change the psyche of your teacher and classmates, you don't need to jeopardize your grade by writing a paper on a controversial figure. I doubt anyone would care if you chose Marx or Engels.

[daft punk]

Depends on how they died.

Again, we're generally talking about unintended famines and "excesses" during the Great Purges. It isn't like, say, the Khmer Rouge where they systematically took people they didn't like and shot them for wearing glasses or whatever.

At least a million or several million were killed in the 1930s. And many were the best socialists. Most of the old Bolsheviks for example. This was very deliberate, to remove any chance of the population pushing the bureaucracy aside in favour of genuine democratic socialism.

Read this


Trepper was enrolled at the Marchlevski University, alongside the future leaders of the world’s communist parties, including Tito, where the students were lectured by Old Bolsheviks, like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin, the future victims of Stalin, who were already too well aware of their impending fate. Trepper remarks “When he (Bukharin) finished a lecture, he regularly received a veritable ovation – which he always greeted with a blank stare…One day, looking sadly over a roomful of students acclaiming him, he muttered, “Each time they applaud it brings me closer to my death.”
Trepper had arrived in the USSR in his own words “carrying the dreams of a neophyte. I was a young and an ardent communist…” but as he witnessed the rise of Stalin’s cult of the personality, the fake trials of “conspirators,” how “many militants publicly supported Stalin’s positions although they did not approve of them. This terrible hypocrisy accelerated the inner demoralisation of the party,” Trepper began to question the old certainties.
Lenin’s Testament, which had called for Stalin’s removal was being circulated amongst the students, but the completion of Stalin’s coup at the 17th Party Congress with the election of Kirov and Stalin, meant the pace of the incipient bureaucratism rapidly accelerated. The assassination of Kirov in 1934, probably the work of Stalin, was “Stalin’s Reichstag fire”, was the excuse for a general purge. The Old Bolsheviks were slaughtered on mass, Burkharin’s prophecy was fulfilled, forced to make tortured confessions, in mass show trials, before being dispatched with a bullet to the back of the head. No one felt safe.
No one was immune from the reach of the NKVD, Stalin’s secret police. Trepper describes how; “at night in our university…headlights would pierce the darkness… “They’re here! They’re here! When we heard that cry a wave of anxiety would run through the dormitories…stomachs knotted in insane terror, we would watch for the cars of the KNVD to stop… “They’re coming.” The noise got louder…shouts doors slamming. They went by without stopping. But what about tomorrow?”
Trepper was not alone in enduring the terror; “yet we went along sick at heart, but passive, caught up in machinery we had set in motion…all those who did not rise up against the Stalinist machine are responsible, collectively responsible. I am no exception to this verdict.”
Like most he was too lost to counter Stalin's assault on the party. A member from only the late 1920s onwards, he had neither the training, or experience to understand the political root of the degeneration of the revolution; “But who did protest…The Trotskyites can lay claim to that honour…let them not forget, however, that they had the enormous advantage over us of having a coherent political system capable of replacing Stalinism….they did not “confess,” for they knew that their confession would serve neither the party nor socialism.”
Trepper could witness the purges but without an alternative philosophy or explanation of its cause was powerless before it. But the next phase of the blood letting, was had the most personal effect on him.
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009

[Ismail]

The fact that the link describes Kirov's death as "probably the work of Stalin" demonstrates that it loyally follows the anti-communist line of events. I also like how figures like Bukharin are apparently the types to push for "genuine democratic socialism" as opposed to an influence on Tito, Deng and Gorbachev.

[daft punk]

The fact that the link describes Kirov's death as "probably the work of Stalin" demonstrates that it loyally follows the anti-communist line of events. I also like how figures like Bukharin are apparently the types to push for "genuine democratic socialism" as opposed to an influence on Tito, Deng and Gorbachev.

'Anti-communist line'! How can you say that without blushing? The only anti-communists are Stalin and his cronies. Trepper risked his life daily for the defence of the USSR.

And Kirov, well, Stalin had good reason to kill him, and his killing was used as a Reichstag fire, an excuse to kill thousands of the best communists. Stalin benefited from Kirov's death in many ways.

wiki:
"In Khrushchev's secret speech in 1956, Khrushchev laid the accusation that Stalin personally ordered Kirov's murder...."

