Opposing ideologies in a Communist society.

[Bloodwerk]

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what kind of social system is on charge at the moment, there will always be people that will oppose it. (Like us now.)
So in a communist society, what will happen with all the people that still support and try to bring back the old capitalist system? (I know it would be very hard to bring it back after a hypothetical global revolution, but still)

If we're striving to be perfectly democratic and egalitarian, won't they have every right to oppose communism and stick to their beliefs?

Or will the be punished/exiled etc.?

[Deicide]

Rafiq will deal with them.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Gulag.

[Rooster]

So in a communist society, what will happen with all the people that still support and try to bring back the old capitalist system? (I know it would be very hard to bring it back after a hypothetical global revolution, but still)

They would get laughed at? It's not like one person, or a group of people can just decide, "hey, we'll be capitalists now". Capitalism came about through a long historical process. It's not something that can be done in one night or at the whim of a person's will.

[GPDP]

The way I see it, for such people it'll be kind of like our situation as communists during the current capitalist epoch. We dislike it, we even openly oppose it at times, but life has to go on, and we have no choice but to participate in capitalist society to survive.

Basically, I'm sure some people (I'm imagining sociopaths or extremely anti-social people) will whine, but chances are they'll pretty much have no alternative other than perhaps living off the grid. If they want to maintain a high standard of living above the essentials, they'll have to participate.

Also, there's the matter of being shunned or ridiculed. Who in this day and age would openly wish to go back to the days of feudalism, or fuck, the early days of capitalism, the more reactionary parts of the US nonwithstanding? I imagine this will also be the case in a socialist society.

[NewLeft]

They're far from reestablishing the capitalist state and private property. There's people who argue for monarchy today, they're not a threat to capitalism.

[Railyon]

I think this question is highly relevant for the lower phase of communism, but in the higher phase? I don't know really. Then again, who knows...

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

How do you exile people when there are no countries.

[Deicide]

How do you exile people when there are no countries.

In order to exile someone, you don't need some abstract concept like a 'country'. You simply send them to a piece of land far, far away... an Island perhaps ;)

My Stalinist ambitions have just revealed themselves..

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

In order to exile someone, you don't need some abstract concept like a 'country'. You simply send them to a piece of land far, far away... an Island perhaps ;)

My Stalinist ambitions have just revealed themselves..

What would stop them from coming back?

[Deicide]

What would stop them from coming back?

Well, the hundreds/thousands of miles of sea water.. and sharks?

[Railyon]

What would stop them from coming back?
Armed, pissed-off workers?

[Bloodwerk]

Lol:)
Thanks for the replies so far guys.

[Rooster]

I think this question is highly relevant for the lower phase of communism, but in the higher phase? I don't know really. Then again, who knows...

I think it's more relevant for the dotp rather than the lower phase of communism. I think that's kinda what the dotp is for.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Armed, pissed-off workers?

Seems a little counter-productive, to exile someone, bring him to an island, instead of killing him in the first place.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I heard Alaska would be beautiful............ for dangerous anti-communist Americans.
;)

[Railyon]

Seems a little counter-productive, to exile someone, bring him to an island, instead of killing him in the first place.
Why so preoccupied with executions?


I think it's more relevant for the dotp rather than the lower phase of communism. I think that's kinda what the dotp is for.
Guess I must have my terms mixed up here. I think there is a certain fluidity between both though.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I heard Alaska would be beautiful............ for dangerous anti-communist Americans.
;)

I don't think it is a good idea to send about 80% of all americans to Alaska.

[Deicide]

Why so preoccupied with executions?

He must play Wow and CS.. shit we got another one on the loose..

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He must play Wow and CS.. shit we got another one on the loose..

I'm StalinistRebelNews.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I don't think it is a good idea to send about 80% of all americans to Alaska.

But post-revolutionary America will be a place where the proletariat has already accepted Marxism-Leninism as its liberating ideology, thus only parasites, reactionaries, and class enemies will be anti-communists.

[gorillafuck]

Gulag.this is the learning forum, so it's not acceptable to respond with concentration camp jokes.

[Ostrinski]

Marxism-Leninism will be but a memory by the time America is communist.

Also there is no reason why anyone minus a couple nutters would want to return to the previous mode of production, you don't see anyone wanting to go back to feudal society.

[Kronsteen]

If we're striving to be perfectly democratic and egalitarian, won't they have every right to oppose communism and stick to their beliefs?

It's a good question. I think the answer is that it's never possible to be "perfectly democratic and egalitarian". We can just do one hell of a lot better than the current system does.

Freedom of thought and action can be maximised - which means minimising the action of those who want to minimise everyone else's freedom. We can try to maximise general qualitity of life - which means preventing the action of those who maximise their quality of life by taking it away from others.

And yes, that does entail the danger of sliding down the slope from restricting a few dangerous people, to being paranoid and controlling the entire population. Is it a slippery slope, and is it human nature to slide down it? I think most people are better than that, but as the saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

this is the learning forum, so it's not acceptable to respond with concentration camp jokes.

How dare you even compare gulags (penal institutions for criminals and class enemies) with concentration camps (camps where specific races and groups of people were put into on the basis of who they were, not what they have done).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How do you exile people when there are no countries.
There's always the Moon, or for particularly nasty cases, the Sun! :D

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But, seriously, a revolution created by the masses and a new communist society ruled by the masses will keep things moving forward, even if there's a small minority who wants to move backward.

[Rooster]

Guess I must have my terms mixed up here. I think there is a certain fluidity between both though.

Well, I think the period of deconstruction of class society leading up to socialism would weaken capitalists more and more and make the threat of a re-emergence of a class and capitalist society more and more difficult. I think there has to be a point that turns when class society has been de-constructed and it would be impossible for it to return. This is kinda where I think socialism begins.

