Marxist-Leninists

[The Douche]

Wasn't there a blog by some CP-USA members who were trying to make the party ML again? Is that still around?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

If so, they were probably purged from the party. I've talked to comrades who know former-CPUSA members who attempted to spread revolutionary views within CPUSA and apparently they're systematically kicked from the party

[WanderingCactus]

Are you referring to the Gus Hall Action Club? If so, I think they still keep that updated, at least occasionally. They were expelled from the party a few years back, AFAIK. I'm friends with a couple via Facebook.

[Grenzer]

Wasn't there a blog by some CP-USA members who were trying to make the party ML again? Is that still around?

I've heard about that, unfortunately I don't have any solid information about it.

I've also heard that the founder of the APL was part of the faction that was trying to turn the CPUSA back towards Marxism-Leninism, but gave up. If the faction is still around, they can't be large or significant anymore.

[Kronsteen]

What is the position of the CP-USA?

I don't mean, are they running dogs of the imperialist counter-revolution, theoretically weak and reactionary sell-outs?

I mean, do they follow the original Marx, or the additions of Lenin, or are they trying to become the new benevolent ruling class? Are they focused on agitation, recruitment, or educating a small cadre? What do they say about soviet Russia, anarchism or anti-capitalist protests?

[Bostana]

Some tried;
those who did were purged from the 'party'.

[WanderingCactus]

What is the position of the CP-USA?

I don't mean, are they running dogs of the imperialist counter-revolution, theoretically weak and reactionary sell-outs?

I mean, do they follow the original Marx, or the additions of Lenin, or are they trying to become the new benevolent ruling class? Are they focused on agitation, recruitment, or educating a small cadre? What do they say about soviet Russia, anarchism or anti-capitalist protests?
At one point they were (I believe) a self-described Marxist-Leninist party. I believe most of their positions were as you'd expect them to be.

Things are different today. Last I checked, they focus most of their efforts around supporting the Democrats, and rallying around Obama. I'm not sure what they describe themselves as, but I remember Sam Webb writing some things about "moving beyond" Lenin and such. Not an inherently terrible position, but it was basically written as an excuse for the party to support the Democrats and such.

[Drosophila]

What is the position of the CP-USA?

I don't mean, are they running dogs of the imperialist counter-revolution, theoretically weak and reactionary sell-outs?

I mean, do they follow the original Marx, or the additions of Lenin, or are they trying to become the new benevolent ruling class? Are they focused on agitation, recruitment, or educating a small cadre? What do they say about soviet Russia, anarchism or anti-capitalist protests?

Their PR people put out reformist stuff only. I don't know what it's like inside of the actual organization.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think there is still a small revolutionary current in the CPUSA but I don't think they are gaining much influence.

[Prometeo liberado]

What is the position of the CP-USA?

I don't mean, are they running dogs of the imperialist counter-revolution, theoretically weak and reactionary sell-outs?

I mean, do they follow the original Marx, or the additions of Lenin, or are they trying to become the new benevolent ruling class? Are they focused on agitation, recruitment, or educating a small cadre? What do they say about soviet Russia, anarchism or anti-capitalist protests?

They seem, these days, to practice a strange form of realty speculation and accumulation. They covet older retired members and convince them to will their property over to the Party. They have some priiiime real estate in Manhattan and parts of LA.

[daft punk]

If so, they were probably purged from the party. I've talked to comrades who know former-CPUSA members who attempted to spread revolutionary views within CPUSA and apparently they're systematically kicked from the party
This makes no sense - Marxist-Leninists never try to spread revolutionary views.

[Leftsolidarity]

This makes no sense - Marxist-Leninists never try to spread revolutionary views.

Stop flame baiting

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This makes no sense - Marxist-Leninists never try to spread revolutionary views.

Verbal warning for flame baiting.

[daft punk]

In what way is it flame baiting?

Sorry Godless, but I dont 'do' warnings.

Stalinist policy was to follow the two stage theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory), via popular fronts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/popular%20fronts), to have capitalism first, in all countries outside the USSR, at least the backward ones. Stalin actively sabotaged any attempts at socialism outside the USSR. I can prove it for any country. Name any Stalinist country and I will show how the Stalinists tried to ensure it became capitalist and tried to stop it going socialist.

Stalin to Mao, 1948:

"It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie."
http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=CA9A2341-EFF8-0392-03026972E39F2528&sort=Coverage&item=China

aka MAKE SURE THERE IS NO REVOLUTION, OR ELSE!

Stalin had actually been backing Mao's enemy, the vicious Chiang Kai-shek, as had the USA of course. Stalin and the USA both assumed that Chiang would win and establish capitalism. America have him hundreds of warplanes. But the masses rose up in support of Mao, and Stalin's plans were left in tatters. He quickly swapped sides.

Here he is 3 years earlier kissing Chiang's capitalist arse:

"Thank you for your congratulations on the occasion of the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance as well as the agreements between China and the U.S.S.R., signed on August 14. I am sure that this Treaty and the agreements will provide a solid base for an ultimate development of friendly relations between the U.S.S.R. and China for the well-being and prosperity of our peoples and the reinforcement of peace and security in the Far East and in the whole world.
I beg you, Mr. President,to accept my congratulations on the occasion of the confirmation of these historical documents."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1945/08/31.htm


So, Stalin's policy was as I said, prevent revolution.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You can twist it anyway you want daft punk but regardless of your words any future flame baiting in this thread will be dealt with via infractions. End of story.