I dont think it can actually be proven though.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Okay helpful people of Revleft, I have got more information on my assignement. I can't do it on just Stalin, that is too vague. So I have to pick one thing and make a question. For example: What was part his in the Revolution, How did he came to power, etc.

Besides the main question I also need secondary questions, that have something to do with the main question.
So, for example: 1. Main question: What was part his in the Revolution

2. Short biografie about Stalin

3. Secondary questions: 1. Was a revolutionairy or a soldier. 2. How did he get that rank. etc.

Does anyone have a good idea?

[Omsk]

I answered most of your questions by private messages.Ask me if you want more information,to prevent confusion and un-constructive conversations.(ie an argument with people who will rather debate than help you with the answers.)

[Grenzer]

The fact that the link describes Kirov's death as "probably the work of Stalin" demonstrates that it loyally follows the anti-communist line of events.

Isn't this a bit of an exaggeration? Is it merely anti-Soviet propagators espousing the idea of Kirov being assassinated with the consent of Stalin, or has it historically been pro-capitalist folk that have claimed this? I'd be curious to see some sources, if you know of any.

I will admit to not knowing enough on the subject matter to make a statement, but it's believable. The propagation of the myth of Ukrainian genocide has historically been made by those who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of communism.

[Omsk]

I just read a column by Roy Medvedev,(From his book,Let History Judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_History_Judge): The Origin and Consequences of Stalinism) and it was about the assassination of Sergei Kirov,and without being too surprised about the text,it did contain some important parts,namely,the rather quick acting of the NKVD ,on the 6th of December,the day Kirov was burried,the Soviet public masses were informed that all of the people accused are going to be executed.In Leningrad,some 39 people were host,while in Moscow,some 29 accused figures were shot.The next day,it was anounced that another 12 people in Minsk,(9 were shot) and 28 were arrested in Kiev,(28 of them,shot.) The NKVD was on high alert those days,as the situation was quite strange,as Kirov was the only man from the party assassinated after 1918.The fear of some party leaders was quite big,and many files were re-oppened.The Kirov murder was certainly the event of the year,if not,the entire period,as it saw a drastic change in Soviet policy toward conspirators.

However,the murder of Sergei Kirov is not so mysterious these days,and it is generally accepted that he was not murdered by 'Stalin and Stalinists' - and that such notions simply dont have a basis in historical facts.The Western obsession with the murder of Sergei Kirov mostly started around the 1980' - when a situation was created by right-wing anti-communists who tried to turn the entire case into a 'conspiracy' - and something they separated from reality and historical facts.

...Beginning in the 1980s other Western and Soviet historians also questioned the Stalin complicity theory , the origins of the story, and Stalin's motive and opportunity, as well as investigating the circumstances surrounding the event. They noted that the sources for the theory derived originally from memoirists, mostly Cold War-era Soviet defectors, whose information was second- and thirdhand and who were in all cases far removed from the event. These writers had generated a huge and sensational literature that largely repeated and echoed itself while providing few verifiable facts, and which sometimes seemed primarily designed to enhance the status and importance of the author. Later historians noted that despite at least two official Soviet investigations and the high-level political advantages of accusing Stalin in the Khrushchev years, even the most anti-Stalin Soviet administrations had never accused Stalin of the crime,...
[I](Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 143 )

...In fact, Kirov seems to have been a staunch Stalinist....
The question of Leningrad police complicity also seems murky. Recent evidence discounts the alleged connections between them and the assassin. One implicated NKVD official was not even in the city during the months he was supposed to have groomed the assassin. It is true that many Leningrad police officials and party leaders were executed in the terror after the assassination, but so were hundreds of thousands of others. There is no compelling reason to believe that they were killed "to cover the tracks" of the Kirov assassination, as Khrushchev put it. Moreover, they were left alive and free to talk for three years following the crime. Some historians have found it unlikely that Stalin would have used these agents to arrange the killing and then given them so much opportunity to betray the plot.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 144

You could also read this from : Molotov

Yagoda (through whom Stalin presumably worked to kill Kirov) was produced in open court and in front of the world press before his execution in 1938. Knowing that he was to be shot in any event, he could have brought Stalin's entire house of cards down with a single remark about the Kirov killing. Again, such a risk would appear to be unacceptable for a complicit Stalin.
The Stalinists seemed unprepared for the assassination and panicked by it.