[Ostrinski]

How dare you even compare gulags (penal institutions for criminals and class enemies) with concentration camps (camps where specific races and groups of people were put into on the basis of who they were, not what they have done).A concentration camp is an internment camp, which is just a camp where people are confined in large groups without trial, usually regarding political matters. And the gulag was the main instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union. So the comparison isn't unfair at all, and as zeekloid said, isn't appropriate for the learning forum.

[gorillafuck]

How dare you even compare gulags (penal institutions for criminals and class enemies) with concentration campsbecause gulags were concentration camps.


(camps where specific races and groups of people were put into on the basis of who they were, not what they have done).that is not what concentration camps are. that was one of the multiple functions of German concentration camps.

[BE_]

How dare you even compare gulags (penal institutions for criminals and class enemies) with concentration camps (camps where specific races and groups of people were put into on the basis of who they were, not what they have done).

They were both fucked up. Sometimes the so called "class enemies" were leftists. They were also not given trial. Even if some of them were criminals who committed actual crimes, it's still unfair to put them in gulags without trial. Also prisoners should never be forced to labor.

[Manic Impressive]

Plato imagines a scenario in the Republic where tyranny will follow democracy. This is due to one man coming to represent the majority view point and his supporters raising him to become a demagogue. The demagogue would become corrupted by power and consolidate that power into a dictatorship. Which would then recreate the cycle of Timocracy, Plutocracy, Democracy, Tyranny.

I don't agree with this but if anything it does tell us never to trust anyone who puts themselves in a leadership position, especially after la revolucion.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

because gulags were concentration camps.

If you want to believe that fucking bullshit, that's your problem. All I know is that you are wrong.

Gulag=prison camp; you got a trial; not for specific groups of people; not racist; simple prison sentence (i.e. not for extermination, sentences usually lasted for only around 5 years).

Concentration Camp=no trial; for specific groups of people; not for crimes; its purpose was extermination; discriminatory; no release date (until the Soviets came to liberate you).

[BE_]

If you want to believe that fucking bullshit, that's your problem. All I know is that you are wrong.

Gulag=prison camp; you get a trial; not for specific groups of people; not racist; simple prison sentence (i.e. not for extermination, sentences usually lasted for only around 5 years).

Concentration Camp=no trial; for specific groups of people; not for crimes; its purpose was extermination; discriminatory; no release date (until the Soviets came to liberate you).

Bullshit. It is said that nearly half of the prisoners didn't get a trial.

[gorillafuck]

If you want to believe that fucking bullshit, that's your problem. All I know is that you are wrong.

Gulag=prison camp; you got a trial; not for specific groups of people; not racist; simple prison sentence (i.e. not for extermination, sentences usually lasted for only around 5 years).that is how you think of gulags?


Concentration Camp=no trial; for specific groups of people; not for crimes; its purpose was extermination; discriminatory; no release date (until the Soviets came to liberate you).you really aren't aware that a concentration camp is not a uniquely German thing?

and that that convicted criminals, regardless of race, sexuality, or ethnicity, were put in nazi concentration camps?

[Omsk]

There are some huge differences between the Nazi extermination camps and the Soviet CACLCC . For an example,from the top of my head - May 1934 civil rights were restored to labour deportees,and from about Janurary 1935,the right to vote.
Not to mention the Nazi extermination camps were designed mostly for the complete extermination of various nationalities which did not fall in the 'Ubermensch' group - ie,German Nazis. People went out of the Soviet prisons,they were released. If you went into a Nazi death camp,you would not come out.

Another thing - regarding labor,the Nazi policy was - Extermination trough labour.The conditions were made horrible on purpose.
In truth,the two things are not comparable.

But i really don't think this thread should be a discussion about the Soviet prison system.

[Railyon]

But i really don't think this thread should be a discussion about the Soviet prison system.

Why not if people seemingly want to reinstate it? :confused:

[Alfonso Cano]

Bullshit. It is said that nearly half of the prisoners didn't get a trial.

Irrelevant. The fact is that Gulag is overstated as some kind of horror prison system. You are aware that more people are imprisoned in the US then ever were in the Gulag (and not all were political prisoners, but only a minority)? :rolleyes:

[Alfonso Cano]

As to the punishment for anti-Communist dissenters, we might open re-education centers (not camps!!!!!) and force all of them to listen to Bob Avakian speeches for long extended periods of time. That should turn them into loyal and obedient citizens! :cool:

[Railyon]

As to the punishment for anti-Communist dissenters, we might open re-education centers (not camps!!!!!)

Communist have always been, and will always be, the masters of euphemisms.

[BE_]

Irrelevant. The fact is that Gulag is overstated as some kind of horror prison system. You are aware that more people are imprisoned in the US then ever were in the Gulag (and not all were political prisoners, but only a minority)? :rolleyes:

How was that irrelevant? He said they were given trial when nearly half didn't.

[Omsk]

Why not if people seemingly want to reinstate it? http://www.revleft.com/vb/opposing-ideologies-communist-t170729/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif


You made a typo,nevermind - i doubt any user posting here were being serious about it here.

[gorillafuck]

people who interpret "gulags were concentration camps" as "gulags were the same thing as nazi concentration camps" are misinformed in multiple ways, being that 1) that means they think that concentration camps are a uniquely nazi thing and 2) they don't know what a concentration camp is.

[Omsk]

This all revolves around the utterly malicious and provocative display shown in this thread.People were already comparing the GULag system with the Nazi extermination system,and i corrected them.

[Prinskaj]

This all revolves around the utterly malicious and provocative display shown in this thread.People were already comparing the GULag system with the Nazi extermination system,and i corrected them.
No one is saying that the Gulags were the same as the nazis extermination camps. They are currently merely trying to inform you, and others, of the fact that a concentration camp is not an inherent German or Nazi idea.

[Omsk]

Don't act like i don't know that.I'v seen all of this before,i know where this discussion would have led to.Why do you think i originally insisted that the GULag system and the Nazi extermination system were two different things,that share little or nothing in common? To prevent any kind of a comparison making.

