Are you a Trotskyist?

[Bolshevika]

‘Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone’- VI Lenin, On the United States of European Slogan

‘See, my friends, what Trotsky is saying about the Soviet state. It is no longer a Socialist State but a state dominated by a parasitic bureaucracy, living on the Russian people’ - Josef Goebbels

‘The entire edifice of Leninism is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay’- Trotsky in a letter to Chkiedze

"Hitler is a much better human being than Stalin. Atleast Hitler has an ideology and is charismatic, Stalin is just bureaucratic and dull"- Trotsky


:trotski:- Here is the Trotsky you all worship and purge your comrades for. A fascist apologist, traitor to Leninism, and opportunist scoundral.

:trotski: http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/snes/terranigma/images/equipment/icepick.gif

[Loknar]

and Stalin wasn’t an opportunist?

IF Trotsky wasn’t leading the red army during the civil war the communists wouldn’t have had the best leadership available, nor anywhere near the amount of successTrotsky led them to..

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Are you a Trotskyist?

pffff no

[Bolshevika]

I don't believe so. Many people in Stalin's government, like Beria for example, were opportunistic traitors, but not Stalin.

If Trotsky didn't lead the Red Army during the civil war, someone else would've.

Another question I'd like to ask, why is the bourgeois so friendly towards Trotsky and Trotskyism? Is it because it is popular in bourgeois countries like the UK?

Trotsky was no less brutal than Stalin, maybe even more brutal, yet the history books paint him out as some lovable Colonel Sanders lookalike, who was a pacifist hippy. He was certainly not.

Is it because he worked with the American government ?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 07:08 AM
I don't believe so. Many people in Stalin's government, like Beria for example, were opportunistic traitors, but not Stalin.

If Trotsky didn't lead the Red Army during the civil war, someone else would've.

Another question I'd like to ask, why is the bourgeois so friendly towards Trotsky and Trotskyism? Is it because it is popular in bourgeois countries like the UK?

Trotsky was no less brutal than Stalin, maybe even more brutal, yet the history books paint him out as some lovable Colonel Sanders lookalike, who was a pacifist hippy. He was certainly not.

Is it because he worked with the American government ?
Stalin was a career criminal and revolutionary. It seems that at every place he worked at he was too busy leading strikes than actually working. I think Stalin was a good leader, he certainly saved Russia, I don’t think anyone else could have. Why Stalin would even associate him self with Beria is quite weird. Beria was a womanizer and a cold hearted serial killer .
(not to get off topic, but how did he do in his few months leading the country?)


Sure someone else would have led, but Trotsky was an innovator. His contribution was very important (even Stalin admitted this). IF someone else was leading the army it wouldn’t have been as successful. remember Russia had to face about 100,000 Allied troops and even more White Russians.


I don’t know why we cappies like him. I personally like him because he was a very intelligent man and a good military leader.

Trotsky was never a fan of fascism. He wrote a small pamphlet on the threat of Fascism, I read it a long time ago.

[Anti-Fascist]

Do not be fooled by the Trotskyites. Trotsky was not even a Socialist. Trotsky has ideologically
more in common with the neo-conservatives than with the Leninists, as even right winged anti-Communist
fanatics have confirmed. Trotsky wanted to crush the Soviet Union, and he cooperated with imperialist
Germany, Japan, and America to this end. He thought of the peasant class as "savages", and treated them
cruelly. Like Hitler, he made use of a very brutal form of collective punishment. It is no wonder that Hitler
praised Trotsky! Trotsky's criticism of Stalin consists entirely of personal attacks and ad hominems (which is
contrary to dialectical materialism). His thinking is highly anti-Marxist-Leninist in every way. No wonder
Lenin denounced Trotsky!

From oneparty.co.uk:


[...] WHO WAS REVISING LENINISM: TROTSKY OR STALIN?

Even an apolitical individual or a dishonest person would have to admit, when confronted with clear unambiguous textual evidence, that Trotskyism is openly opposed to Marxism-Leninism on this issue.

Trotskyism can therefore be classified as revisionism in your face, so to speak, because regardless of the above textual evidence of Lenin's position in the above quotations and indeed, similar passages elsewhere, Trotsky was prepared openly to lie to the international communist movement in regard to the identity between Lenin's position and that of Stalin. If Trotsky was prepared to lie openly on this question to the communist movement, why should he be trusted on other important issues? The truth is that he cannot be and should not be.

In a completely unnecessary and damaging struggle, damaging particularly to the Trotskyites themselves, Trotsky proceeded with his pseudo-leftist attempts to split and therefore undermine the strength of the international communist movement by drawing a futile and pointless demarcation line on the basis of those who supported socialism in one country and those who supported world revolution.

But, in reality, there was no, or need not be any, contradiction between the two. It was clear to the Marxist-Leninists, led by Comrade Stalin, that socialism in one country would serve the international revolution, and the latter would in turn defend socialism in one country.

Stalin and those who supported him rejected, and correctly so, the false Trotskyite position of 'either' socialism in one country 'or' world revolution. For them the issue could not be posed as a simple either/or matter. Marxist-Leninists have supported Comrade Stalin on this issue ever since. Indeed, it is on this very issue that we see the opposition and contrast between Leninism and Trotskyism thrown in bold relief.

Today, of course, while Marxist-Leninists rightly claim that Stalin was right to defend the position that socialism in one country served the world revolutionary process, while the world revolutionary process served socialism in one country, it is highly unlikely that this issue would rise again in terms of having concrete significance in the future. Today the importance of this debate is of an essentially abstract character in that it highlights, in the clearest way possible, the contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. The essence of this debate in a past period of the international communist movement is quite simple. Stalin argued that socialism in one country was not opposed to the world revolutionary process, rather it served this process. The Trotskyites, on the other hand, defended the patently ridiculous position that socialism in one country was opposed to world revolution.

So far we have seen that Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not 'come over' to Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in 1917, but rather were reacting to unique, concrete, circumstances, caused by the 1914-1918 imperialist war. We have seen that Trotsky openly lied to the international communist movement regarding Lenin's position on the possibility of socialism in one country, suggesting, dishonestly, that Stalin invented this theory; this lying, consciously and unconsciously, is continued today by the Trotskyites. We can now turn to the question of Soviet bureaucracy.

One could go on and on and on about Trot$kyism.

Lenin on Trotsky:

"People like Trotsky [...] represent the prevalent disease."

Trotsky did a good job at spreading lies about Stalin. Lenin himself noted Trotsky's inclination to
slander:

"I advise you to reply to Trotsky throught the post: ‘To Trotsky. We shall not reply to disruptive and slanderous letters.’ Trotsky’s dirty campaign against Pravda is one mass of lies and slander. The well-known Marxist and follower of Plekhanov, Rothstein, has written to us that he received Trotsky’s slanders and replied to him: I cannot complain of the Petersburg Pravda in any way. But this intriguer and liquidator goes onlying, right and left."

I have always maintained that "Trotskyism" is a most amorphous (not to mention inconsistent and
idealistic and metaphysical and un-Marxist) ideology. Lenin seems to be in effect of the same opinion:

"[...] the only thing [Trotsky] does have is a habit of changing sides, of skipping from the liberals to the Marxists and back again, of mouthing scraps of catchwords and bombastic parrot phrases...." (This is
characteristic of one who adheres to an ideology lacking definite form.)