Khrushchov hinted that Stalin had Kirov killed. There are some who still believe that story. The seeds of suspicion were planted. A commission was set up in 1956. Some 12 persons, from various backgrounds, looked through a welter of documents but found nothing incriminating Stalin. But these results have never been published.... The commission concluded that Stalin was not implicated in Kirov's assassination. Khrushchev refused to have the findings published since they didn't serve his purpose.
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 353

The work of a research group much later,also,revealed nothing.


An extensive review of the evidence carried out in 1990 at the behest of Gorbachev's advisor Yakovlev does not implicate Stalin [in the murder of Kirov]. Another explanation for Stalin's assault on party cadres was the rumor that the party faithful at the 17th Party Congress in 1934 had not voted overwhelmingly to elect Stalin to the party's central committee. The documents provided here show this not to be the case,...
Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 4


Now,another questions rises up every time,"Was Kirov some kind of an inovator and a reformist?" - No.In fact,he was more lenient (Although,there is evidence to suggest this is wrong also) than Stalin,but overall,the idea that he was more 'expirienced' than Stalin,more popular,or more profound in theory and action does not hold ground.While it can be said that he was a good orator,and that he knew his way with the masses,that does not count as a supreme qualification for a serious position.He was never good with theory,he may have been a 'man of the people' but his relationship with the masses was not much different than Stalin's.

Another thing that comes to my mind,is that Kirov and Stalin were pretty close,i would not say that they were 'friends' ,but they were not enemies too.This is suggested by a number of different people. :

If Stalin and Kirov were antagonists, it would be difficult to explain Kirov's continued rise. Stalin chose Kirov for the sensitive Leningrad party leadership position and trusted him with delicate "trouble-shooter" missions to supervise critical harvests (like Kirov's journey to Central Asia in 1934). Kirov was elected to the Secretariat and Politburo in 1934, and Stalin wanted him to move to the Central Committee Secretariat in Moscow as soon as possible. Unless one is prepared to believe that Stalin did not control appointments to the Secretariat and Politburo... one must assume that he and Kirov were allies.
Much more probable than a Kirov-versus-Stalin scenario is one in which Stalin, Kirov, and Zhdanov cooperated.
Getty, A. Origins of the Great Purges. Cambridge, N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985, p. 94

The entire question of Kirov's murder is quite unkown,as there was no evidence whatsoever,that Stalin was responsible for the murder of Kirov,and their relationship was explained by many,but also defined completely differently,from one page to the other they were hostile,they were friends,they were comrades,they were direct enemies,they were the best of friends.It is an important and quite complicated discussion subject,and i urge that the users who wish to participate in this discussion write with care,and try to avoid sectarian-feuds and personal attacks,and try to raise the quality level of the discussion.I hope this last line wont be ignored comrades.

[Grenzer]

Thanks for the information Omsk.

I've been meaning to read both Molotov's memoirs as well as the Origins of the Great Purges. After reviewing the evidence, it does seem unlikely that Stalin was responsible for the death of Kirov, though still within the realm of possibility of course. The fact that this notion has its origins with Kruschev is quite telling.

Though this does leave a question: if Stalin wasn't responsible for the assassination, then who was?

Some sources seem to note that Kirov was assigned bodyguards, some of which were inexplicably absent the day of his assassination. However, it's important to note that the sources I've seen which claim this could not be said to be serious or objective studies so much as an attempt to do a character assassination of Stalin. I'd be curious to hear more on the issue, with good evidence of course. You are right, this is a complicated issue and it is best if we all leave our preconceptions and biases behind.

[Ismail]

Though this does leave a question: if Stalin wasn't responsible for the assassination, then who was?