[gorillafuck]

This all revolves around the utterly malicious and provocative display shown in this thread.People were already comparing the GULag system with the Nazi extermination system,and i corrected them.show specifically where people were making this comparison.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

No one is saying that the Gulags were the same as the nazis extermination camps. They are currently merely trying to inform you, and others, of the fact that a concentration camp is not an inherent German or Nazi idea.

Oh no, we Marxist-Leninists needed ultra-leftists to help us figure that out! :rolleyes: We are just so stupid! Thank you for your education.


But in reality, what we have really been trying to get across is that gulags are not at all like concentration camps, whether German or not.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Socialism is the ideology of the proletariat, capitalism is that of the bourgeoisie.

Assuming they're not trying to sabotage the socialist revolution for the advancement of their own sect, I don't think proletarian (socialist) ideologies should be persecuted in revolutionary America. Bourgeois ideologies are another thing entirely though, during the early stages of the revolution. As many have said, by the time capitalism is eliminated globally and/or the upper stages of communism are reached, it'll appear to be as silly as a neofeudalist in modern times and attacking it would be unnecessary.

Also - gulags were labor camps, concentration camps were extermination/experimentation camps. No comparison.

[Omsk]

show specifically where people were making this comparison.




For an example here



They were both fucked up. Sometimes the so called "class enemies" were leftists. They were also not given trial. Even if some of them were criminals who committed actual crimes, it's still unfair to put them in gulags without trial. Also prisoners should never be forced to labor.


But i see you are one of those 'show me,show me!' types - the point is that sooner or later,people would have started comparing the two.I wrote a line or two which corrected such fundamentally wrong arguments.

[gorillafuck]

Oh no, we Marxist-Leninists needed ultra-leftists to help us figure that out! :rolleyes: We are just so stupid! Thank you for your education.you made multiple posts thinking that a comparison was being made to nazi concentration camps, despite that it was never said that gulags were like nazi concentration camps.

[gorillafuck]

For an example here"they were both fucked up" is not saying they were equivalent. they were both fucked up.


But i see you are one of those 'show me,show me!' typesI am.


- the point is that sooner or later,people would have started comparing the two.I wrote a line or two which corrected such fundamentally wrong arguments.considering what was being said it's ridiculous to think that it was headed in that direction.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

you made multiple posts thinking that a comparison was being made to nazi concentration camps, despite that it was never said that gulags were like nazi concentration camps.

The only thing I said that hinted to a comparison was that comment about being liberated by Soviets. With everything else, I was talking about concentration camps in general.

[gorillafuck]

The only thing I said that hinted to a comparison was that comment about being liberated by Soviets. With everything else, I was talking about concentration camps in general.then you do not know what concentration camps are. because concentration camps are not necessarily based on race, people can be put in them based on things they have done, and criminals can be sent to concentration camps. you stated that all these things were not true in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2427047&postcount=33).

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

then you do not know what concentration camps are. because concentration camps are not necessarily based on race, people can be put in them based on things they have done, and criminals can be sent to concentration camps. you stated that all these things were not true in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2427047&postcount=33).

That's the same post I was talking about. The point is that the Soviet gulags were not concentration camps.

[Alfonso Cano]

How was that irrelevant? He said they were given trial when nearly half didn't.

And you believe him on his word? He offered no source for his claims, thus he should not be taken seriously. Soviet legal system was according to many serious sources based on similar norms that were dominant in the Western bourgeous countries. For example:


...the government's edict "On Revolutionary Legality," issued on June 25, 1932, swung Soviet jurisprudence decisively toward statutory stability, formality, and correspondingly the professionalization of jurists. The main spokesman for the new approach was Vyshinsky, whose appointment as procurator general of the USSR in 1935 symbolized the ascendance of that philosophy. Taking his cue from Stalin's assertion that "the withering away of the state will come not through a weakening of state authority but through its maximum intensification," Vyshinsky worked tirelessly to make law the cornerstone of the burgeoning bureaucratic apparatus. He clashed repeatedly with the commissar of justice, Krylenko, over what Krylenko considered excessive borrowing of forms and norms from bourgeois legal systems. Vyshinsky engaged in bureaucratic turf battles with both Krylenko's commissariat and the NKVD.
The Constitution epitomized the new Soviet legal thinking. As one Western scholar has noted, it provided for "a strong and stable criminal law for the protection of public property, and a predictable and differentiated civil law for the protection of the...right of 'personal property.' Beyond this, the emphasis on stability and predictability was entirely consistent with a whole series of measures adopted by the regime in 1934 and 1935. These included reconciliation with former oppositionists at the 17th Party Congress, the issuing of a kolkhoz statute, the convocation of a Writer's Union congress and its preaching of literary toleration, and the rejection of the Comintern's "class-against-class" strategy in favor of the more ecumenical antifascist popular-frontism . Together, they constituted a strategy of political moderation that distinguishes the mid-1930s from both earlier and later in the decade.
Siegelbaum and Sokolov. Stalinism As a Way of Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, c2000, p. 159

[Alfonso Cano]

Oh, yeah. To those who actually believe that Stalin was basically some sort of sadistic tyrant who repressed innocent people just for the sake of fun:


In September a memo from Stalin proposed the formation of a Politburo commission (chaired by Kuibyshev...) to look into 0GPU abuses. Stalin called the matter "serious, in my opinion," and ordered the commission to "free the innocent" and purge the OGPU of practitioners of specific "investigative tricks" and punish them regardless of their rank... Thus, in response to Stalin's recommendation, the Kuibyshev Commission prepared a draft resolution censuring the police for "illegal methods of investigation" and recommending punishment of several secret police officials.
Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 122

Stalin calling for the release of innocent people and punishment of those responsible!???!!!! :confused: You must be joking!!!! Wasn't Stalin some kind of murderous tyrant who enjoyed suffering and wasn't his legal system just a vast slave-labour complex for INNOOOOOOOOOOOCENTZZZZZZZ people???? :rolleyes:

[Omsk]

"they were both fucked up" is not saying they were equivalent. they were both fucked up.