In a word, Trotsky was, as Lenin said, simply a scoundrel.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Stalin was a career criminal and revolutionary. It seems that at every place he worked at he was too busy leading strikes than actually working.

Criminal?Thats hogwash.And is leading strikes a bad thing?In the conditions and atmosphere those workers were in,what is wrong with it?


I think Stalin was a good leader, he certainly saved Russia, I don’t think anyone else could have.

That is progressive of you.

[Loknar]

anti-fascist


How did Trotsky cooperate with the allies?


Remember it was the Germans who transported Lenin into Russia.


cheguevara717

I suppose there s nothing wrong with what he did, but to me it just seemed he was looking for trouble. I could be wrong.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Myabe.But if you consider fighting for a mistreated peoples rights a bad thing,then I don't know what to say..But I don't think you do.

[Urban Rubble]

I have no idea why you act as if this board is full of Trots, it isn't. Many of you Stalinists have a problem getting through your head the fact that just because one doesn't support Stalin does not mean he's a trot.

I think Trotsky would have been just as bad as Stalin, if not worse. However, I think his theories on world revolution had some merit, with a little moderation.

Also, Trotsky was a great military leader, far better than Stalin. Please don't come at me with that nonsense that Stalin won WW2, I can recognize Uncle Joe's strong traits, but war was not one of them. The Soviet Union didn't even start making any headway until Stalin loosened his grip a bit on the generals.

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 03:51 PM
Trotsky has ideologically more in common with the neo-conservatives than with the Leninists, as even right winged anti-Communist fanatics have confirmed.
Excellent point, comrade. In fact Irving Kristol (the "Godfather of Neo-conservatism") as well as most of the other founding members of the neo-conservative movement were once Trots. I posted an article relative to that in the "Stalin connection to the fall of the USSR" thread in history and no one has properly responded to it yet.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2003, 08:45 AM
Many of you Stalinists have a problem getting through your head the fact that just because one doesn't support Stalin does not mean he's a trot.
Defend this claim.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 20 2003, 08:52 AM

Excellent point, comrade. In fact Irving Kristol (the "Godfather of Neo-conservatism") as well as most of the other founding members of the neo-conservative movement were once Trots. I posted an article relative to that in the "Stalin connection to the fall of the USSR" thread in history and no one has properly responded to it yet.
Indeed yes. One of the most striking and obvious aspects of
this connection is the fact that the neo-conservatives
agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution - a basic
thesis of Trotskyism. One person (I think accurately) described
neo-conservatism as simply a pro-Zionist mutation
of Trotsky's ideas, in which right mights left. It cannot be
sensibly denied that there is a definite connection between
Trotskyism and neo-conservatism, whether the neo-conservatives
themselves are conscious of this or not.

[El Brujo]

Exactly. Not to mention Trotsky's desire for an immediate, globalized "communist" revolution in which the world, with all the cultural and technological barriers put aside overnight, adheres to his vision. That is reminescent of the Bush administration's plight for a "world-wide democratic revolution" destroying and McDolandising the third world for the interests of the US. Seeing this, both Trotskyism and neo-conservatism ammount to the mindset of bourgeoisie internationalism.

[SonofRage]

Yay, another Trotsky vs Stalin thread. He's the only quote I like from Ronald Reagan

There you go again
http://www.americanpolitics.com/reaganDOH.gif

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

This is garbage, both Stalin and Trotsky have been dead close to 50 years now. Anyone who fits into the "Stalinist" or "Trotskyist" catagories are just overly dogmatic. We all want international revolution, but we should be so dogmatic about it that we fail to do what is best for the revolution today.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2003, 08:45 AM
I have no idea why you act as if this board is full of Trots, it isn't. Many of you Stalinists have a problem getting through your head the fact that just because one doesn't support Stalin does not mean he's a trot.

I think Trotsky would have been just as bad as Stalin, if not worse. However, I think his theories on world revolution had some merit, with a little moderation.

Also, Trotsky was a great military leader, far better than Stalin. Please don't come at me with that nonsense that Stalin won WW2, I can recognize Uncle Joe's strong traits, but war was not one of them. The Soviet Union didn't even start making any headway until Stalin loosened his grip a bit on the generals.
We know it is not full of Trotskyists, but there are a fair few, not all of them make it perfectly obvious though. None of them have posted in this thread.

Stalin was a great military leader in the same way Churchill was, he encouraged people to die for their country and made them feel noble in doing so. That doesn't sounds like a pleasant thing to you I am sure, but it defeated the Nazis. Maybe Stalin did not win WW2 with his knowledge of military tactics, but he certainly facilitated a system which did so. Also, the socialist system in the USSR made the defeat of the Nazis possible. For example the T34 tank, from its conception to its build it was a great achievement.

These quotes show people more of the real Trotsky, some may already know Trotsky well, such as yourself, but others do not. And for those that do not, these quotes are valuable, and such people are sizeable in number.

[Bolshevika]

There are definetly many Trotskyists on this board, hence the massive propaganda campaigns to make the "Stalinists" look as bad as Fascists. Hee hee, look, they even have this cute little Trotsky smiley :trotski: . This is a counter against the propaganda, I have quotes to prove it.

However, it seems Trotsky said some very good things about Stalin, most of it was really act for his fans possibly:

"In spite of monstrous bureaucratic distortions, the class basis of the USSR remains proletarian"

"In general and on the whole the new economic base is preserved in the USSR, though in a degenerated form"

He really did not back up why he believed they were "degenerated workers states". He was a very good dialectician, however, he emphasised more on things, rather than individual human beings and their relations to production, so he emphasised on property forms and believed anything that was done with property forms that he disagreed with was a "monstrous bureaucratic institution".

[peaccenicked]

Slander Vs Truth

Here is the results of an independent investigation.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...rks/1937/dewey/ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/dewey/)

[Pete]

You guys.. this mudslinging arguement is complete bullshit. Drop your hero worship and think for yourself. Who cares what these long dead men said. Read them if you want, learn from them, but make your own conclusions. This debate is a leach on the left... and you are the bloodsuckers!

:ph34r:

-Pete

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 02:29 PM
You guys.. this mudslinging arguement is complete bullshit. Drop your hero worship and think for yourself. Who cares what these long dead men said. Read them if you want, learn from them, but make your own conclusions. This debate is a leach on the left... and you are the bloodsuckers!

:ph34r:

-Pete
AAAHH PETE I LOVE YOU!
everyone here take an example from Pete

[Urban Rubble]

I respect Trotsky like I respect Stalin, very little. There are points from both that I admire however. Actually, I think I am more inclined to agree with Stalin than super Trot.


Stalin was a great military leader in the same way Churchill was, he encouraged people to die for their country and made them feel noble in doing so. That doesn't sounds like a pleasant thing to you I am sure, but it defeated the Nazis.

I agree. That is one of those strong points I mentioned. In a conflict like WW2 I completely admire men willing to die for their country, I wouldn't call it pleasant, but there is no need to say I disagree with this. I admire Stalin for rallying his troops in the way he did.