Some sources seem to note that Kirov was assigned bodyguards, some of which were inexplicably absent the day of his assassination. However, it's important to note that the sources I've seen which claim this could not be said to be serious or objective studies so much as an attempt to do a character assassination of Stalin. I'd be curious to hear more on the issue, with good evidence of course. You are right, this is a complicated issue and it is best if we all leave our preconceptions and biases behind.The standard post-1991 view (which largely dismisses the idea that Stalin had Kirov killed) was that Kirov was simply killed by a mentally unwell and disillusioned communist who had legally obtained a gun.

[Brosip Tito]

The standard post-1991 view (which largely dismisses the idea that Stalin had Kirov killed) was that Kirov was simply killed by a mentally unwell and disillusioned communist who had legally obtained a gun.
tldr; historical revisionism. Which you Stalinites are famous for.

[Ismail]

tldr; historical revisionism. Which you Stalinites are famous for.You're an idiot. The "Stalinist" version is that the assassin was linked to Zinoviev and Kamenev, who had instructed said assassin to kill Kirov to destabilize the Soviet government.

The view that the assassin had legally purchased a gun, etc. is actually used against "Stalinist" claims. The mainstream view is that the assassin was neither an agent or Stalin nor the Opposition, but just a lone gunman whose killing of Kirov was used as a pretext by Stalin to crush his former rivals.

But of course the ideas that Stalin killed Kirov, allied with Hitler, might have actually been sexually attracted to him (a claim made by a few in the decades past), wanted to genocide Ukrainians and Jews, wanted to make mutant ape-human armies, etc. must all be true because Stalin is a monster and we must believe the absolute worst about him from the most vehement of the anti-communists. Claims by other, more objective anti-communists like Getty (which actually enjoy backing from the Soviet archives) must be rejected out of hand even though they are also hostile to "Stalinism."

It's no different from people who a few months backed used Cracked.com as a source to demonstrate that Hoxha was literally insane.

[Brosip Tito]

You're an idiot.I believe this is called "flaming", I will be reporting it.


The "Stalinist" version is that the assassin was linked to Zinoviev and Kamenev, who had instructed said assassin to kill Kirov to destabilize the Soviet government.Stalinite. I use the term because it's like how Stalinists call Trotskyists "Trotskyites".

Regardless.


The view that the assassin had legally purchased a gun, etc. is actually used against "Stalinist" claims. The mainstream view is that the assassin was neither an agent or Stalin nor the Opposition, but just a lone gunman whose killing of Kirov was used as a pretext by Stalin to crush his former rivals.


But of course the ideas that Stalin killed Kirov, allied with Hitler, might have actually been sexually attracted to him (a claim made by a few in the decades past), wanted to genocide Ukrainians and Jews, wanted to make mutant ape-human armies, etc. must all be true because Stalin is a monster and we must believe the absolute worst about him from the most vehement of the anti-communists. Claims by other, more objective anti-communists like Getty (which actually enjoy backing from the Soviet archives) must be rejected out of hand even though they are also hostile to "Stalinism."
Of course I don't believe the insane shit about Stalin. However, there are basic facts, written by sane, normal people. These facts tend to be backed up, unlike Stalinists claims. Stalinites, for example, use a corpse as evidence that specific people murdered that person. When, that corpse only proves that he was murdered, not who murdered the person.


It's no different from people who a few months backed used Cracked.com as a source to demonstrate that Hoxha was literally insane.It is. Claiming historical revisionism, which there are countless examples and proofs of against Stalin and the state capitalists such as Hoxha, is a legitimate, and factually correct assertion.

[Ismail]

So basically you know nothing of the subject and just want to come in to attack "Stalinites."


These facts tend to be backed up, unlike Stalinists claims.Let's hear the "facts" you have then about Kirov's death. For what it's worth, of course, I wasn't actually noting the "Stalinist claim," but in fact the mainstream view, which is, of course, anti-Stalin.


It is. Claiming historical revisionism, which there are countless examples and proofs of against Stalin and the state capitalists such as Hoxha, is a legitimate, and factually correct assertion.You seem to be fairly illiterate. I was discussing the fact that people are willing to believe anything about Stalin because it's Stalin. Just like Hoxha, because he led an obscure country largely spoken of as the butt of jokes, is automatically eccentric and/or "insane" as the standards of what qualify as quality sources are very much reduced in favor of the aforementioned Cracked.com

[Brosip Tito]

So basically you know nothing of the subject and just want to come in to attack "Stalinites."