[daft punk]

Give me an infraction for telling the truth. At least you cant send me to the gulag or put a bullet in my head. I'm here to debate facts, not pussyfoot around you and your rules.

You have just ignored everything I have said, which is basically 2 solid quotes from Stalin to Mao and Chiang proving my point.

I understand that nobody on revleft is capable of admitting a mistake, but you just made one.

Tell you what, why dont you forget about your threats and debate what I said?

Or are you just another closet Stalinist? It seems to be a trait of moderators.

[Bronco]

The thing is daft punk, this thread is fuck all to do with what Stalin said to Mao, or about his policy, you just take any possible opportunity to chuck in those quotes of yours and try and start a flame war

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Give me an infraction for telling the truth. At least you cant send me to the gulag or put a bullet in my head. I'm here to debate facts, not pussyfoot around you and your rules.

You have just ignored everything I have said, which is basically 2 solid quotes from Stalin to Mao and Chiang proving my point.

I understand that nobody on revleft is capable of admitting a mistake, but you just made one.

Flame baiting such as this...


This makes no sense - Marxist-Leninists never try to spread revolutionary views.

Will not be tolerated. I honestly couldn't care less about your rabid sectarianism so you will never see me engaging any of your posts unless it is to reprimand you for stepping out of line.

[Art Vandelay]

Give me an infraction for telling the truth. At least you cant send me to the gulag or put a bullet in my head. I'm here to debate facts, not pussyfoot around you and your rules.

You have just ignored everything I have said, which is basically 2 solid quotes from Stalin to Mao and Chiang proving my point.

I understand that nobody on revleft is capable of admitting a mistake, but you just made one.

Tell you what, why dont you forget about your threats and debate what I said?

Or are you just another closet Stalinist? It seems to be a trait of moderators.

I do not think it is what your saying, but the manner your saying it. I would also agree that it can be shown that the USSR actively hindered revolution, however you treat Marxist-Leninists like some counter-revolutionary bogeymen. While I, like you, do not agree with their opinions, they are still trying to help bring about revolution; even if you think their actions hinder revolution.

[daft punk]

Just another shit poster who throws out personal attacks while making up excuses to avoid debating the actual point. What a shame. You don't even comprehend what sectarianism is. Quoting Stalin is sectarian in what way exactly? Is quoting Uncle Joe more sectarian than shooting 10,000 Troytskyists? I bet it is!

Quoting Stalin, the new sectarianism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Just another shit poster who throws out personal attacks while making up excuses to avoid debating the actual point. What a shame. You don't even comprehend what sectarianism is. Quoting Stalin is sectarian in what way exactly? Is quoting Uncle Joe more sectarian than shooting 10,000 Troytskyists? I bet it is!

Quoting Stalin, the new sectarianism.

I can't say I find it surprising you fail to recognize that comments such as this...


This makes no sense - Marxist-Leninists never try to spread revolutionary views.

...is what you are being disciplined for.

[daft punk]

I do not think it is what your saying, but the manner your saying it. I would also agree that it can be shown that the USSR actively hindered revolution, however you treat Marxist-Leninists like some counter-revolutionary bogeymen. While I, like you, do not agree with their opinions, they are still trying to help bring about revolution; even if you think their actions hinder revolution.


They are trying to help bring about revolution, that's the sad thing, they mostly all mean well, and some might even do a bit of useful stuff occasionally, but historically they have wasted every revolutionary possibility in the 20th century, not just through bad theory like the anarchists, but deliberately, at least at the top level. Even years after Stalin died, in 1965 a million people died in Indonesia thanks to Popular Frontism from the Stalinists, they wasted the 1979 revolution in Iran, the same sort of ideas were in Allende's mind in 1973, the list goes on and on.

It's about time Stalinism was dead and buried, and I'm not gonna pander to the pussy-foot brigade on here who quake at the cliques.

As an aside, I recently had an Indian bloke staying at my house, he was an ordinary young guy, not really into politics, and he was from a part of India dominated by Stalinism. He said ' they are called communist, but they are not really communist'. It was quite telling. In fact there is the CPI and CPI(M). Why on earth does a communist party have to add (Marxist) after Comminist? As if to say that the Communist Party is not Marxist! Lol.

[daft punk]

I can't say I find it surprising you fail to recognize that comments such as this...



...is what you are being disciplined for.

You could accuse me of slight exaggeration, see my post above, but it is not flame baiting. A flame baiter has no interest in debate, just wants to annoy. You cannot accuse me of that, I said it to encourage debate. I am only saying standard Trotskyist views as held by a large chunk of the left. Of course I didnt mean it literally, I know some Stalinists are genuine, but I want to remind them that at the end of the day their movement historically has been worse than useless times by a billion.

Without Stalinism, we might have global socialism now.

Try thinking of the bigger picture.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You could accuse me of slight exaggeration, see my post above, but it is not flame baiting. A flame baiter has no interest in debate, just wants to annoy. You cannot accuse me of that, I said it to encourage debate. I am only saying standard Trotskyist views as held by a large chunk of the left. Of course I didnt mean it literally, I know some Stalinists are genuine, but I want to remind them that at the end of the day their movement historically has been worse than useless times by a billion.

Without Stalinism, we might have global socialism now.

Try thinking of the bigger picture.

It is flame baiting no matter how you try and justify it. Had a stalinist said something similar about trots he would be disciplined as well.Next time you have a point to make include the quotes in full instead of posting a one liner.