Maybe Stalin did not win WW2 with his knowledge of military tactics, but he certainly facilitated a system which did so. Also, the socialist system in the USSR made the defeat of the Nazis possible. For example the T34 tank, from its conception to its build it was a great achievement.

Again, I agree. Stalin's Industrialisation of the Soviet Union is one of the greaest feats ever acheived by a world leader. Now, if he would have just left the military tactics to people who knew what the fuck they were doing they might have ended the war a little earlier. I jsut think he was a really horrible general. But yeah, I agree, the workers state Stalin helped build was the main reason the Union won the war, and Stalin deserves credit for that.


Anyway, i think Trotsky was a brilliant man, but a bit nutty. I think the Soviet Union wouldn't have lasted another 20 years under Trotsky's leadership. The workers would have revolted or they would have been crushed as soon as they tried to put that "world revolution" stuff into place.

As the immortal Comrade RAF once told me: The Trot just ain't hot.

[lostsoul]

stalin was a great leader of the russian people so i kind of respect him.....but trotsky i think would have been better for the union.

i just think trosky was not as cunning as stalin and got fucked up by him.

trosky, in my opinion, showed he was superior in intellegence, military skill, courage, and various other things when compared to stalin.

half of me wish's there were more leaders who were as ruthless to capitalism as stalin, but the other half knows that stalin's "ruthlessness" created a distrust world wide for socialism and can be greatly credited for aiding the capitalists in their goal of creating world opinion against it.

but one good thing about stalin is that he showed that even once socialism comes in, there are still problems. communism alone is not strong enough to fight the greed of man.. Sorry that may be messed up but from my studies of stalin thats one of the main things i picked up.

[Anti-Fascist]

trosky, in my opinion, showed he was superior in intellegence,

How did he show this? Defend this claim.


military skill,

How did he show this?


courage,

See above.


and various other things

Such as?


half of me wish's there were more leaders who were as ruthless to capitalism as stalin, but the other half knows that stalin's "ruthlessness" created a distrust world wide for socialism and can be greatly credited for aiding the capitalists in their goal of creating world opinion against it.

Stalin was not rutheless. Stalin's "ruthlessness" did not create a
distrst world wide for Socialism; no, on the contrary Stalin's
"ruthlessness" is a creation of the Capitalists to aid the capitalists
in their goal of creating world opinion against Socialism. The facts
of history contradict every claim of Stalin's so-called ruthlessness.

[Sabocat]

Do not be fooled by the Trotskyites. Trotsky was not even a Socialist. Trotsky has ideologically
more in common with the neo-conservatives than with the Leninists, as even right winged anti-Communist


Trotsky once called fascism the “party of despair” and socialism as the “party of hope”.

“... But whatever may be the circumstances of my death I shall die with unshaken faith in the communist future. This faith in man and in his future gives me even now such power of resistance as cannot be given by any religion.”

"The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet."




Yeah....he was some kind of right winger.... :lol: :lol: A vanguardist perhaps, but certainly no right winger.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Will there ever be an end to the Trotsky vs. Stalin bone throwing?
http://imageshack.us/files/barney.gif
Its old news.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am actually suprised there are so many stalinists on this board. I have only met one or two stalinists in my life and generally they were hostile and told me that all forms of activism is bourgois and participateing in a strike was a waste of time and helped the imperialists in the US... why I never understood.

So I have some questions for the stalinists: what is the point of socialism to you? How was russia a worker's state when worker's had no controll over production (and therfore no controll over society) and strikes wern't even permitted?

How can you (correctly) call the US imperialist and yet exccuse the USSR's imperialism?

I am a trotskyist, but before everyone jumps me, I am not a dogmatic one. I do not take trotsky or any revolutionary or socialist as 100% or 100% correct all the time or as dogma. For example, trotsky believed that the USSR was a degenerated worker state while I don't believe it was a worker state at all by the time Trotsky wrote that... so I disagree with him there.

So you say that Trotsky wasn't good because his writings have influenced neo-conservatives. This is just plain silly because it is a completely different set of ends though there may be overlaping on the means to thoes ends. Bush and Co. are pushing "permanent 'democratic' revolution" for the perpose of the USG and US ruling class to not just dominate workers here, but people in other countries as well. They want globalization so that the third world may share it's natural resourses and labor resources with the US ruling elite ("share" is some understratement; they want to take it and controll it). To paraphrase Trotsky, their means are wrong because their ends are wrong, our means are right (even when we use the same means) because our ends are right.

Trotsky believed that "permanent worker revolution" was necissary for unindustrialized countries to have acess to industrial means of production... so that the trade (between rich and poor countries) that occours in capitalism (to the benifit of the bourgoise) could continue under new terms set by the working class rather than the rich industrialists. So advocating golbalization in a manner in which the working class world majorety gains more power is completely different that golbalization with the ends of increasing the power of a handfull of rich people in rich countries.

No, if Trotsky was the elected leader of a socialist society and he was saying that Iraq needed to be invaded so that Iraqis could live in a democratic socilaist society, I think he would be wrong because the means (of military occupation) do not achieve the ends (democracy and socialism for Iraqis) because they violate self-determination and you can't have democracy or socialism forced on people against their will (since both are about self-rule for the majorety).

[Don't Change Your Name]

Damn Stalinists, it seems you all finally posted in the forum where you had to.

You ruined everything and now you want to represent the left and you say you are the true communists, while your heroe and all his followers killed so much people and ruled in such an authoritarian way that now the word "left" is like an insult.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 21 2003, 03:30 AM
Damn Stalinists, it seems you all finally posted in the forum where you had to.

You ruined everything and now you want to represent the left and you say you are the true communists, while your heroe and all his followers killed so much people and ruled in such an authoritarian way that now the word "left" is like an insult.
So non stalin loving communist, do admit that he was a murderer? just answer that question.

thanks.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, Stalin was a murderer and an exploiter of the russian working class... and an imperialist... no wonder people who had initially tried to destroy working-class revolutions got along with him and made deals with him.

Western governments tried to destroy the revolution, but then they saw stalin did it for them and then the nazis and the capitalists were like, "ok, a ruthless dictator. That we can deal with... a society run by workers on the other hand, that is really scary... it might give people in our country ideas".

[Bolshevika]

"Stalinist bureaucracy!" cry the Trotskyists, "Stalin misrepresents the left!" continue's a person who dares to have a Che avatar and repeat lies about him.

Now remember, the Progressive Labour Party's ideas probably resemble RedStar2000's more than Stalin's.

The truth lies here: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

How many pro-Trotskyist states have been established (unless you count Cambodia, none) when comparing to pro Stalin states? Stalin's Marxist-Leninist theories appeal much more to the working people than Trotskyism. Why is it that most popular Left-wing revolts base their theories on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and not Trotsky? Why is it Trotskyism is only popular in first world countries?

I doubt the working people would follow an ideology that, by Trotskyist, fascist, and capitalist definition, is "bureaucratic" and oppressive.

Trotkyism is pure dogmatism and opportunism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I wouldn't describe trotskyism as being popular anywhere really. It is still pretty small, but it is quickly growing... in the 3rd world as well as the 1st world.