Let's hear the "facts" you have then about Kirov's death. For what it's worth, of course, I wasn't actually noting the "Stalinist claim," but in fact the mainstream view, which is, of course, anti-Stalin.
I have plenty of information on Stalinite historical revision.

My point wasn't attacking the mainstream view but the calling out of your view as a hoxhaist.

[Ismail]

I have plenty of information on Stalinite historical revision.

My point wasn't attacking the mainstream view but the calling out of your view as a hoxhaist.Except you quoted my post, which was noting the mainstream view, and then said "tldr" and acted as if that was the "Stalinist" or "Hoxhaist" view.

[Brosip Tito]

Except you quoted my post, which was noting the mainstream view, and then said "tldr" and acted as if that was the "Stalinist" or "Hoxhaist" view.I was incorrect in doing so, considering I didn't read the whole comment. However, my main thesis stands. That historical revision is rampant in the ML community. This, however, is a discussion for another thread.

[Grenzer]

Thanks for the information, Ismail.

It's natural that we would look for a political motivation for the killing of a politician, but to assume that this can only be the case can be damaging, as history has proven many times. The attempted assassination of member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind, in fact.

To Order Reigns:

I would be hesitant about assuming the worst about Stalin every time. Not only is this unlikely, but our goal should be to uncover the truth; which is not usually black and white. Whether Stalin is or is not responsible for the murder of Kirov is irrelevant to our main criticism: that the Soviet Union was not socialist(and this thread is not the place for it). Making assumptions that may well be incorrect, whether related to this key point or not, undermines our credibility. We must oppose factually incorrect statements such as the claim that agricultural collectivization was an attempt to deliberately murder Ukrainians because they are false, even if our rebuttal of such claims may in some way benefit our political rivals(and in this case, I would say that dismissing such claims is beneficial to us all).

[Omsk]

Thanks for the information Omsk.

I've been meaning to read both Molotov's memoirs as well as the Origins of the Great Purges. After reviewing the evidence, it does seem unlikely that Stalin was responsible for the death of Kirov, though still within the realm of possibility of course. The fact that this notion has its origins with Kruschev is quite telling.

Though this does leave a question: if Stalin wasn't responsible for the assassination, then who was?

Some sources seem to note that Kirov was assigned bodyguards, some of which were inexplicably absent the day of his assassination. However, it's important to note that the sources I've seen which claim this could not be said to be serious or objective studies so much as an attempt to do a character assassination of Stalin. I'd be curious to hear more on the issue, with good evidence of course. You are right, this is a complicated issue and it is best if we all leave our preconceptions and biases behind.


No problem.The murder of Sergei Kirov was always an unresolved question,and i am interested in getting a complete picture of the murder and the background.However,in most cases,the right-wing Western anti-communist historians usually like to speak of the murder of Sergei Kirov with ulterior motives - they don't care for Kirov,nor the truth,all they want is more demonization,but the problem is,for them,that they don't have any actual evidence to support their claims,and not even the anti-Stalin leadership of the USSR tried to turn the murder of Sergei Kirov into a story that would benefit them.

Another weak ground is the idea of Stalin killing his close (they did have disagreements,but overall,they were somewhat close) asociate and political ally in the fight against the Opposition,just because he could launch his campaign against his enemies.I mean,if he needed a sacrifice,i doubt he would kill someone so important.And another detail is there: If the murder of Sergei Kirov was used as a background by Stalin for the elimination of his political enemies,as is suggested by Western historians,than why did the main leaders of the opposition ( Pyatakov, Radek, Bukharin,Rykov) continue to work and act without too much opposition to about the year 1936?

People seem to completely throw away the idea of a lone,dissident assassin with his own motives (he had them) - and such an idea is,if you ask me,valid.

[Ostrinski]

OP: Just do your project on Hoxha. Ismail can get you all the help you need.

[The Cheshire Cat]

OP: Just do your project on Hoxha. Ismail can get you all the help you need.

I can't, I already said I would do it about Stalin and I have to come up with a Main Question now. Besides, Stalin is more of a challenge I think.