Can't Judge Stalin?

[Unclebananahead]

I'm having a discussion with a M-L-M type person, regarding the killing of the Old Bolsheviks under Stalin. I myself have a dis-favorable view of this. I was wondering if I could elicit some help in responding to this:

"it was a thing that happened. stalin didnt have much to do with a lot of the individuals, their sentencing, and didnt sit on or advise any of the courts. he ordered the courts set up and stuff, and probably directed it against a few targets, but on the other hand almost everyone who went to trial was accused by an underling, either one step or a few steps removed. its easy to moralize about this sort of thing, but we cant really say much concretely either way because we are 100% removed from the historical context of the courts themselves.

The fact that this is generally considered stalin's legacy instead of the legacy of the CPSU tells us a lot about the opposition as well, and its focus on individual action instead of systemic operations. like, did trotsky really think stalin was responsible for the degeneration of the USSR? no, and he said as much in the revolution betrayed. it was related to one of the reasons that he thought 3rd camp politics were asinine, even post-exile, as his conversations and writings to the schactman before his death attest. but 3rd campists immediately picked up on the trials, and ran with them until anyone who agreed with that aspect of trotsky's politics were totally sidelined in their own parties and leagues.

it got to the point where they eventually completely abandoned the fourth international, when pablo committed the ultimate sin of suggesting trotskyists do things with 'stalinists'(his reasoning being that it would sway a large portion of 'stalinist' base, and he was probably right)"

Any Trotskyists weighing in on this would be much appreciated

[Let's Get Free]

In short, he was a massive prick. Stalin and Stalinism should be left in the dustbin of history and let allowed to rot there permanently.

[Geiseric]

I hear the same excuses for Stalin that I hear for every single U.S. president... "Well Andrew Jackson kinda HAD TO get rid of all the indians. He didn't have much choice about it." "Well Obama doesn't have much choice as to where we use the military." I mean you don't see how it gets rediculous?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I hear the same excuses for Stalin that I hear for every single U.S. president... "Well Andrew Jackson kinda HAD TO get rid of all the indians. He didn't have much choice about it." "Well Obama doesn't have much choice as to where we use the military." I mean you don't see how it gets rediculous?

Exactly. He's not a bad guy from a cartoon that you can pin everything on, but he does personify the betrayal of the revolution the same way a figure like Winston Churchill personify's his countries politics during his reign.

[Ocean Seal]

No more Stalin threads please please:crying:

[Prometeo liberado]

I myself have a dis-favorable view of this. I was wondering if I could elicit some help in responding to this:


If you have such a dis-favorable view of this then would it not be based on SOMETHING? Yet obviously not because you're here soliciting answers for something you don't know why you hate.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

If you have such a dis-favorable view of this then would it not be based on SOMETHING? Yet obviously not because you're here soliciting answers for something you don't know why you hate.
Maybe it's because he used the CPSU for scrap, and got every fucker who had anything to do with the previous revolutions killed? From Trotsky to Bela Kun?

Screw stalin.

[ComradeOm]

"it was a thing that happened. stalin didnt have much to do with a lot of the individuals, their sentencing, and didnt sit on or advise any of the courts. he ordered the courts set up and stuff, and probably directed it against a few targets, but on the other hand almost everyone who went to trial was accused by an underling, either one step or a few steps removed. its easy to moralize about this sort of thing, but we cant really say much concretely either way because we are 100% removed from the historical context of the courts themselvesStalin and his key minions were in the practice of signing off 'albums' of cases that had been forwarded by the NKVD for final authorisation prior to execution. This procedure, which was initiated by Stalin, was intended to maintain a degree of central control over the purges. Particularly prominent deaths were also typically signed off by the Politburo. The whole point of the extrajudicial operations was that they bypassed "the courts" and normal legal procedures

So the idea that Stalin - who played a key role in unleashing the terror, setting its parameters, controlling it when necessary and, literally, signing off countless death warrants - was somehow unaware of the 'excesses' being committed is laughable

[jookyle]

It's not laughable and was one of the main reasons for the great purge. Many modern day researches who have spent years in the Russian archives studying Soviet records, such a Grover Furr, have been able to show with evidence that such things did happen and those involved made very strong efforts to keep these conspiracy's from Stalin and those closest to him. This is why people like Ezhov were eventually arrested. You can find english translations to the published interrogations of Ezohv here where he admits as much.
http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/ezhovinterrogs.html
http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/ezhov042639eng.html
http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/frinovskyeng.html
http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/ezhov080439eng.html

Also, this mentality of Stalin having power to point of being a dictator is simply dishonest. Democratic Centralism still existed in the party under Stalin and the records show it. Whether you like Stalin or not is no excuse for promoting the same western lies that have propagating. We should be interested in historical honesty regardless of our political positions.

[Ostrinski]

Isn't Grover Furr like a laughing stock among actual historians? He's like David Barton.