"Stalin's Marxist-Leninist theories appeal much more to the working people than Trotskyism." Well many of these pro-stalin states are really just left-wing nationalist states and nationalism often appeals to people who are in the poo-end of the imperialist stick because it represents a fightback against the imperialist exploiters. So people in Latin America would take hope from ideas that said that the US was exploiting them (which was true but dosn't mean that being a in USSR sattellite was any less of an opressed position). Many working class people are democrats or republicans, so saying that because Stalinism was at one time popular with people in working people dosn't mean that it is the best alternative for the intrests of the working class and working class power.

Again, I do not know many contemporary stalinists, so how is it that stalinism proposes the achievement of working-class rule?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 03:52 AM
Yes, Stalin was a murderer and an exploiter of the russian working class... and an imperialist... no wonder people who had initially tried to destroy working-class revolutions got along with him and made deals with him.


thanks for admitting this. At least somone does not want to ignore the fact completely.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 12:33 AM

trosky, in my opinion, showed he was superior in intellegence,

How did he show this? Defend this claim.


military skill,

How did he show this?


courage,

See above.


and various other things

Such as?


half of me wish's there were more leaders who were as ruthless to capitalism as stalin, but the other half knows that stalin's "ruthlessness" created a distrust world wide for socialism and can be greatly credited for aiding the capitalists in their goal of creating world opinion against it.

Stalin was not rutheless. Stalin's "ruthlessness" did not create a
distrst world wide for Socialism; no, on the contrary Stalin's
"ruthlessness" is a creation of the Capitalists to aid the capitalists
in their goal of creating world opinion against Socialism. The facts
of history contradict every claim of Stalin's so-called ruthlessness.

How did he show this? Defend this claim.

on the issue of stalin and trosky being more superior in intellegence, i am only basing this on my readings of the two's works. I find trosky's work far in-depth. Most of stalin's work is garbage. In my eyes stalins work just seems to give you run arounds without any actual information.(please refer to "continuing progress of national economy and the internal situation in the ussr").

Military skill..was it not trosky who created and deployed the red army? please correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't remember stalin having anything to do with it.

courage...trosky had the balls to put his idea's on the table...stalin always kept quite(maybe because he was scared of debate?). It seems stalin's goal was to just fuck up other's because of their idea's and not really work on improving it.


i am not totally against stalin, in fact he did many good things..just he was too greedy for his own power that he would waste too much time making sure he could hold on to it.

[Soviet power supreme]

There has been many anti-Stalin threads lately.Why is that?

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

What people can argue about if not opinions?

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by el_profe+Dec 21 2003, 05:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Dec 21 2003, 05:49 AM)
[email protected] 21 2003, 03:52 AM
Yes, Stalin was a murderer and an exploiter of the russian working class... and an imperialist... no wonder people who had initially tried to destroy working-class revolutions got along with him and made deals with him.


thanks for admitting this. At least somone does not want to ignore the fact completely. [/b]
El Profe: You don&#39;t understand that just because we all call ourselves communists does not mean we are not rivals in some respects. Trotskyists continue to spread lies about Stalin supporters, we try not to, but they proceed in doing so. Considering all of these things, we are forced and have no choice but to fight back.

Trotskyists and Stalin supporters are enemies to some extent. although I too think it is a little foolish.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Bolshevika+Dec 21 2003, 06:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bolshevika @ Dec 21 2003, 06:41 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:49 AM

[email protected] 21 2003, 03:52 AM
Yes, Stalin was a murderer and an exploiter of the russian working class... and an imperialist... no wonder people who had initially tried to destroy working-class revolutions got along with him and made deals with him.


thanks for admitting this. At least somone does not want to ignore the fact completely.
El Profe: You don&#39;t understand that just because we all call ourselves communists does not mean we are not rivals in some respects. Trotskyists continue to spread lies about Stalin supporters, we try not to, but they proceed in doing so. Considering all of these things, we are forced and have no choice but to fight back.

Trotskyists and Stalin supporters are enemies to some extent. although I too think it is a little foolish. [/b]
I dont understand how can anyone support a mass murderer. which he was. Its the same as supporting Hitler.

[Soviet power supreme]

The manifesto tells you about the ARMED REVOLUTION.Yes cappies and communists got killed in revolution and you are fool if you think that revolution ended in october 1917.And he put cappies in gulags labour camps which is better than killing them.And yes kulaks got killed when they didnt peacefully give their property.

Anyone that dont support the armed revolution is a socialdemocrat.

[Bolshevika]

Social Democrat? As in, Menshevik ? As in Lev&#39;s former party? Opportunists of the worst kind

El Profe: What happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin was absolutely necessary. It was revsionists like Khrushchev that stopped focusing the Peoples aggression against the bourgeois, and started to promote imperialism.

I bet you, as a capitalist, support Khrushchev and Trotsky much more than Stalin.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 08:27 PM


El Profe: What happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin was absolutely necessary. It was revsionists like Khrushchev that stopped focusing the Peoples aggression against the bourgeois, and started to promote imperialism.

I am not talking during the revolution. I mean after the revolution the people that where murdered by stalin&#39;s regime.

[Urban Rubble]

Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. Continue to spew your dongmatic rehtoric bullshit Bolshevika. It only reinforces that fact that you are a little kid who is obssessed with Stalin. Anyone that continues to debate this stupid topic into the ground obviously has some kind of issues.

We should leave this debate where it belongs: In 1956.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 21 2003, 08:42 PM
Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. Continue to spew your dongmatic rehtoric bullshit Bolshevika. It only reinforces that fact that you are a little kid who is obssessed with Stalin. Anyone that continues to debate this stupid topic into the ground obviously has some kind of issues.
Why are you more concerned with attacking Bolshevika personally than
refuting anything he said? Why are you satisfied with merely calling his
arguments names? Could it be that this is your way of attacking an
argument that you cannot refute?

Let us see some real criticism.

[lostsoul]

in my opinion, stalin and trosky are both past figures in history and deserve to be studied for their pro&#39;s and con&#39;s and we should use those leasons to help ourselfs in the present.

agruing over two dead people who both equally failed in their goals is extremely dumb.

[Urban Rubble]

Why are you more concerned with attacking Bolshevika personally than
refuting anything he said? Why are you satisfied with merely calling his
arguments names? Could it be that this is your way of attacking an
argument that you cannot refute?

Because I have debated this bullshit more times than I care to remember, and every single time there is a dogmatic rhetoric spewing child like Bolshevika involved. You cannot argue with someone like this. Anyhting I say will be replied with "Revisionist&#33;" "Liberal&#33;" or the much beloved "That&#39;s simply western propaganda". Everything is western propaganda to you guys.

Fuck it, I refuse to do it, it&#39;s been done to death. I will simply sit in this corner and heckle you all.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Urban Rub[email protected] 21 2003, 09:33 PM


Because I have debated this bullshit more times than I care to remember, and every single time there is a dogmatic rhetoric spewing child like Bolshevika involved. You cannot argue with someone like this. Anyhting I say will be replied with "Revisionist&#33;" "Liberal&#33;" or the much beloved "That&#39;s simply western propaganda". Everything is western propaganda to you guys.

Fuck it, I refuse to do it, it&#39;s been done to death. I will simply sit in this corner and heckle you all.