The point is not equivalency,but their similarities,i am saying that there wern't any major ones that were exclusively between just them.Not to mention the phrase in that post means and explains nothing.



considering what was being said it's ridiculous to think that it was headed in that direction.



On the countrary,a discussion would have emerged sooner or later,as i always does.(As the 'experts' here like to meddle in such threads and compare the USSR to Nazi Germany.

[Ocean Seal]

this is the learning forum, so it's not acceptable to respond with concentration camp jokes.
The sad part is though, its actually probably a pretty legitimate answer. There will be some kind of gulag-esque instrument in use when seizing state power. Internment camps for counter-revolutionaries and those from reactionary classes at some point will be implemented.

[Offbeat]

Surely the term 'concentration camp' simply means a camp where many people are concentrated? In which case gulag camps certainly were concentration camps.

[The Young Pioneer]

Dude, why is it so hard for some of us to just admit that the USSR under Stalin did some pretty fucked up shit?

The original post about not making jokes mentioned concentration camps. That somehow spiraled into a Nazi thing (and yeah, glad someone else noted that not all concentration camps in the history of the world evarz were done by WWII Germans). But some people here are assuming a Nazi concentration camp and a Nazi extermination/death camp are the same thing.

No.

During the Final Solution, some Nazi concentration camps became extermination camps. Originally, camps did serve the same purpose as the gulags; Dachau opened in 1933 designed specifically to intern political prisoners, mostly communists. The first "official" extermination camp was not built until 1942 during the planning phase for the Polish Holocaust.

The Nazis themselves differentiated between the two: During the Nuremberg trials Eichmann's deputy listed Majdanek and Auschwitz, as extermination camps, will preserving Dachau and Buchenwald, as concentration camps. There were, by most accounts, six to eight camps identified specifically as Nazi extermination camps, while the number of Nazi concentration camps exceeds this by the hundreds and is impossible to calculate.

So no, I don't see anything wrong with comparing a gulag to a Nazi concentration camp. Extermination camp during the Final Solution? Too far, yes.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I don't know if this is even necessary, but just to be sure that Comrade Commistar and others get it:


That's the same post I was talking about. The point is that the Soviet gulags were not concentration camps.

yes, they are by definition concentration camps, because as Offbeat said:


Surely the term 'concentration camp' simply means a camp where many people are concentrated? In which case gulag camps certainly were concentration camps.

according to wikipedia's article on internment, the Random House Dictionary defines a concentration camp as "a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc.", while the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions."

Wiki article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Concentration_camp)

This is not the same as saying that the condition in and the background for the nazi camps and the gulags were completely the same, just that both of them are by definition concentration camps.

have we proved our point now?

[Alfonso Cano]

Dude, why is it so hard for some of us to just admit that the USSR under Stalin did some pretty fucked up shit?

It is hard because we have nothing to admit and because there was no fucked up shit happening in the Soviet Union under Stalin. What was happening was Revolution, in all its beauty and magnificence, with all the contradictions and shortcomings which are unavoidable when a formerly oppressed group of people conquers state power and begins to organise society according to its own vision. Yes, some pretty fucked up shit was done in USSR under Stalin, no doubt about that. Industrialisation of the formerly semi-feudal country, turning it into second economic superpower, elimination of illiteracy, countless schools and universities being built for free use by the countless students, construction of superb nationwide healthcare system for free use, defeat of fascism and liberation of Europe and spreading of socialism throughout world, were among them. Or do you perhaps think of the repression? If that is the case, let's look at it logically and analitically. After all, we are Marxists, and not moralists, and screaming about evil, baby-eating, mass-murdering tyrant called Stalin, or evil, baby-eating, mass-murdering Stalinist bureaucracy wan't get as anywhere, especially if we wan't to understand political violence in a materialist context. As we know, society is divided in two polarized classes, and this classes are antagonistically opposed to each other in their interests, outlooks and position in society. Since their views are irreconcilable with one another, therefore it follows that class conflict, in one form or the other, is the basic law of history. If we look it that way, violence is not an aberration we should be ashamed of, but a normal part of any great historical process. What differs "good" from "bad" violence is not whether one was bigger from the other, but whether it was used to change relations of production in a historically progressive way. Let's take one example: Bastille is often taken as a symbol of absolute tiranny despite the fact that less than dozen people were actually imprisoned there, while the French Revolution is seen as the greatest liberating event in the human history, despite the fact that it had Robespierre and la terreur which killed tens of thousands. The same goes for American Revolution. The British colonial administration killed perhaps a few dozens people, yet it is seen as a sign of oppression in today's US history books, while US revolution which led to the establishment of capitalist regime that wiped out an entire native population from the face of earth and put survivors in "concentration camps just like Nazis did" :rolleyes:, enslaved an entire race for a century and segregated it for another and led imperialist wars which resulted in deaths of almost 10 million people (Phillipines 1, Korea 2-3, Vietnam 3-4, Iraq 1), is celebrated as a glorious beacon of democracy. So, when we are disscusing Stalin and his "crimes", we need to have in mind what the Revolution he led aimed to achieve and what it did accomplish using violence you are so easy to condemn. It aimed to achieve perfect equality, freedom and happiness for all people, and despite falling short of the high standards it set for itself, it still accomplished enormous gains for the class it aimed to represent, the workers. If he had been the leader of the US and achieved what he did for the Soviet Union, Stalin would be today celebrated as the greatest president in US history, a great leader who led the country through economic miracle and succesfully combated the terrorist threat to US national securiry, while Washington would probably be named Stalington.