[Art Vandelay]

They are trying to help bring about revolution, that's the sad thing, they mostly all mean well, and some might even do a bit of useful stuff occasionally, but historically they have wasted every revolutionary possibility in the 20th century, not just through bad theory like the anarchists, but deliberately, at least at the top level. Even years after Stalin died, in 1965 a million people died in Indonesia thanks to Popular Frontism from the Stalinists, they wasted the 1979 revolution in Iran, the same sort of ideas were in Allende's mind in 1973, the list goes on and on.

It's about time Stalinism was dead and buried, and I'm not gonna pander to the pussy-foot brigade on here who quake at the cliques.

As an aside, I recently had an Indian bloke staying at my house, he was an ordinary young guy, not really into politics, and he was from a part of India dominated by Stalinism. He said ' they are called communist, but they are not really communist'. It was quite telling. In fact there is the CPI and CPI(M). Why on earth does a communist party have to add (Marxist) after Comminist? As if to say that the Communist Party is not Marxist! Lol.

I agree with all of that, except maybe your little jab at anarchists ;) I agree that Marxism-Leninism should be dead and buried by now, its a proven failure, but I think its safe to say that in the next revolutionary wave Marxist-Leninists will be mostly irrelevant.

[Grenzer]

What is the position of the CP-USA?

I don't mean, are they running dogs of the imperialist counter-revolution, theoretically weak and reactionary sell-outs?

I mean, do they follow the original Marx, or the additions of Lenin, or are they trying to become the new benevolent ruling class? Are they focused on agitation, recruitment, or educating a small cadre? What do they say about soviet Russia, anarchism or anti-capitalist protests?

This pretty much sums it up.



The notion of the capitalist class on the one side and the working class on the other may sound ‘radical,’ but it is neither Marxist, nor found in life and politics. Pure forms exist in high theory, but nowhere else.

[Leftsolidarity]

Just another shit poster who throws out personal attacks while making up excuses to avoid debating the actual point.

^This is called projection.

-----------

Anyhow, can we get back to the topic of this thread please?

[daft punk]

I agree with all of that, except maybe your little jab at anarchists ;) I agree that Marxism-Leninism should be dead and buried by now, its a proven failure, but I think its safe to say that in the next revolutionary wave Marxist-Leninists will be mostly irrelevant.

Actually I could level an equal charge at the anarchists in Spain. The anarchist leader Garcia Oliver correctly stated that they could have taken power (Trotsky reckoned not one but ten revolutions could have been made in Spain), but admitted that they refused to do so because they did not 'believe in doing so'. This 'principle' didn't stop them later joining a capitalist-Stalinist government which then of course repressed them and the POUM in the course of crushing the revolution.

And in Russia the anarchists often fought the Bolsheviks, which amounted to fighting the revolution on the side of the capitalists.

The anarchists are no where near as bad as the Stalinists (I always mean the leaders when I talk like this, as has been pointed out the rank and file are usually well meaning) in that they do believe in revolution, but they don't put it into practice properly.


It is flame baiting no matter how you try and justify it. Had a stalinist said something similar about trots he would be disciplined as well.Next time you have a point to make include the quotes in full instead of posting a one liner.

Fair point, but next time you want to give me a verbal warning bear in mind that my one liners get followed by in depth analysis of facts backed by quotes, assuming I get a reply to the post. A Stalinist could not say the same about Trots and back it with anything concrete. I started a thread on the Moscow Trials, not one reply. They had their chance. I have started many threads. They rarely post on them. They cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Another classic example for you there Godless Utopian. Stalin sent his secret agents to Spain to kill the revolutionaries. When they returned to Russia, he killed them to keep it quiet. However one of them got wise to that and defected. His name was Orlov and he was the agent who had transported all Spain's gold to Moscow, 510 tons of it. Stalin threw a party and said Spain would never see it's gold again, according to respected historian Antony Beevor, author of the book on the Spanish civil war which became a best seller in Spain. Orlov received the Order of Lenin for his services, Russia's highest award. However he rightly did not feel safe, nobody did (in the 1930s in Russia), according to Leopold Trepper, hero of the USSR's intelligence working underground in Nazi occupied territories.

Another agent who had participated in crushing the revolution in Spain was Trepper's boss Berzin. Berzin organised the spy network in Nazi occupied areas, to defend Russia. However for his services in defence of the USSR he was executed, because he had noted the "the massacres of communists…perpetrated by the OGPU in Spain.”

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Mikhailovich_Orlov#cite_note-2
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201

[daft punk]

^This is called projection.

In what way are my posts shit? They are crammed with facts, well researched (in my opinion), they don't get personal, they are well argued, clearly written, they are backed by history. How exactly are they shit? Please explain exactly how. Let's see you try, take my last post and give it a go. Line by line please. Can you even find one shit sentence in it?

[Leftsolidarity]

In what way are my posts shit? They are crammed with facts, well researched (in my opinion), they don't get personal, they are well argued, clearly written, they are backed by history. How exactly are they shit? Please explain exactly how. Let's see you try, take my last post and give it a go. Line by line please. Can you even find one shit sentence in it?

No, this thread has nothing to do with you or what you're trying to talk about. What you're doing is called derailing and it seems to be what you do best.

Now could you stop that and let the thread go back to what the OP posted about?

[daft punk]

No, this thread has nothing to do with you or what you're trying to talk about. What you're doing is called derailing and it seems to be what you do best.