You cannot argue with someone like this.
yes. this is a person who has idolized stalin so much he cant admit that stalin ever commited any wrongdoing.
He wont accept the facts. And will call them a lie or propaganda by the western countries.

Like i said i can fly him to Ukraine have him meet 100 people who all lost family because of the massacre that stalin oredred. And he will say they are capie bastards and are lying. Or say that theyre relatives where cappies and deserved to die.

It like somone saying that the holocaust never existed. Like some people do.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 04:18 AM
How many pro-Trotskyist states have been established (unless you count Cambodia, none) when comparing to pro Stalin states? Stalin&#39;s Marxist-Leninist theories appeal much more to the working people than Trotskyism. Why is it that most popular Left-wing revolts base their theories on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and not Trotsky? Why is it Trotskyism is only popular in first world countries?
...and that&#39;s why the left fails...

Let&#39;s see...right now I see most people of the "working class" believing the lie of neo-liberalism, or voting social-democrats in elections. Why do you think the left seems dead in the whole world, and in "democratic" countries the left gets as many votes as the quantity of rich people living there? Because of people like you, who keep thinking this way: "or you&#39;re with us or you&#39;re with the &#39;other&#39;".

There&#39;s no progress in the left, Stalinist go around spreading hammer and sickle images together with old Mao, Lenin and Stalin old pics, which makes the left look so boring, so old-fashioned, and so TOTALITARIAN and INTOLERANT. Both Troyskyites and Stalinists keep the left divided and their political parties and all their organizations are very sectarian, without even having a good contact with the working class. That way, you know who will keep winning and installing dictatorships. People, when they see this "leftist" parties (which kinda look like some weird religion), remember all those capitalist exagerations of "in russia people works 20 hours per day in factories and the rest of the day they stand in a row waiting for bread with their comrades". I&#39;m sure that all the people want to have purges, leaders that make pacts with genocides (remember that dude called Hitler????), no democracy, and a paranoid funny-looking old idiot who is always fearing the "counter-revolutionaries". At the same time I doubt they want someone who goes around claiming that we need permanent revolutions, making him look like some stupid rebel kid or a guerrilla murderer. And I doubt they want a state that controls everything they do in the name of the revolution and always with the same ones in charge, and those paranoids fighting for power.

So instead of coming back to what happened decades ago, look into the future.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"So instead of coming back to what happened decades ago, look into the future."But you have to understand what happened in the past and why things developed like they did in order to go forward.

But I do agree that most sectarian in-fighting is unproductive in many cases... this not really being one of them because it is a forum for debate and there is nothing at stake on an on-line political debate. I try to emphasise my agreements with anarchists while not hiding my disagreements because I believe that we both want to live in the same kind of society, but we just don&#39;t agree on how to achieve this. Stalinists, on the other hand seem to not want to live in a classless stateless society and seem to also not care about the working class... I may be wrong, but I do not understand why people are stalinists or how it can achieve worker&#39;s power and so I would like to continue this debate.

Marx thought that a revolution would happen in an industrialized country where the working class is strong and there is already a large surpluss of wealth, the 20th century has shown that capitalism is more flexable and resillient than Marx had thought and it was countruies with weak ruling classes (in the 3rd world) where revolutions happened first. Since russia had a small working class (especially after the embargos and civil war and famines) and little industrialization, people had to figure out how to go from that set of conditions to one which would allow socialism. The two attempts to solve this problem were represented by Trotskyism and Stalinism... Trosyism says that if there is an industrial country which also has a revolution, then Russia could share its natural resources and the industrial country could share it&#39;s industrial capabilities. Stalinism argued that russia could industrialize itself but in order to do that, the state ended up exploiting workers and creating a new class-sytem where the burocrats had a separate set of intrests from the working class and benifited from the exploitation of that class.

Since I believe under current conditions that it is much more likly that there will be a worker&#39;s revolution in Latin America than in the US, I feel this is a very important debate because these same questions will arise if a revolution occours in a 3rd world country.... i.e. how to become industrialized and create a surpluss when the country had been under neo-liberal capitalist globalization and has no native industry except thoes which provide raw materials to Northern mega-corporations.

[Bolshevika]

Oh please don&#39;t tell me the social-democrats are holding the Nazi-Soviet pact against Stalin :rolleyes:

Stalin knew Hitler would eventually invade, he wrote about it in his book.

[Urban Rubble]

Anyone who uses the Nazi-Soviet non aggression as a reason to slander Stalin has not read very much history. There are alot of things Stalin did I found sickening, but the pact with the Nazis was absolutely neccessary. Stalin needed to time to build up the army before Germany attacked. He knew they would attack, so he tried to hold them off for a bit. Nothing wrong with that.

el profe

Please do not think I am taking your side on the matter, I am not. I am anti-Stalin, but you obviously have not researched this. There is no way the Ukraine famine can be attributed to Stalin. Evidence came to light in the 80&#39;s that many of the pictures and videos of the Ukraine were faked.

My main problem with Stalin (I have many) was the purges. I think he was horribly paranoid and it resulted in alot of inncoent people being convicted of crimes they didn&#39;t commit. I admire many things about Stalin, but I can also see the many many mistakes he made. Anyone that thinks every single one of the few million officers purged were guilty has a screw loose.

[Bolshevika]

Stalin did not sentence people to death, the Politburo did.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Damn Stalinists, it seems you all finally posted in the forum where you had to.

You ruined everything and now you want to represent the left and you say you are the true communists, while your heroe and all his followers killed so much people and ruled in such an authoritarian way that now the word "left" is like an insult.

You are the type of person I hate.Phony leftist.You only like Che,you know nothing about communism,yet you claim to be a "coMUniSt".You just believe automaticly that Stalin was a bad person because that is what you heard.I think Hitler was a bad person.But I think that because I have read about him and all he did.I have read both sides in the Stalin argument and have come to realise that Stalin was a great man.

Urban Rubble,I have gained more respect for you by reading your posts in this topic.You might be anti-Stalin,and even though I strongly disagree with that,at least you take an objective view to him.

[Urban Rubble]

Stalin did not sentence people to death, the Politburo did.

Yes, and we all know none of those guys feared Stalin &#33; That&#39;s sarcasm there bud.

Stalin and his little beady eyed henchman Beria were responsible for alot of the terrors. Yes, the Politburo made many decisions, but they were also highly influenced by what Stalin said. These men were always over eager to agree with Stalin, even Stalin himself critisized them for it. Like it or not, people feared Stalin, very few people had the courage to freely speak their minds around him, Molotov was one of the very few who could.Again, Stalin himself has made many remarks aluding to this.



Urban Rubble,I have gained more respect for you by reading your posts in this topic.You might be anti-Stalin,and even though I strongly disagree with that,at least you take an objective view to him.

Uhhhh, thanks ? I&#39;ve tried to tell you, I&#39;ve read a great deal on the subject. The views I hold did not come easily or quickly.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Stalin was highly respected.Hence he had a lot of brown nosers.He hated this and rightfully did not trust them.