Originally, camps did serve the same purpose as the gulags

The same means may be used to achieve totally opposite and fundamentally different goals. We should judge Revolutions, not on means they used (no matter how revolting they may look like to our moral feelings), but on the goals they aimed to accomplish. A sword used by a slave to achieve freedom should be judged totally differently from a sword used by a slave-owner to maintain slavery. This is the reason why your claim that camps and gulags had the same purpose is unsustainable. One was the means of tiranny over working class, the other was the means of its liberation. I hope you understand the difference.


So no, I don't see anything wrong with comparing a gulag to a Nazi concentration camp.

Would you also compare Roosevelt's camps for Japanese-Americans to Nazi's concentration camps, or is this comparision reserved just for Stalin Soviet Union?

Besides, there were differences between the two to make any comparision like yours totally unsustainable in face of evidence:

-Nazi camps were designated for national minorities deemed inferior by Hitler's ideology. Stalin's Soviet Union proclaimed universal equality of all nations and races and people were never persecuted or put in Gulag because of that (US with its racial segregation during the 30's is much closer to Hitler's dream than many think)

-the number of prisoners in Stalin Gulag (both political and common criminals) was lower than in both United States and Nazi Germany

"In 1937, the average number detained in the GULAG was given by the Soviet historian Zemskov as 994,000, the total rising to a maximum of 1,360,019 in 1939. It follows that the larger part of the detainees were not "technically" in the Gulag, but rather in prison, "colonies," and [special settlements]. The same conclusion is suggested by the evidence for 1939 (unless we suppose all the evidence to be faked in the archives)."

Getty and Manning. Stalinist Terror. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 269

The current US prison population in the XXI century is around 2,2 million. I won't mention numbers that were put in the Nazi camps, because I find such comparisions a sign of insanity, but I think this already speaks for itself...

-people in Soviet Union were actually tried before being punished (not that it was always fair, but still...), unlike in country you mention

"In August 1935 Pravda added a weighty editorial voice to this campaign when it announced that "to punish for mistakes--this is the last resort. It is necessary to teach how to avoid mistakes.... It's necessary to remember a basic rule: persuade, teach, help." Repression was to be used only in "extreme cases," but even then it should also educate.
Thus, during 1935 Party organs and the central authorities of the judicial system issued a series of strong warnings to lower courts and prosecutors alike that petty problems and infractions were not to be considered crimes, that cases of counter-revolution were not to be pressed unless serious, and that careful attention to evidence was the order of the day. Krylenko's and Vyshinsky's protests against NKVD behavior and the wide application of Article 58 had a similar thrust."

Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 14

"Between 1932 in 1936, Vyshinsky stood for the opposite on each of these points, advocating instead due process, careful judgments on the basis of evidence, a strong role for defense lawyers in all cases, firm legal codes that applied equally to the entire population, and a strengthening of law."

Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 6

"In February 1936 Vyshinsky wrote to Molotov, Stalin's right-hand man in the Politburo and chairman of the Sovnarkom (Council of Ministers), to call for a reduction of the NKVD's administrative powers. The commissariat's Special Session, its internal tribunal, deliberated without calling witnesses or the accused, especially in cases of counter-revolutionary agitation and "expression of terrorist intentions." In the process, serious mistakes could occur. Vyshinsky wanted the "maximum limitation" placed on the Special Session's right to hear cases; he believed they should go instead through the regular courts, following normal judicial procedure. For cases that continued in the Special Session, the Procuracy should be allowed to make a "most careful check of investigative materials" and to obtain the release of prisoners if it found no basis for further action.
... Instead he believed that attention should be paid to objective evidence. He publicly attacked the NKVD's secret procedures, because, unlike open show trials, they "served no educative or legitimating functions." In an article published shortly thereafter, one of many similar pieces, he warned against violations of law and poor investigative procedures. He gave several examples of how not to operate,..."

Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 7

"In February 1936 USSR Procurator Vyshinsky had complained to Stalin that NKVD officials were refusing to release prisoners whom procurators had ordered freed for lack of evidence. NKVD chief Yagoda had replied that procurators and courts were incompetent; procurators could "suggest" release of prisoners, but the decision should remain in the hands of the NKVD. On February 16th, Stalin wrote to Molotov, "Comrade Molotov: it seems to me that Vyshinsky is right."

Getty & Naumov, The Road to Terror. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, c1999, p. 219

"In discussing Yezhov's report, only two contributions struck a highly discordant note. One of them, no matter how strange this might seem at first glance, belonged to Vyshinsky, who spoke about actual shortcomings in the activity of the NKVD. First of all, he read several transcripts of interrogations which were filled with vulgar abuse from the investigators and which testified to their unconcealed application of pressure on the people under arrest. After citing the words of one peripheral investigator which were directed at a person under arrest: "Do not remain silent and do not play games.... Prove that this is not so," Vyshinsky explained to the plenum's participants that the accused should not have to prove his innocence, but, on the contrary, the investigator has to prove the guilt of the accused."

Rogovin, Vadim. 1937: Year of Terror. Oak Park, Michigan: Labor Publications, 1998, p. 278

-Gulag actually more resembled some really bad US prisons, or today's Russia penal system, than any kind of concentration camp