Now could you stop that and let the thread go back to what the OP posted about?
hmmm, what was the topic? Some godless fucker derailed it.
HnyB0a8G71Y

[Omsk]

The "godless fucker" is a moderator who has every right to end your infantile rants.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

hmmm, what was the topic? Some godless fucker derailed it.
HnyB0a8G71Y

Have an infraction.

Reasons: trolling, flaming, derailing.

[Red Commissar]

Wasn't there a blog by some CP-USA members who were trying to make the party ML again? Is that still around?

I don't remember a blog, but Kurt once posted an article from some MLs and their comments about a party conference. Pretty dismal, though they still thought somehow the party could go left again.

http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=140660

That was almost two years ago though. I'm going to have to say they might not even be around any more. I would be interested in seeing as blog if it exists though, could give some insight to the CPUSA screwiness.

[Alfonso Cano]

Stalinist policy was to follow the two stage theory, via popular fronts, to have capitalism first, in all countries outside the USSR, at least the backward ones.

Well, that really goes against the fundamentals of Marxism. As we know, Marx thought that feudalism (or Asiatic mode of production as it existed in China) was the highest class system ever to exist and that transition to classless society is going to happen in semi-feudal countries like China, where objective development of productive forces was the highest.

SERFS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!!!!!!!!

SERFS HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS, BUT THEY HAVE A WORLD TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, duft punk; thanks for debunking such commonly held misconceptions that prior capitalist development is necessary for sucessfull worker's revolution and that we could advance directly from feudalism to Communism. :rolleyes:


Stalin actively sabotaged any attempts at socialism outside the USSR. I can prove it for any country. Name any Stalinist country and I will show how the Stalinists tried to ensure it became capitalist and tried to stop it going socialist.

Let's see... East Germany, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania... Try to prove it. I will put my arguments:

"To be sure, Stalin never ignored the interests of the Soviet state and he was often cautious to the point of pessimism about the prospects for immediate revolution. But the letters show that he was also capable of hope and enthusiasm when revolution seemed to be on the move and ready to put his money where his mouth was.
... All in all, Stalin comes out of the letters with his revolutionary credentials in good order."

Naumov, Lih, and Khlevniuk, Eds. Stalin's Letters to Molotov, 1925-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1995, p. 36

"The Soviet Union, from the beginning, never faltered in getting aid and assistance to China.
Throughout their participation in the League of Nations, the Soviet government led the fight for the protection of little nations vigorously and boldly. This was the fact in the case of Ethiopia and Spain.
No government saw more clearly or stated with greater accuracy what Hitler was doing and would do and what ought to be done to preserve peace and prevent the projection of a war by Hitler than did the Soviets. That is a fact regardless of whether their motive was ideological or whether it was for the safety of their own people."

Davies, Joseph E. Mission to Moscow. New York, N. Y.: Simon and Schuster, c1941, p. 496

"Moscow was to be especially generous in the post-war., paying out huge amounts, of which the following list is only a small part (all figures are in U.S. dollars): in 1945, to Bulgaria (Kostov)--$100,000; in 1946, to China (Chou En-lai)--$50,000; to Romania (Gheorgiu Dej)-- $500,000; in 1947, to Greece (Zachariades)--$100,000) in 1948, to France (Thorez)--$258,350; to Italy (Secchia)--$40,000; to Holland (Groot)--50,000."

Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press, 1994, p. 400


Stalin to Mao, 1948:

"It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie."


And what is so revealing in that quote that shows how Stalin was some kind of "betrayer" of revolutions? China was a semi-feudal, backward, agrarian country with only small pockets of industtry in a few coastal cities. Anyone even aquinted with fundamentals of Marxism knows that socialism cannot be sucessfully built without prior capitalist development. Which China didn't have. In such situations, construction of government involving all progressive, democratic forces and allowance of capitalist development in order to create necessary conditions for workers revolution is not a sign of betrayal, but of sanity. When Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, they didn't implement socialism from the beginning, due to the devastations of the civil war, but have allowed prolonged period of capitalist development under state control during the NEP in order to build up productive forces and create conditions for it. The same thing was meant for China.

Funny, ultra-leftists condemn Stalin when he implements revolutionary policies like collectivisation, industrialisation and establishment of planned economy, while they idolise Bukharin who basically called for return to capitalism (for which you attack Stalin in China's case), but when Stalin adopts Bukharin's policies in case of China, you also attack him.

It seems to me that you are a misguided, confused and not really deep-thinking person and that you don't really know what you are talking about, or what you really want. :rolleyes:


Stalin had actually been backing Mao's enemy, the vicious Chiang Kai-shek, as had the USA of course. Stalin and the USA both assumed that Chiang would win and establish capitalism. America have him hundreds of warplanes. But the masses rose up in support of Mao, and Stalin's plans were left in tatters. He quickly swapped sides.

Stalin never backed KMT. What he backed was an anti-imperialist front composed of CCP and KMT in order to prevent China from falling in hands of Japanese imperialism. It was certainly not the best thing to do, but it was still better than allowing whole of China being overrun by Japan, which would forever seal the hope for any kind of worker's revolution in China, strenghten Japanese imperialism and give space and recources from which to attack the Soviet Union itself (which they actually tried in 1936, 37 and 38; being crushed each time). Stalin as a wise leader understood this conditions and made a tactical compromise in order to achieve a strategic victory, because in the end socialism did come to China, largely thanks to Stalin's genius. But you, as an poor, little ultra-leftist troll that spends his whole life on internet and has never done anything for the working class, could hardly understand that.