[peaccenicked]

The Stalinist falsification of history goes on. It bores me beause these pro-stalinists have only read one side of the argument.
If you read what Trotsky actually says and compare it to what Stalin actually says. Trotsky comes across as a human being and not an automaton like Uncle Joe.
Trotsky like Lenin knew several languages and could review books, hot of the press. Stalin, who knew only Russian, was a second rate theoritician, his work on the national question is pure eclecticism. Lenin&#39;s own work is a hundred times better.


here is Lenin&#39;s testament.

[The document known as Lenin’s Testament is a letter secretly dictated by Lenin on December 22-29, 1922, intended for the Twelfth Congress on April 1923. The letter was known only to his wife Krupskaya and the two secretaries who took it down. On March 10, a stroke ended Lenin’s active life. Fearing a split, Krupskaya kept the letter under lock and key, until it was read to delegates at the Thirteenth Congress, a year after Lenin’s death. The delegates were sworn to keep the contents of the letter a secret].

I would urge strongly that at this congress a number of changes be made in out political structure. I want to tell you of the considerations to which I attach most importance.

At the head of the list I set an increase in the number of Central Committee members to a few dozen or even a hundred. It is my opinion that without this reform our Central Committee would be in great danger if the course of events were not quite favourable for us (and that is something we cannot count upon).

Then, I intend to propose that the congress should on certain conditions invest the decisions of the State Planning Commission with legislative force, meeting in this respect the wishes of Comrade Trotsky - to a certain extent and on certain conditions.

As for the first point, i.e., increasing the number of CC members, I think it must be done in order to raise the prestige of the CC, to do a thorough job of improving our administrative machinery, and to prevent conflicts between small sections of the CC from acquiring excessive importance for the future of the party.

It seems to me that our party has every right to demand from the working class fifty to one hundred CC members, and that it could get them from it without unduly taxing the resources of that class.

Such a reform would considerably increase the stability of our party and ease its struggle in the encirclement of hostile states, which, in my opinion, is likely to and must become much more acute in the next few years. I think that the stability of our party would gain a thousandfold by such a measure.

By stability of the CC, of which I spoke above, I mean measures against a split, as far as such measures can at all be taken. For, of course, the white guard in Russaya Mysl was right when, in the white guards’ game against Soviet Russia he banked on a split in our party, and when secondly, he banked on grave differences in our party to cause that split.

Our party relies on two classes and therefore its instability would be possible and its downfall inevitable if there were no agreement between those two classes. In that event this or that measure, and generally all talk about the stability of our CC, would be futile. No measures of any kind could prevent a split in such a case. But I hope that this is too remote a future and too improbable an event to talk about.

I have in mind stability as a guarantee against a split in the immediate future, and I intend to deal here with a few ideas concerning personal qualities.

I think that from this standpoint the prime factor in the question of stability are such members of the CC as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of CC members to fifty or one hundred.

Comrade Stalin, having become general secretary, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the CC on the question of the People’s Commissariat has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present CC, but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present CC can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the CC. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

Speaking of the young CC members, I wish to say a few words abut Bukharin and Pyatakov. They are, in my opinion, the most outstanding figures (among the youngest ones), and the following must be borne in mind about them: Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the party; he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics and, I think, never fully understood it).

As for Pyatakov, he is unquestionably a man of outstanding ability, but shows too much zeal for administrating and the administrative side of the work to be relied upon in a serious political matter.

Both of these remarks, of course, are made only for the present, on the assumption that both these outstanding and devoted party workers fail to find an occasion to enhance their knowledge and amend their one-sidedness.

Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealings among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a general secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a detail, or it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

The increase in the number of CC members to fifty or even one hundred must, in my opinion, serve a double or even a treble purpose: the more members there are in the CC, the more men will be trained in CC work and the less danger there will be of a split due to some indiscretion. The enlistment of many workers to the CC will help the workers improve our administrative machinery, which is pretty bad. We inherited it, in effect, from the old regime, for it was absolutely impossible to reorganise it in such a short time, especially in conditions of war, famine, etc. That is why those “critics” who point to the defects of our administrative machinery out of mockery or malice may be calmly answered that they do not in the least understand the conditions of the revolution today. It is altogether impossible in five years to reorganise the machinery adequately, especially under the conditions in which our revolution took place. It is enough that in five years we have created a new type of state in which the workers are leading the peasants against the bourgeoisie, and in a hostile international environment this in itself is a gigantic achievement. But knowledge of this must on no account blind us to the fact that, in effect, we took over the old machinery of state from the Czar and the satisfaction of the minimum requirements against famine, all our work must be directed towards improving the administrative machinery.

I think that a few dozen workers, being members of the CC, can deal better than anybody else with checking, improving, and remodelling our state apparatus. The Workers and Peasants Inspection, on whom this function devolved at the beginning proved unable to cope with it and can be used only as an “appendage” or, on certain conditions, as an assistant to these members of the CC. In my opinion, the workers admitted to the CC should come preferably not from among those who have had long service in Soviet bodies (in this part of my letter the term workers everywhere includes peasants), because those workers have already acquired the very traditions and the very prejudices which it is desirable to combat.

The working class members of the CC must be mainly workers of a lower stratum than those promoted in the last five years to work in Soviet bodies; they must be people closer to being rank-and-file workers and peasants, who, however, do not fall into the category of direct or indirect exploiters. I think that by attending all sittings of the CC and all sittings of the Politburo, and by reading all the documents of the CC, such workers can form a staff of devoted supporters of the Soviet system, able, first, to give stability to the CC itself, and second, to work effectively on the renewal and improvement of the state apparatus.

.... [Lenin further elaborates on the need for an enlarged CC].

Lenin,

December 29, 1922.

[In the event the Tenth Congress fixed the membership of the membership of the Central Committee at 40 plus 15-20 non-voting candidate members]

To Comrade Stalin

Copy to Comrades Kamenev and Zinoviev

Dear Comrade Stalin:

You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you, therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off.

Respectfully yours,

Lenin,

March 5, 1923.

[Urban Rubble]

Stalin was highly respected.Hence he had a lot of brown nosers.He hated this and rightfully did not trust them.

Yeahhh... either that or they were afraid of suddenly being exposed as an "Enemy of the People" for disagreeing with Uncle Joe.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

thats bullcrap.You realise of course that if it hadn&#39;t been for the purges then the nazi&#39;s would have had a much better chance of winning the war.

[peaccenicked]

The purges provided cheap labour in the concentration camps, so I suppose that did aid the USSR in the war effort.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 22 2003, 12:32 AM


el profe

Please do not think I am taking your side on the matter, I am not. I am anti-Stalin, but you obviously have not researched this. There is no way the Ukraine famine can be attributed to Stalin. Evidence came to light in the 80&#39;s that many of the pictures and videos of the Ukraine were faked.

My main problem with Stalin (I have many) was the purges. I think he was horribly paranoid and it resulted in alot of inncoent people being convicted of crimes they didn&#39;t commit. I admire many things about Stalin, but I can also see the many many mistakes he made. Anyone that thinks every single one of the few million officers purged were guilty has a screw loose.
I know, like i said, IM just happy someone admitted that Stalin did murder many innocent people.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

um no.you must understand that fascism and nazism were very popular ideologies all over Europe at that time.There were over 50 thousand russian fascists who helped the Nazis.The number used to be greater,but the purges eliminated many Nazis.