"Different kinds of camps and exile with widely varying features and regimens existed, indicating that gulag practice was not simply to hold or destroy innocent people. Prisoners were treated according to the nature and degree of the crimes for which they had been convicted. The NKVD colonel Almazov reported that inmates sentenced to administrative exile were often hired by the camps as free workers. The gulag administration did not need to house, guard, or feed such people, whose productivity was higher than that of the regular prisoners. And Avar man arrested in 1937 went to a state farm in Kazakhstan, part of a colony of such NKVD facilities. "We all worked very hard in the hope of eventual freedom." He recalled. Nor did he report any starvation at his site. A young Russian man arrested in the same year was sent to a factory in Archangel. Not kept under guard, he was taught how to use a powersaw for wood. "I learned and worked hard on this machine," he said later. This man was not a political prisoner; people in that category worked in the forests under guard and had a high mortality rate. Instead of being used for economic gain, politicals were typically given the worst work or were dumped into the less productive parts of the gulag.
The difference in treatment for the two categories of prisoners is also illustrated in the memoirs of Victor Herman. He contrasted the camps Burepolom and Nuksha 2, both near Viatka, in the north of Russia. In Burepolom there were about 3000 prisoners, all nonpolitical, in the central compound. They could walk around at will, were lightly guarded, had unlocked barracks with mattresses and pillows, and watched western movies. But Nuksha 2, which housed serious criminals and politicals, featured guard towers with machine guns and locked barracks and allowed no correspondence....
Earlier in the decade [the 1930s], prisoners and exiles more often worked at their specialties, as did a Russian man who lived near the Usbirlag after his arrest in 1933. At that time prisoners could shorten their sentences by overfulfilling the work norms. The newspaper Perekovka of the White Sea-Baltic Combine, marked "not for distribution beyond the boundaries of the camp," lists 10 prisoners released early in 1936 for good performance. Here were powerful incentives to work hard.
Other productive options were open to inmates at this point. In early 1935, the same paper mentioned a course in livestock raising held for prisoners at a nearby state farm; those who took it had their workday reduced to four hours. During that year the professional theater group in the camp complex gave 230 performances of plays and concerts to over 115,000 spectators.
Up to 1937 free men and inmates, though never politicals, were used as armed guards. Camp newspapers and bond drives existed until then; although it is ironic and cruel to collect money for the state from prisoners, it is at least an indication that they were still regarded as participants in society to some degree."

Thurston, Robert. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941. New Haven: Yale University Press, c1996, p. 102-104

"In the village of Palatka [north of Magadan on the Pacific Coast] I spoke to Boris Sulim, who had worked in one of the camps when he was a teenager and was now serving on the local raikom, the Party committee....
Under Stalin, Sulim worked in the Omsuchkan camp, about 400 miles from Magadan. "I was 18 years old and Magadan seemed a very romantic place to me. I got 880 rubles a month and a 3000 ruble installation grant, which was a hell of a lot of money for a kid like me. I was able to give my mother some of it. They even gave me membership in the Komsomol. There was a mining and ore-processing plant which sent out parties to dig for tin. I worked at the radio station which kept contact with the parties.
"If the inmates were good and disciplined they had almost the same rights as the free workers. They were trusted and they even went to the movies. As for the reason they were in the camps, well, I never poked my nose into details. We all thought the people were there because they were guilty."

Remnick, David. Lenin's Tomb. New York: Random House, c1993, p. 425

"Harsh as nature was in the Kolyma region, few people died in the Dalstroi camps in the years 1932-1937. There existed a system of examinations which allowed 10-year sentences to be reduced to two or three years, excellent food and clothing, a workday of four to six hours in winter and 10 in summer, and good pay, which enabled prisoners to help their families and to return home with funds. These facts may be found not only in the book by Vyaktin, a former head of one of the Kolyma camps, but also in Shalamov's Tales of the Kolyma Camps."

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 508

"Thus, those who, in the late 1930s, actually died in the camps of various causes were very few, probably a matter of not more than 10,000. According to the great anti-Soviet mythology especially after the war, the Soviet labor camps were almost exactly the same as Hitler's extermination camps: in the Soviet camps people "died like flies." In reality they were like the camp described by Solzhenitsyn in Ivan Denisovich. This, in recent years (when one could, at last, at least privately talk to those who had been in camps), was confirmed to me by a very large number of Russians.... In addition, most, though not all of the people I interviewed confirmed that until the war prisoners could--and did--receive letters and food-parcels from home."

Werth, Alexander. Russia; The Post-War Years. New York: Taplinger Pub. Co.,1971, p. 30

"Even direct contact with the outside world was not lacking. There were among us not a few who worked individually in some outside institution or who were permitted visits from relatives. Since they were subjected to hardly any searching when they returned to prison, it was possible to receive and send letters. There was also an authorized correspondence. There was even a post office within the prison, next to the administration office, and it was open to all of us for normal postal transactions. Censorship was more a matter of form than of reality. This was not a GPU prison, that is, a political prison with its draconic severity, but a common "criminal" prison belonging to the People's Commissariat of Justice, with almost the atmosphere of 1917...."

Ciliga, Ante, The Russian Enigma. London: Ink Links, 1979, p. 357

-people in Gulag were actually released after their terms run out (which were no longer than 5-10 years). As noted in G. Rittersporn, J. Arch Getty and V. Zemskov "Victims of the Soviet penal system", some 200 000 people were released yearly after they had fullfiled their sentences

-if it was found out that certain people were innocent and that they were imprisoned without reason, they were released

"After Ezhov’s dismissal as NKVD chief, many cases were reviewed. Several tens of thousands of people who were under investigation were liberated and the charges dropped. The Gulag was emptied somewhat: during 1939, unprecedentedly, 327,400 prisoners were liberated from the camps and colonies."

Jansen, Marc & Petrov, Nikita. Stalin's Loyal Executioner: Yezhov, Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press, c2002, p. 192

-prisoners could reduce their sentences or even be set free if they gave example that they have improved

"The state proclaimed a policy of "reformation through forced labor." Those who actively showed their worth in "the building of socialism" had a good chance of being pardoned, rewarded, even allowed to continue their careers. In the 1930s a highly popular film “Prisoners” depicted the rapid reeducation at the Baltic-White Sea Canal Construction Camp of both criminals and political prisoners, transformed into active participants in building socialism."