As to the backing of KMT, yes weapons were sent to them to fight the Japanese imperialism, but help was also being sent to CCP as well.

"In 1931 Japan delivered the first armed blow at the system of Versailles by occupying Manchuria. Stalin openly assisted the Chinese in every way possible, short of a declaration of war. He did this in spite of the fact that the whole of his country's energies were directed towards the fulfillment of the first Five Year Plan and that widespread famine and sabotage were decimating the land."

Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 111

"Between 1919 and 1926 Sun Yat-Sen and and his followers turned definitely to the Soviet Union for help in their independence struggle. After repeated attempts to obtain aid from the United States and from various European governments, Sun Yat-sen became convinced that his best source of support was the Soviet Union. At the request of his government, and of the People's party which he headed, the Soviet Union sent to China a core of technical assistants that at one time numbered approximately 300. The titular head of this group was Borodin." (So, they were helping KMT before the split with CCP in 1927. The fact of which you are not aware)

Nearing, S. The Soviet Union as a World Power. New York: Island Workshop Press, 1945, p. 54

"No figures are available showing the exact amount of material assistance sent by Russia into China during the 20 years that ended in 1937. In the first decade the material aid was probably considerable. In the second decade it diminished sharply. From the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 until the German invasion of Russia in 1941 Soviet aid to China again increased. Military necessity forced Soviet supplies to follow old caravan routes converted into extemporized truck roads across the Gobi desert."

Nearing, S. The Soviet Union as a World Power. New York: Island Workshop Press, 1945, p. 55

"With minor exceptions Soviet Russia has extended consistent help to the movement for a Chinese Republic in the hope that a China directed by a Chinese Soviet government would be able to win its independence from the western empires, industrialize China, raise the standard of well-being of the Chinese masses and by so doing blaze the trail toward a Soviet Asia."

Nearing, S. The Soviet Union as a World Power. New York: Island Workshop Press, 1945, p. 56


Stalin had actually been backing Mao's enemy, the vicious Chiang Kai-shek

As to Stalin supporting Chiang Kai-shek, see this:

"In an August 29, 1929, letter to Molotov Stalin stated, “The point is really to use our tough position to unmask completely and to undermine the authority of Chiang Kai-shek's government, a government of lackeys of imperialism, for attempting to become the model of 'national government' for the colonial and dependent countries. There can be no doubt that each clash between Chiang Kai-shek's government and the Soviet government, just as each concession Chiang Kai-shek makes to us (and he is already starting to make concessions), is a blow against Chiang Kai-shek exposes Chiang Kai-shek's government as a government of lackeys of imperialism and makes it easier to carry out the revolutionary education of the workers in colonial countries (and the Chinese workers above all). Litvinov and Karakhan (and they are not the only ones) don't see that. So much the worse for them.”
Naumov, Lih, and Khlevniuk, Eds. Stalin's Letters to Molotov, 1925-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1995, p. 174

Lackeys of imperialism? Carrying out revolutionary education of the workers? Wtf??? :confused:

"Stalin, despite what is implied in the Trotskyite literature on the subject, did not love or trust Chiang; he simply underestimated him."

Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 277


But the masses rose up in support of Mao, and Stalin's plans were left in tatters. He quickly swapped sides.

Chinese Revolution triumphed in 1949. That would imply that he switched sides in that year, right? Let's check that:

"Stalin has paid particular attention to the Chinese Communist Party and the heroic efforts of the Chinese Soviets. He personally undertook the stiffening of the line of the Chinese Party at the Chinese Commission of the Comintern in 1926. His intervention, which has become famous in the annals of the Communist international, contended against the errors and faults resulting from diffidence with regard to the Workers' and Peasants' Revolution, and a certain tendency to consider the Chinese Revolution as having to remain a middle-class democratic revolution. Well, "all the measures which he recommended have been ultimately justified by events."

Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 107

That's 1926.

"In an October 7, 1929, letter to Molotov Stalin stated, “I think that it's time to think about organizing an uprising by a revolutionary movement in Manchuria.... We need to organize two double regiment brigades, chiefly made up of Chinese, outfit them with everything necessary (artillery, machine guns, and so on), put Chinese at the head of the brigade, and send them into Manchuria with the following assignment: to stir up a rebellion among the Manchurian troops, to have reliable soldiers from these forces join them...to occupy Harbin, and after gathering force, to declare Chang Hsueh-liang overthrown, establish a revolutionary government (massacre the landowners, bring in the peasants, create soviets in the cities and towns, and so on). This is necessary. This we can and, I think, should do....
...The matter will have to be put on the agenda of the Central Committee plenum. I should think that Bukharin is going to be kicked out of the Politburo.”

Naumov, Lih, and Khlevniuk, Eds. Stalin's Letters to Molotov, 1925-1936. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1995, p. 182

That's 1929.

"On the question of the Sino-Soviet treaty of 1945,… the Russians would withdraw their troops from Port Arthur when the Chinese wished, and also yield up control of the trans-Manchurian railways. On other practical matters, Mao requested Soviet credits of 300 million U.S. dollars, as well as help developing domestic air transport routes and developing a navy, to all of which Stalin agreed."

Spence, Jonathan D. Mao Zedong. New York: Viking, 1999, p. 111

That's 1945. When did Stalin switch sides, according to you?