[Drosophila]

Isn't Grover Furr like a laughing stock among actual historians? .

Does he even really count as an historian?

[Ostrinski]

Does he even really count as an historian?He's an english professor.

[jookyle]

He's an english professor.

His day job hardly disputes his research.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

He's an english professor.


Wikipedia posted:

Grover Carr Furr III is an American professor

LOL at your accuracy comrade!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Also, Comrade "GhostBebel" uploaded the interesting book Khrushchev Lied by Grover Furr in which every single claim of Krushchev at the 20th Congress is debunked as a lie (besides one which he cannot prove or disprove if i remember correctly).

[Red Commissar]

LOL at your accuracy comrade!

I don't think he meant English as in ethnicity/nationality but English as in language, IE a professor who specializes in English studies (literature for example). Grover Furr does teach/specialize in "medieval English literature" at Montclair State University by the same wiki article you quoted.

Now I'm not saying his stuff doesn't count so don't attack me there.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Don't believe the bourgeois propaganda! Here is some Soviet propaganda instead."
Every Stalinist apologetic ever.

[ComradeOm]

His day job hardly disputes his research.It does if you want to claim that it is the product of a "modern day researcher who have spent years in the Russian archives studying Soviet records". Furr is not one of these. Has he even had direct access to the archives?


You can find english translations to the published interrogations of Ezohv here where he admits as muchIdiocy and imbecility. Did it ever occur to you that there are countless such confessions extracted under Ezhov's tenure? Admissions that fully supported the charges against those 'excesses' deaths. Yet they were no doubt false and extracted via torture or pressure while Ezhov's is genuine and heartfelt, right?


Democratic Centralism still existed in the party under Stalin and the records show itWhat they records show is declining democratic participation at all higher levels of the party during the Stalin years...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/GreaterDCU/Misc/Partydemocracy.png

[RedAtheist]

"it was a thing that happened. stalin didnt have much to do with a lot of the individuals, their sentencing, and didnt sit on or advise any of the courts. he ordered the courts set up and stuff, and probably directed it against a few targets, but on the other hand almost everyone who went to trial was accused by an underling, either one step or a few steps removed.

Isn't the whole point of being the leader of a party so that you can stop that kind of shit from happening? Why would I support a useless leader?

[hetz]

Did it ever occur to you that there are countless such confessions extracted under Ezhov's tenure?
But is there evidence that Yezhov's confession was extracted through torture?
Besides, sometimes you have to push the criminals a bit in order to get them to confess, you won't get much with small talk and cookies.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The fact that most of the old- bolsheviks were killed by the soviet regime of the 1930s says a lot about the counter- revolutionary nature of that regime, irrespective of who signed those death- warrants. What decisions were personally made by Stalin or Molotov themselves is insignificant in itself.

also, Grover Furr is a fucking left- wing version of Richard Pipes.

[Prometeo liberado]

Maybe it's because he used the CPSU for scrap, and got every fucker who had anything to do with the previous revolutions killed? From Trotsky to Bela Kun?

Screw Stalin.

Much like the OP you seemed to be confused. How is it one can dislike a "thing" yet solicit reasons to justify that hate? Makes no sense. Yes, you can tell him why he should dislike this thing but then you would only have as an ally a follower, not a critical thinker. And when you say "he" are you talking about the OP, which was the subject of my post by the way. If you are I highly doubt that the OP controlled the CPSU. Or maybe you were just waiting to write that post regardless of what I had written just so you could fire off that very original "got every fucker who had anything to do with the previous revolutions killed" line. Maybe you should have gone with how Stalin sabotaged the Spanish Civil war because you read Homage to Catalonia so it must be true. It would have been just as off topic and twice as stupid. More bang for the buck, IMO.

[Rafiq]

You're all missing the point. Especially those who are posting evidence of Stalin's involvement in the purges, and the likes. Stalin isn't responsible, yes, he may have authorized the deaths on a mass scale, but he in himself was not responsible for the purges or the revolution's degeneration. He was merely it's gravedigger. The conditions of which led to the revolution's degeneration and, for example, the great purges do not amount to Stalin's obscure paranoia and alleged "hunger for power". Rather, several internal material conditions and dynamic changes within social relations intrinsic to the Soviet Union and it's very unique mode of production (one which today we cannot even fully categorize) are responsible for the revolution's degeneration. It's nothing short of embarrassing, watching self proclaimed Marxists adhere to somewhat of a villainous great man theory and still declaring their conception of historical materialism to be complete and unequivocal. Blaming Stalin is completely useless, one should instead analyze and understand the conditions that allowed or necessitated, for example, men like Stalin to even exist. And at that, I can't really say I'd ever subscribe to a moral criticism of Stalin, as such is useless and demonstrates absolutely nothing about the nature of the Soviet Union (though it would say a lot about my conception of Marxism).

[l'Enfermé]

^Rafiq you filthy Trot("gravedigger of the revolution" as far as I know was coined by Trotsky and was latter used by Ryutin in his platform in 1932)!