[Bolshevika]

Peacenicked I don&#39;t see how that last letter had any relevance to the uncanny resemblence between Lenin&#39;s and Stalin&#39;s political view. I do think many of Lenin&#39;s decisions on Stalin&#39;s political future had to do with this incident with Lenin&#39;s wife. However, ideology, Lenin and the young Stalin had much in common.

Although I agree Stalin wasn&#39;t as theoretically intelligent as Trotsky, regardless, you don&#39;t have to be a great Marxist theorist to be a leader. For example Che, he wasn&#39;t some genius communist, but he was an excellent leader. Same with Fidel Castro and Allende, etc.

I am not a master theoritician, but I do know the basics and do have enough foundation in my opinion to take part in a revolutionary action. Just like Comrade Stalin.

[Urban Rubble]

thats bullcrap.You realise of course that if it hadn&#39;t been for the purges then the nazi&#39;s would have had a much better chance of winning the war.

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off about you. Don&#39;t fucking tell me that&#39;s "bullcrap" little boy. If you think killing many of your best officers helped the war effort you&#39;re insane. Yes, the purges did expose many Nazis, but for every Nazi uncovered they killed 3 innocent men.

I guess it&#39;s a matter of opinion. Would you rather kill many good men to expose a few Nazis or would you calm down the paranoia and wait for some actual evidence.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 11:07 PM
Although I agree Stalin wasn&#39;t as theoretically intelligent as Trotsky, regardless, you don&#39;t have to be a great Marxist theorist to be a leader. For example Che, he wasn&#39;t some genius communist, but he was an excellent leader. Same with Fidel Castro and Allende, etc.
Castro? Not a genius? I think you are mistaken. Castro is has a Ph.D. in law, has written books, and gives regular interviews to critics. He has been the guiding force in Cuban politics now for nearly 50 years. He does much more work then most heads of state, and his stamina, particularly in speech giving is legendary. One might critize the Cuban government on making steps to capitalism, but he is merely ensuring the survival of the state, rather then watch it die like the "Dear Leader". In my opinion, Fidel Castro should be the model for the communists of today.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off about you. Don&#39;t fucking tell me that&#39;s "bullcrap" little boy.

I can tell you whatever I want.Deal with it.


If you think killing many of your best officers helped the war effort you&#39;re insane. Yes, the purges did expose many Nazis, but for every Nazi uncovered they killed 3 innocent men.

I guess it&#39;s a matter of opinion. Would you rather kill many good men to expose a few Nazis or would you calm down the paranoia and wait for some actual evidence.

Do you actually have a source for these statistics or did you just guess?

[Bolshevika]

I should&#39;ve rephrased that. Fidel is extremely intelligent, however he does not strike of a person who studies much Marxist theory. He instead seems to be a person who knows some stuff about Marxism from his experience with the CCP, but is not an indebt theoretician like Lenin, Mao, Hoxha, etc.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I should&#39;ve rephrased that. Fidel is extremely intelligent, however he does not strike of a person who studies much Marxist theory. He instead seems to be a person who knows some stuff about Marxism from his experience with the CCP, but is not an indebt theoretician like Lenin, Mao, Hoxha, etc.

I think he has studied it a lot,but he hasn&#39;t really expanded on it.This is perfectly fine.I have read his books.They mostly deal with world issues.Not just issues of Marxism.

[synthesis]

The reason Fidel doesn&#39;t seem like much of a Marxist is because he is first and foremost a nationalist. Castro is much more of a Cuban liberator than a leader of world revolution. He was not a Communist when he began; he converted to Marxism mostly because he saw an ally in the Soviets.

Castro is an economic nationalist against economic imperialism, whereas, say, Basque nationalism is more of the "traditional variety." But in my own personal experience, I hear Fidel talking about what is good for the Cuban people, not the international proletariat.

Not like that&#39;s really a bad thing, in his case, and it&#39;s also not as if Fidel hasn&#39;t made efforts to support other Leninist revolutions in the Third World.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The way I see it, Cuba is the last bastion of Communism on the hemisphere. Even though there might be minor fundamental flaws, it is all that stands in the way of complete political domination of the US. Think of this as the gates of Stalingrad if you will. We must defend this place with our lives&#33; Cuba would be a tremendous loss, you might see it as nationalist, but would you rather see it become the 51st state? Don&#39;t forget the thousands of doctors that the Cuban government has throughout South America, or their role in the revolution in Angolia, and support throughout South America. Anyone who says Castro isn&#39;t theoretically brilliant hasn&#39;t listened to his speeches or looked at his actions. If you have any common sence at all, you would know that the reason that Castro wasn&#39;t Marxist at the start of the revolution was because the US would have intervened, and the revolution would have never happened. The way I see it, Fidel Castro is the greatest leader we have right now, and should be the rallying point for us all.

[Urban Rubble]

Do you actually have a source for these statistics or did you just guess?

Yes I do, but thousands of historians life work that points to around 5 million (give or take a couple mil) million killed in the purges is never enough for most Stalinists. No matter who did the study it&#39;s "western propagnda".

It&#39;s amazing how a 14 year old who hasn&#39;t studied enough to hold an opinion can be so patronizing to ask me if I "just guessed".

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Wtf?I just want to know your sources.Probobly Conquest and some Ex-Nazis <_<

[Bolshevika]

The purges were necessary. Many right-wing antagonists had infiltrated the communist party, like Boris Bazhanov, who admitted to be a sworn enemy of the Bolsheviks.

Stalin simply enforced the constitution written by the Bolsheviks under Lenin regarding the Communist parties membership.

The famine in the Ukraine had nothing to do with the purges el profe. Stalin did not kill everyone that disagreed with him, in fact, there were many author&#39;s, who were part of the Soviet author&#39;s/aritist&#39;s union that harshly criticized Stalin.

I am very critical of Stalin as well. He was not a very good Dialectician and surrounded himself with class enemies like Beria, but his good, his putting the people over everything certainly outweigh&#39;s the bad.

[Urban Rubble]

Wtf?I just want to know your sources.Probobly Conquest and some Ex-Nazis

Yeah you patronizing little prick, I got my numbers from Nazis. Straight out of Himmler&#39;s bio.

Like I told you, I have read a number of books about this topic and have studied it for a long time. I can&#39;t list everything I&#39;ve ever read. Perhaps if you had taken the time to read both pro and anti Stalin books (you obviously haven&#39;t) then you would know both sides of the story and could debate properly, with some knowledge to back it up.

Try reading "Stalin" by Dmitri Volkogonov. It is fairly unbiased, he is obviously not pro Stalin but he points out his good and bad points. He was a General (I believe) in WW2 and then served under Breznev. I believe when he wrote the book he was historian under the Yeltsin years. Try reading a book, you&#39;d be amazed what you learn.


The purges were necessary. Many right-wing antagonists had infiltrated the communist party, like Boris Bazhanov, who admitted to be a sworn enemy of the Bolsheviks.

I agree. But the extent Stalin took the purges to were much too far. That is an understatement.


Stalin did not kill everyone that disagreed with him, in fact, there were many author&#39;s, who were part of the Soviet author&#39;s/aritist&#39;s union that harshly criticized Stalin.