Siegelbaum and Sokolov. Stalinism As a Way of Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, c2000, p. 89

"[Resolution of the USSR Central Executive Committee, Sept. 1, 1932, on privileges for convict-workers at the White Sea-Baltic Canal construction site]
... In connection with the successful completion of the basic work on the White Sea-Baltic Waterway, this great new accomplishment of the Soviet regime, the USSR Central Executive Committee resolves:
1. To give the Unified State Political Directorate [OGPU] the right to free those prisoners who distinguished themselves on the construction project from serving the remainder of their sentences, and where needed, from serving supplementary sentences.
2. To instruct the OGPU to grant to all other prisoners (participants who worked conscientiously in the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Waterway), in addition to existing ordinary privileges in the corrective labor camps, a reduction in the term of measures taken to insure the defense of society.
3. To instruct the OGPU to present for review by the USSR Central Executive Committee the expunging of the convictions of those freed in accordance with paragraph 1 of this resolution."

Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 153

I think all this clarifies the differences between the two regimes you dared to mention in the same sentence.

Btw; since you have that cute Lenin in your avatar, it would be nice to know what he thinks about dealing with counter-revolutionaries:

"In his [Lenin] amendments to the project for the penal code, he insisted that the notion of "counter-revolutionary activity" should be given the widest possible interpretation. This definition was to be linked with the "international bourgeoisie" in such a way that this kind of crime became quite imprecise from a juridical point of view and thus left the way wide open for every kind of arbitrary action. Among other things, the crime would cover "propaganda and agitation" and "participation in or aid to an organization" which might benefit that part of the international bourgeoisie that does not recognize the Soviet regime's equal rights with capitalist states and seeks to overthrow it by force. This definition was already broad enough, but what was worse, in view of the fact that the crime could carry capital punishment, was that it could be extended by analogy. Whoever "gave help objectively to that part of the international bourgeoisie" (which actively opposed the regime), and similarly whoever belonged to an organization within the country whose activities "might assist or be capable of assisting" this bourgeoisie, will also be guilty! This case shows that at this time Lenin was anxious to leave room for the use of terror or the threat of its use (not through the Cheka alone but through tribunals and a regular procedure) as long as the big capitalist countries continued to threaten the USSR.
Lenin, then, was very far from being a weak liberal, incapable of taking resolute action when necessary."

Lewin, Moshe. Lenin's Last Struggle. New York: Pantheon Books. C1968, p. 133

I hope I have been helpfull.

Cheers and all the best :)

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

There's always the Moon, or for particularly nasty cases, the Sun! :D

Newt Gingrich came to mind when I read your post.

[Khalid]

On topic: When the newspapers, TV and all the mass media is in the control of the proletariat, it will be kinda hard for anti-communists to get their views through.

P.S. Come on, this thread is not about the GULAG.

[Lobotomy]

You are aware that more people are imprisoned in the US then ever were in the Gulag (and not all were political prisoners, but only a minority)? :rolleyes:

This justifies absolutely nothing

[Alfonso Cano]

This justifies absolutely nothing

When someone mentions Barack Obama, you don't hear something like this:"Oh my god! A bloody dictator who put millions of innocent people in the Gulag just because he was SOOOOOOO EVIIIIIIIIILZ!!!!!!! But the the same doesn't apply to Stalin. Despite the fact that the Gulag NEVER held as much people as US prison system. So, it is not a question of "justifying" anything, but just of stating something that the vast majority of anti-Communists are not aware of and which is absolutely true.

[Manic Impressive]

So you think that we should hold Obama in the same regard as the alleged leader of the working class of the soviet union? Stalinist logic never ceases to amaze me.

On the other hand we could regard them both as capitalists then we could hold them to the same standard. In which case the only correct position would be to oppose both equally which I'm sure everyone who opposes gulags does.

[Omsk]

regard them both as capitalists


Where was the capital of Joseph Stalin,the capital which he personally invested in a private run business?

How was he a plutocrat?

How did he favor capitalism?

I understand Stalin hating is popular here,but don't go overboard.

[Alfonso Cano]

So you think that we should hold Obama in the same regard as the alleged leader of the working class of the soviet union? Stalinist logic never ceases to amaze me.

My point was not that we should hold them in the same regard, but that many anti-Communists love to equal Gulag with the entire existence of the Soviet Union, despite the fact that the "greatest democracy in the world" has more people imprisoned than Stalin SU ever had. Which clearly shows how they love to use double-standards when they measure the two.

So you have totally missed my entire point. As ultra-leftists usually do. :rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

My point was not that we should hold them in the same regard, but that many anti-Communists love to equal Gulag with the entire existence of the Soviet Union, despite the fact that the "greatest democracy in the world" has more people imprisoned than Stalin SU ever had. Which clearly shows how they love to use double-standards when they measure the two.

So you have totally missed my entire point. As ultra-leftists usually do. :rolleyes:

You are equating the prison system in a capitalist country with one which you consider to be a workers state. That implies that you think they should be judged on the same merits. Shouldn't socialist soviet union be better than capitalist US? I got your point I'm just pointing out that your logic is shit.

[Tim Finnegan]

Where was the capital of Joseph Stalin,the capital which he personally invested in a private run business?
Legal form =/= social content. Otherwise you would have to condemn, for example, the British miners' strike of 1984-85, because they fought against the publicly-owned National Coal Board.

[Manic Impressive]

Where was the capital of Joseph Stalin,the capital which he personally invested in a private run business?

How was he a plutocrat?

How did he favor capitalism?

I understand Stalin hating is popular here,but don't go overboard.
ffs Lenin even said it was state capitalist. If you wanna debate this then lets do it in the appropriate thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-nature-soviet-t169000/index.html

[Omsk]

Legal form =/= social content.


We all know the myth about an ultra-rich Soviet elite is false.Stalin was never a rich man,and it would be hypocritical to accuse him of 'hoarding wealth' (No such thing happened though. because Lenin was also provided with adequate conditions in which he can function and work. It perfectly normal for the representative of the proletarian party and a figure of renown to work in good conditions. ( Although he was modest in his life and he for the better part of it,lived in a normal-sized space.)


ffs Lenin even said it was state capitalist. If you wanna debate this then lets do it in the appropriate thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-n...000/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-nature-soviet-t169000/index.html)

It was debated a lot and i see no point in such an argument.You have your opinion i have mine.