As to the Stalin's policies in China, this is a good source for understanding of his moves and their motives:

"Stalin was to claim, and there is a hard-core of common sense in his argument, that though the Chinese policy failed, the premises under which it had been conducted could not be faulted. The Communists had to take the risk inherent in collaboration with the Kuomintang. Certainly the latter's successes curtailed the influence of imperialist powers on China and set the stage for Communist successes some time in the future. The Chinese Communists could never have grown so impressively in membership and influence without collaborating with the Kuomintang, and it would have been sheer fantasy to imagine that in 1923 or 1927 they could have conquered a sizable part of China by themselves. There were occasions, he implied, when ideological incantations and citations from Marx and Lenin are powerless to change the disposition of class forces. Was it wrong to have the Revolution of 1905? he asked. It had ended in disaster, but it had also set the stage for 1917."

Ulam, Adam. Stalin: The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 277

"In-substance the Trotsky-Zinoviev charges about China were absurd. To visualize how much so, we may compare them to the outcry of the American right wing a little more than 20 years later about how Truman and Acheson "lost China." Those charges were unfair enough: how can one nation in peacetime determine the course of events in another vast and distant country? But at that time the United States was unquestionably the most powerful nation in the world, its industry producing more than half the entire global output. The American protEgE, Chiang, was until well into 1947 in control of most of mainland China, and it was his own policies as much as the Communists' clever ones that brought about his doom. But here was a weak and impoverished Soviet Union, with its clients, the Chinese Communists, mustering a strength of only about 60,000. Could the most brilliant understanding of dialectic, the most "correct" directives sent to the Chinese comrades, have affected the issue of the struggle? Suppose that by some miracle the Chinese Communists had seized southern China: would the imperialist powers have tolerated their attempt to conquer the whole country? In his memoranda throughout 1926 Trotsky himself stressed the absolute necessity of not provoking Japan, of respecting her sphere of influence in Manchuria and north China. Any likely Communist conquest would have brought the capitalist powers together, would have presented the Soviet Far East with the danger of Japanese invasion, an invasion which everybody recognized, the Soviet Union was in no position to defeat."

Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 278



Fair point, but next time you want to give me a verbal warning bear in mind that my one liners get followed by in depth analysis of facts backed by quotes, assuming I get a reply to the post. A Stalinist could not say the same about Trots and back it with anything concrete. I started a thread on the Moscow Trials, not one reply. They had their chance. I have started many threads. They rarely post on them. They cannot stand up to scrutiny.

You are just a troll who is posting quotes and "facts" taken out of conext to fitt your crazed anti-Communist narrative. There is nothing worthy in them, as I have proven, and not even a grain of truth, not to mention any kind of "scrutiny".


Stalin sent his secret agents to Spain to kill the revolutionaries.

For the Nazis, the Nuremberg trials are unjustified persecutions of innocent people. For the ultra-leftists, "revolutionaries" are traitors to socialism that ruined any chance to defeat Franco in Spain. Nice...


When they returned to Russia, he killed them to keep it quiet.

Rather, they perished in chaos of the "Ezhovstina", when people were accused for various things with no real factual basis. As J. Arch Getty nicely shows in his works, Stalin, despite starting the purges, was often unable to effectively control them and so innocent people suffered. Which you should be avare of, if you have ever read any serious work about purges.


However one of them got wise to that and defected. His name was Orlov

Rather he got attracted to capitalist's bribes and western money:

"A number of Soviet officials serving on missions abroad, refused to return. Many of them took posts with foreign firms. Going back to Russia meant giving up a life of comfort, and would necessarily involve rendering an account of their behavior while out of the country. Corruption played a greater part in leading these men to act as they did than any spirit of political opposition."
Barmine, Alexandre. Memoirs of a Soviet Diplomat. London: L. Dickson limited,1938, p. 242

And the guy you mention, Aleksandar Orlov, is one of the greatest lying bastards the world has ever seen. J. Arch Getty notes in his works that his "Secret history of the Stalin's crimes" is not reliable source and that it can't be used in serious historical work. Which is the reason anti-Communists, like yourself, love to cite him.


according to respected historian Antony Beevor, author of the book on the Spanish civil war which became a best seller in Spain.

He is not respected by anyone serious. Historical works should not be bestsellers, and his book is nothing more than a poorly referenced speculation-riddened anti-Communist propaganda piece. No wonder he is celebrated by western press like the New York Times. His books are as much valuable as Ronald Radosh's wanabee "historical" works.


However he rightly did not feel safe, nobody did (in the 1930s in Russia), according to Leopold Trepper, hero of the USSR's intelligence working underground in Nazi occupied territories.

Really???? Let's see what Walter Laquer, considered one of the best world historians (unlike Anthony Beevor, who is basically still fighting in the Cold War against Communist threat) has to say about "fear" in Stalin's Soviet Union:

"Survivors of the Stalinist period reminded the public that for many people the 1930s had been a period of happiness and enthusiasm, when a feeling prevailed that great things were being achieved. A typical representative of the generation that "made it" under Stalin was Ivan Benediktov, who became the people's commissar of agriculture in 1938 at the age of 35, remained in key government positions for many years, and eventually served as ambassador to India and Yugoslavia (1959-70). Among the main points made in Stalin's defense are the following: Promotion under Stalin was by merit only. Many very young people (such as Voznesensky, Ustinov, Kosygin, Tevosian, and Vannikov) were appointed to key positions in their early 30s--and proved themselves. Thousands of innocents suffered, but the overall number has been grossly exaggerated; the general atmosphere was not one of fear, repression, and terror but of a mighty wave of revolutionary enthusiasm, of pride in country and party, and of belief in the leadership. Decisions taken at the top were far more democratic than generally believed; Stalin was not an extremist, but on the whole a fair and reasonable man. In fact, Khrushchev's style was more autocratic than Stalin's. As for the murder of the Red Army leadership, there is reason to believe that they plotted not against Stalin but against Voroshilov, who they thought was not equal to his task. Such behavior would not have been tolerated in any country.
... The 1930s had been a time of great enthusiasm, of national unity and pride, of belief in the leadership, and of a historical mission; young people had been given chances like never before, and so on."
Laqueur, Walter. Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations. New York: Scribner's, c1990, p. 244