Stalin did not (obviously) kill everyone who disagreed with him. However, if someone critisized him too loudly, meaning got people to listen, he did have a habit of suddenly declaring them "enemies of the people".

[Bolshevika]

It depends if it was valid criticism. A fascist supporting the Fascists in Spain during the civil war is a class enemy, why should we give him freedom (Johnson Al Rys on another board was crying because Stalin had some fascist fuck executed).

However, Stalin promoted criticism by class allies, IE, the peasants, working people, commissants etc.

Personally, I am mostly against the death penalty. It is a waste of labour. Class enemies should be sent to work camps and feel what they have been making the People feel for 10-30 years. Stalin&#39;s era was very much different though. The Soviet Union was preparing for the German invasion and Stalin had to wipe his party and military of all subversion to win the war.

[Bolshevika]

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/Rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

An interesting essay on Trotsky.

[Scottish_Militant]

Bolshevika, you are politically retarded :rolleyes:

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:24 PM
http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/Rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

An interesting essay on Trotsky.
There are plenty of adjectives that could describe that "essay", "interesting" isn&#39;t the first to come to mind.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:51 AM
Bolshevika, you are politically retarded :rolleyes:
"Communist"_revolutionary you are mentally retarded.

And YKTMX, why don&#39;t you try to refute it with Trotskyist "facts" rather than simply make one line remarks?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 01:20 AM
And YKTMX, why don&#39;t you try to refute it with Trotskyist "facts" rather than simply make one line remarks?
Because it&#39;s not worthy of anyones attention. It is a poorly disguised ideological attack on Trotsky&#33;



&#39;Adolf Hitler read Trotsky&#39;s autobiography as soon as it was published. Hitler&#39;s biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells in &#39;Der Fuehrer&#39; how the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in 1930 by bursting into rapturous praise of Trotsky&#39;s book&#39; (&#39;The Great Conspiracy Against Russia,&#39; Kahn and Sayers).


Have some self respect.

[Monty Cantsin]

Are you a Trotskyist?

i&#39;ve started to read some of his stuff i really like it. maybe its just cos his anti Stalin and points out the problems that happened in october.

[Scottish_Militant]

Leon Trotsky’s - Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)

a true masterpeice, Bolshevika should take a read and learn about Marxism, maybe one day he&#39;ll think about becoming a communist.

[Monty Cantsin]

i started to read The Lessons of October (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924/1924-les.htm) the other day great stuff.

[kylie]

i&#39;m not a &#39;stalinist&#39; nor do i support or recognise as good for the working class the soviet union. I&#39;m sure this is enough to earn me the badge Trotskyist.
Because hey guys, theres really a secret trot conspiracy going on right? the conservatives, liberals, and non-authoritarian marxists are all really people hating bourgeios nazi trotskyists eh? :rolleyes:

[Bolshevika]

It&#39;s a common trend amongst people that the most rabid anti-Stalin Americans are either neo-conservatives or white supremicists. They repeat the same lies refuted in the book "Lenins Testament" (www.Northstarcompass.org to buy it) that Trotsky wrote in his works. Fact is, Trotskys "ideas" only evolved after Lenin died.

Trotskyists even think the Soviet involvement in World war II was wrong&#33; Even that Stalin was solely to blame for the rise of Hitler in Germany&#33;

If keeping Lenin&#39;s institutions was a betrayal of the revolution, if supporting Lenin&#39;s policies on counter revolution was betrayal, and if keeping your borders sovereign from the invader is betrayal, then what does Trotsky stand for?

Yes, and another thing, I&#39;ve noticed Trotskyism is very popular amongst liberal leftists. I do not see how this is possible, if you know about Trotsky&#39;s handling of the Army you&#39;d see he was a very strict man, with extreme emphasis on discipline.

What would you Trotskyists have done different than Stalin? How did Stalin change the Soviet Union from what Lenin started (cite specific examples , and eliminating the NEP does not count)

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:57 AM
What would you Trotskyists have done different than Stalin? How did Stalin change the Soviet Union from what Lenin started (cite specific examples , and eliminating the NEP does not count)
Let&#39;s look at this logically? Here is Lenin:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/lenin.jpg

here&#39;s Stalin:


http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june98/stalin.jpg

here is Trotsky:

http://www.revolucionarios.hpg.ig.com.br/trotsky.jpg



You see?&#33; Stalin had no beard&#33;&#33; He&#39;s a revisionist&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

[Scottish_Militant]

You see?&#33; Stalin had no beard&#33;&#33; He&#39;s a revisionist&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

LOL :lol:

Bolshevika, would you not agree that the CP tactics in Germany lead to the rise of Hitler?

If Stalin was a true Marxist why would we all be so against him? are we all CIA agents or something??

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:39 AM
If Stalin was a true Marxist why would we all be so against him? are we all CIA agents or something??
"If Trotsky was a true Marxist, why would we all be so against him? Are we CIA agents or something?"

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I&#39;m a CIA agent, but that has nothing to do with why I don&#39;t support Stalin.

[kylie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:57 AM
It&#39;s a common trend amongst people that the most rabid anti-Stalin Americans are either neo-conservatives or white supremicists. They repeat the same lies refuted in the book "Lenins Testament" (www.Northstarcompass.org to buy it) that Trotsky wrote in his works. Fact is, Trotskys "ideas" only evolved after Lenin died.

Trotskyists even think the Soviet involvement in World war II was wrong&#33; Even that Stalin was solely to blame for the rise of Hitler in Germany&#33;

If keeping Lenin&#39;s institutions was a betrayal of the revolution, if supporting Lenin&#39;s policies on counter revolution was betrayal, and if keeping your borders sovereign from the invader is betrayal, then what does Trotsky stand for?

Yes, and another thing, I&#39;ve noticed Trotskyism is very popular amongst liberal leftists. I do not see how this is possible, if you know about Trotsky&#39;s handling of the Army you&#39;d see he was a very strict man, with extreme emphasis on discipline.

What would you Trotskyists have done different than Stalin? How did Stalin change the Soviet Union from what Lenin started (cite specific examples , and eliminating the NEP does not count)
most marxists i know, while disliking stalins policies, see Trotsky as being just as bad. From what he did when he was in charge of the red army, it looks like he if he had suceeded Lenin would have not been much different from Stalin. And i certainly dont know of any liberals that like Trotsky. trotsky was an authoritarian marxist, liberals being in support of capitalism to at least some extent, and middle of the road in terms of authoritarian/anti-authoritarian.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2003, 12:58 AM
You are the type of person I hate.Phony leftist.You only like Che,you know nothing about communism,yet you claim to be a "coMUniSt".You just believe automaticly that Stalin was a bad person because that is what you heard.I think Hitler was a bad person.But I think that because I have read about him and all he did.I have read both sides in the Stalin argument and have come to realise that Stalin was a great man.
I do not think that Stalin was a bad person "becuase that is what I heard". In fact i dont remeber saying that Stalin was a bad person. My conclusion is that Stalin did really ruin things, that doesnt mean that everything he did was necesarilly evil. However I see him as some paranoid who just wanted power and always thought he was right and that he was always right. If you think about how the USSR ended you will realise both sides of this argument were wrong on gaining the masses. That&#39;s my oppinion.