[JAM]

ffs Lenin even said it was state capitalist. If you wanna debate this then lets do it in the appropriate thread

Lenin called NEP state capitalism. Don't mix things up. Calling Stalin capitalist is the same as calling Obama socialist. Non-sense.

[Tim Finnegan]

We all know the myth about an ultra-rich Soviet elite is false.Stalin was never a rich man,and it would be hypocritical to accuse him of 'hoarding wealth' (No such thing happened though. because Lenin was also provided with adequate conditions in which he can function and work. It perfectly normal for the representative of the proletarian party and a figure of renown to work in good conditions. ( Although he was modest in his life and he for the better part of it,lived in a normal-sized space.)
That's an awfully long-winded way of saying nothing at all.

[Rooster]

We all know the myth about an ultra-rich Soviet elite is false.Stalin was never a rich man,and it would be hypocritical to accuse him of 'hoarding wealth' (No such thing happened though. because Lenin was also provided with adequate conditions in which he can function and work. It perfectly normal for the representative of the proletarian party and a figure of renown to work in good conditions. ( Although he was modest in his life and he for the better part of it,lived in a normal-sized space.)


Have you not read that section on Capital about the miser? Infact, have you read Capital at all? You do understand that capitalism is about social relations, right?

[Omsk]

Have you not read that section on Capital about the miser? Infact, have you read Capital at all? You do understand that capitalism is about social relations, right?

Have you read a book about Stalin? Maybe you can explain to me Stalin's role as an expropriator and an exploitator of the Soviet workers,explain to me what was his relation to the Soviet workers and explain with precision how did he exploit them.

[Rooster]

Have you read a book about Stalin? Maybe you can explain to me Stalin's role as an expropriator and an exploitator of the Soviet workers,explain to me what was his relation to the Soviet workers and explain with precision how did he exploit them.

So you haven't read it? Yeah, I kinda figured. And yes, I have read some of Stalin's painfully convoluted bollocks.

[Omsk]

Why don't you asnwer my question?



I have read some of Stalin's painfully convoluted bollocks


I am not talking about his theorietical works you genius,but books about him,because too me you seem really clueless.

[Rooster]

Why don't you asnwer my question?



I am not talking about his theorietical works you genius,but books about him,because too me you seem really clueless.

Haha, fuck off. You're not answering mine and I asked first. Have you or haven't you read Capital?

[Omsk]

I have. Now answer my question.Believe it or not,i am actually enjoying this short-line type of conversation,do continue.

[Rooster]

I have. Now answer my question.Believe it or not,i am actually enjoying this short-line type of conversation,do continue.

You have what? Answered my question or read that section of Capital? If the latter, then could you explain how Stalin's standard of living related at all to a social relation?

[Omsk]

The social-relations between Stalin and the Soviet working class were the same as the relations between Lenin and the Soviet working class.The problem which i responded to is a notion that Stalin was a capitalist,he was not. The social-relations were not those between the capitalist and capital,or the people who are employed by the capitalist,ie the wage-worker's.

He was not a plutocrat,he did not believe in capitalism,nor did he support capitalism.He simply was not a capitalist.

[Rooster]

The social-relations between Stalin and the Soviet working class were the same as the relations between Lenin and the Soviet working class.

That leads to two problems of which you seem to be completely ignorant. Lenin was an admitted head of a state capitalist country.


The problem which i responded to is a notion that Stalin was a capitalist,he was not. The social-relations were not those between the capitalist and capital,or the people who are employed by the capitalist,ie the wage-worker's.

So what relation to production did Stalin have?


He was not a plutocrat,he did not believe in capitalism,nor did he support capitalism.He simply was not a capitalist.

Why should it matter what he believed in? That's not how you judge what is or what isn't something.

[Omsk]

Lenin was an admitted head of a state capitalist country.

And what was Stalin in your definition?A gangester who bombed his way into his role? Did he force Lenin to include him into the first Politburo?


So what relation to production did Stalin have?

That's the question i want an answer from you.(If you want my opinion - his relations were closely linked to the party of the proletariat.)



Why should it matter what he believed in? That's not how you judge what is or what isn't something.


We came to a conclusion that he was not a plutocrat,that he had no relations to actual production,we came to the conclusion that he did not own anything in the capitalist sense.

He was obviously not a part of the bourgeoisie,as the 'new class' of 'red directors' did not exist,and this 'rich Soviet elite' was not more than a story set up by the critics of the regime.

[Ismail]

Lenin was an admitted head of a state capitalist country.Wrong. He made it pretty clear that the government was one of the soviets and that it was ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat. I know left-communists enjoy distorting Lenin's words, but the Bolshevik usage of state-capitalism has little in common with the usage it of in subsequent decades. State capitalism, as Lenin noted, coexisted with other forms of production, such as tribal production, feudal production, small-scale capitalist production, and socialist production. The proletarian dictatorship used state capitalism as an interim measure, key word used, not that the state itself was state-capitalist.

[JAM]

That leads to two problems of which you seem to be completely ignorant. Lenin was an admitted head of a state capitalist country.

I suppose that you're talking about NEP. As far as I can remember Stalin ended NEP and introduced the planned economy in USSR. NEP was just the prove that you cannot skip stages (in this case the capitalist one).

[Tim Finnegan]

Wouldn't that imply that the Soviet state existed outside of history?

[Lobotomy]

When someone mentions Barack Obama, you don't hear something like this:"Oh my god! A bloody dictator who put millions of innocent people in the Gulag just because he was SOOOOOOO EVIIIIIIIIILZ!!!!!!! But the the same doesn't apply to Stalin. Despite the fact that the Gulag NEVER held as much people as US prison system. So, it is not a question of "justifying" anything, but just of stating something that the vast majority of anti-Communists are not aware of and which is absolutely true.

Except nobody here is an apologist for US prison systems...