Your claims are so wildly inaccurate, that it is really painfull even to read you. Go trolling on some other place. I'm out... :)

[Alfonso Cano]

P.S. If this is not place to put this post, moderator might open a new topic called "Stalin's alleged betrayal of world revolution" and move it there. I was not trying to troll, but just to answer to his accusations. I hope it won't get deleted, because I really invested a lot of effort in it, responding to his claims. Thanks :)

[daft punk]

The "godless fucker" is a moderator who has every right to end your infantile rants.
Fuck you, debate some politics.


Have an infraction.

Reasons: trolling, flaming, derailing.

And fuck you, pathetic.

[daft punk]

Wasn't there a blog by some CP-USA members who were trying to make the party ML again? Is that still around?


If so, they were probably purged from the party. I've talked to comrades who know former-CPUSA members who attempted to spread revolutionary views within CPUSA and apparently they're systematically kicked from the party


This makes no sense - Marxist-Leninists never try to spread revolutionary views.


Have an infraction.

Reasons: trolling, flaming, derailing.
Do they make people mods who dont know what these words mean? I responded to the second post in the thread. I said it didnt make sense. He is saying the CPUSA would kick out people for spreading revolutionary ideas. But he is equating revolutionary ideas with Marxist-Leninism. My point was that it didnt make much sense. History, as I have shown is on my side, because what I said was based not only on events but what people like Stalin and Mao wanted and actually said.

This is the whole fucking topic. Well, actually it was a bit of a non-OP wasn't it? It needed expanding a bit obviously. MCC engaged the debate and so did I, only in different ways. He equated M-L with revolutionary views and i said thats not the case. It could have been a good debate.

But oh no, he is allowed his view, but when I give mine I get pulled on it.

so, fuck you and fuck your infraction.

[daft punk]

Alfonso, i will address your post tomorrow some time, nice to see someone put a bit of effort in. Anyone who would delete all that is a wanker.

[daft punk]

Oh, and as for derails, if a moderator thinks a thread is going off topic what they are supposed to do is split the thread off, but seeing as I was responding to post 2 with a very brief post, I hardly see how it was a fucking derail.

[Omsk]

You derailed the thread,because of your childish rants about Marxism-Leninism.Although,don't worry,nobody takes you seriously.

[Comrade Samuel]

Fuck I thought we where about to make it a whole week without some stupid secratarian bullshit, There's always next week I guess.

[daft punk]

You derailed the thread,because of your childish rants about Marxism-Leninism.Although,don't worry,nobody takes you seriously.
just keep the snide little sniping, you never try to actually debate me.


Fuck I thought we where about to make it a whole week without some stupid secratarian bullshit, There's always next week I guess.

who the fuck are you?

Mods - two prime examples of shit posting. These rubbish posts just clog up the threads, fucking remove them and this one. Do your fucking jobs.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Do they make people mods who dont know what these words mean? I responded to the second post in the thread. I said it didnt make sense. He is saying the CPUSA would kick out people for spreading revolutionary ideas. But he is equating revolutionary ideas with Marxist-Leninism. My point was that it didnt make much sense. History, as I have shown is on my side, because what I said was based not only on events but what people like Stalin and Mao wanted and actually said.

This is the whole fucking topic. Well, actually it was a bit of a non-OP wasn't it? It needed expanding a bit obviously. MCC engaged the debate and so did I, only in different ways. He equated M-L with revolutionary views and i said thats not the case. It could have been a good debate.

But oh no, he is allowed his view, but when I give mine I get pulled on it.

so, fuck you and fuck your infraction.

It wouldn't have been. It would have just been you using the same out of context quotes you always use and proving that your ideology is based on nothing more than the bashing of Marxism-Leninism. At least other Trotskyists can focus on things other than random Stalin-to-Mao letters.

[Omsk]

just keep the snide little sniping, you never try to actually debate me.



Remember when we talked about Trotsky's lies and you ran away crying like the little Trot you are because you had no arguments?

[Leftsolidarity]

God damn, can everyone shut the fuck up about what Daft Punk is saying and get back to the OP?

I am actually interested in that and that's why I subscribed to this thread.

[daft punk]

It wouldn't have been. It would have just been you using the same out of context quotes you always use and proving that your ideology is based on nothing more than the bashing of Marxism-Leninism. At least other Trotskyists can focus on things other than random Stalin-to-Mao letters.

Lol. Talk about pot calling the kettle. Out of fucking context? It's usually par for the course for Stalinists, I can quote examples off the top of my head, ones that crop up over and over.

I challenge you here and now, show us ONE quote I have posted out of context. Just one. Were my Stalin quotes out of context? Do you know what out of context means? It means trying to twist the meaning to pretend that the author was saying something different, or give a false impression of it.

Do that or retract. I think you genuinely believe what you are saying. Well, you better prove it.

The other Trots do bash Stalin, they probably don't know about Stalin insisting that China became capitalist. Who cares, just debate what I said, never mind other Trotskyists.

Trots seem to fall into two camps, one lot seem to think Stalin wanted to spread Stalinism, the other lot thing he wanted to spread capitalism. I think it was mainly the latter, but not completely black and white. I go off the evidence, including what people said and what happened. It's an important topic to clear up.

[daft punk]

Remember when we talked about Trotsky's lies and you ran away crying like the little Trot you are because you had no arguments?
Not really. I remember vaguely you claiming that, not really sure what you were on about. Was it Stalin poisoning Lenin? Is this your claim to fame, that I forgot to reply to you one time?

[daft punk]

God damn, can everyone shut the fuck up about what Daft Punk is saying and get back to the OP?

I am actually interested in that and that's why I subscribed to this thread.
Just fucking do it, don't keep going on about me for crying out loud. All you ever post about is me, it's seriously disturbing. Talk about some politics. I'm really not that interesting.

[Omsk]

Not really. I remember vaguely you claiming that, not really sure what you were on about. Was it Stalin poisoning Lenin? Is this your claim to fame, that I forgot to reply to you one time?


What a poor blind Trot you are.You did not forget to reply,you replied,but with something like: " I don't believe in lies" - that was your entire reply to a huge post i wrote in which i destroyed the malicious lies of the worm Bronstein.

[daft punk]

Well done Omsk, you obviously got me crying and running alright. Give yourself a big pat on the back.

[Comrade Samuel]

just keep the snide little sniping, you never try to actually debate me.



who the fuck are you?

Mods - two prime examples of shit posting. These rubbish posts just clog up the threads, fucking remove them and this one. Do your fucking jobs.


Why I'm Lenin himself of corse!

As for my "shit posting" I only wanted to exspress that this thread has become entirely derailed and that somebody should do something about it, there's no reason to drag me into this I hate you intilectualy not personally.

[daft punk]

Why I'm Lenin himself of corse!

As for my "shit posting" I only wanted to exspress that this thread has become entirely derailed and that somebody should do something about it, there's no reason to drag me into this I hate you intilectualy not personally.

Ffs, if you have no idea how to spell, turn spell check on in your browser. At least insult me in decent English.

[daft punk]

I agree with all of that, except maybe your little jab at anarchists ;) I agree that Marxism-Leninism should be dead and buried by now, its a proven failure, but I think its safe to say that in the next revolutionary wave Marxist-Leninists will be mostly irrelevant.

Well I hope so. However in some countries eg India they are still dominating the left. I dont know if Chavez is influenced by them, but he is kinda going down that read a bit.

[daft punk]

"Stalinist policy was to follow the two stage theory, via popular fronts, to have capitalism first, in all countries outside the USSR, at least the backward ones. "

Well, that really goes against the fundamentals of Marxism. As we know, Marx thought that feudalism (or Asiatic mode of production as it existed in China) was the highest class system ever to exist and that transition to classless society is going to happen in semi-feudal countries like China, where objective development of productive forces was the highest.

SERFS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!!!!!!!!

SERFS HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS, BUT THEY HAVE A WORLD TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, duft punk; thanks for debunking such commonly held misconceptions that prior capitalist development is necessary for sucessfull worker's revolution and that we could advance directly from feudalism to Communism. :rolleyes:



Ok, lets just look at this first bit tonight. If I read this right, you are agreeing with me that Stalin and Mao wanted China to be capitalist. Good, it's nice when a Stalinists actually realises this basic fact and admits it.

However this is very simplistic stagism you are putting forward, which I don't agree Marx meant. He meant the world as a whole had to reach a certain level. For instance Marx did say the revolution could start in Russia, check the intro to the Russian Edition of Manifesto (marxists.org). Search also the "filthy business"quote, the bit about world historical context.

Plus, Lenin dropped his stagism in 1917 to agree with Trotsky that the Russian bourgeois were never gonna do anything progressive like land reform or end the war, hence the revolution.

Put it this way. If stagism was so great, how come it lasted only a couple of years instead of the planned several decades in China?

How come that plan failed?

It failed because it was a shit idea, unworkable, unrealistic. Mao had to abandon it very quickly. Trotsky predicted all this back in 1906 and said it about China in 1925-7.

Obviously being backward had big problems for Russia, but Lenin never wanted a bourgeois revolution after April 1917. The solution is spreading it to advanced countries, and he said as much, many times. This would be how it was solved.

[Comrade Samuel]

Ffs, if you have no idea how to spell, turn spell check on in your browser. At least insult me in decent English.

You know not everybody here is from an English speaking country, sure I'm not and you where perfectly right in pointing out my failure to proof read before I post but it's certainly not right to be so quick to assume so much.

You already have proven you hate addressing what people say to you directly in favor of obsessing over petty crap so I think I'll just return to holding back and not saying anything everytime you ruin a thread knowing full-well what you say is begging for a flame war so it's best we just wait for when you eventually get yourself restricted.

[Le Libérer]

just keep the snide little sniping, you never try to actually debate me.



who the fuck are you?

Mods - two prime examples of shit posting. These rubbish posts just clog up the threads, fucking remove them and this one. Do your fucking jobs.

And who the fuck are you?

Banned.

Go troll some other forum.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I just wanted to say, this thread is properly derailed and i will be nominating it for greatest hits 2012

[Le Libérer]

I agree its derailed to hell therefore, I am closing it.

Thread closed.