[rednordman]

Thank this useful post if you think Stalin was the worst person ever to exist in the whole history of the earth!:D

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

^Rafiq you filthy Trot("gravedigger of the revolution" as far as I know was coined by Trotsky and was latter used by Ryutin in his platform in 1932)!
Actually I think Bordiga did beat Trotsky to it. ;)

[Rafiq]

^Rafiq you filthy Trot("gravedigger of the revolution" as far as I know was coined by Trotsky and was latter used by Ryutin in his platform in 1932)!

As far as you know, indeed.

[The Jay]

You're all missing the point. Especially those who are posting evidence of Stalin's involvement in the purges, and the likes. Stalin isn't responsible, yes, he may have authorized the deaths on a mass scale, but he in himself was not responsible for the purges or the revolution's degeneration. He was merely it's gravedigger.


Would you care to re-phrase that?

[Omsk]

Thank this useful post if you think Stalin was the worst person ever to exist in the whole history of the earth!http://www.revleft.com/vb/cant-judge-stalini-t175860/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif


This is not youtube.

[Sea]

How mad/bad/sad good/great/rad uncle J was is the same as when this question was asked about 100 times ago.

He wasn't as great as Hoxhaists hold him to be, and he wasn't as bad as Trotskyists hold him to be.

[rednordman]

This is not youtube.:D i was being sarcastic. But seriously, there seems to be alot of this blame one man for the failure of everything. Has it ever cost your minds that it wasn't just Stalin and his follows that had it in for leaders of other left-wing movements but also people within their own movements? this may have unintentionally created the environment for the purges to occur in the first place.

[Thirsty Crow]

Would you care to re-phrase that?
Rafiq's basically arguing that we should abandon any notion of responsibility in favour of a notion of necessity due to material conditions.

Which is fine as far as historical debate goes. It would be better if we were able to figure out the dynamics of the political and social struggle in question, rather than get involved in the blame game. Though, unfortunately this whole thread is based on a very specific claim, that "stalin didnt have much to do with a lot of the individuals, their sentencing, and didnt sit on or advise any of the courts...", so the issue is relevant here.

[Geiseric]

You're all missing the point. Especially those who are posting evidence of Stalin's involvement in the purges, and the likes. Stalin isn't responsible, yes, he may have authorized the deaths on a mass scale, but he in himself was not responsible for the purges or the revolution's degeneration. He was merely it's gravedigger. The conditions of which led to the revolution's degeneration and, for example, the great purges do not amount to Stalin's obscure paranoia and alleged "hunger for power". Rather, several internal material conditions and dynamic changes within social relations intrinsic to the Soviet Union and it's very unique mode of production (one which today we cannot even fully categorize) are responsible for the revolution's degeneration. It's nothing short of embarrassing, watching self proclaimed Marxists adhere to somewhat of a villainous great man theory and still declaring their conception of historical materialism to be complete and unequivocal. Blaming Stalin is completely useless, one should instead analyze and understand the conditions that allowed or necessitated, for example, men like Stalin to even exist. And at that, I can't really say I'd ever subscribe to a moral criticism of Stalin, as such is useless and demonstrates absolutely nothing about the nature of the Soviet Union (though it would say a lot about my conception of Marxism).

Right, and Andrew Jackson may of "Signed the papers," ordering the genocide of the indians, but he wasn't personally responsible! Same for Truman. He may of signed the orders saying that the nukes are going to be dropped now, but he and roosevelt weren't personally responsible for the wholesale destruction of Japan, and around half of the country's deaths. Albert Hess was a good nazi, who didn't know about the Holocaust as well, although he organized the machine that built it! That makes no fucking sense.

It's hardly a "great man theory," to claim that a leader who was instrumental in shutting out political opponents and lying to millions of people was important in the grand scheme of things. He was the embodyment of everything that went wrong, because he was the chief advocate of the degeneration itself.

[hetz]

Albert Hess was a good nazi, who didn't know about the Holocaust as well, although he organized the machine that built it! That makes no fucking sense. Never heard of that person.
There's Rudolf Hess, but he flew to England a year before the infamous Wannsee meeting.


He was the embodyment of everything that went wrong, because he was the chief advocate of the degeneration itself. I don't think that's the proper Marxist approach. How can Stalin as a person be the "embodiment" of everything that went wrong with the Russian revolution. The first thing that went wrong with it was the defeat of revolutions in Western Europe, something I don't think you can blame any of the Bolsheviks for.
That the Russian revolution "went wrong" cannot be the fault of Stalin or any other person, there's much more to this.
Stalin, if anything, was the embodiment of the policies and ideology of the majority in the Party and the working class in general.

[Rafiq]

Right, and Andrew Jackson may of "Signed the papers," ordering the genocide of the indians, but he wasn't personally responsible! Same for Truman. He may of signed the orders saying that the nukes are going to be dropped now, but he and roosevelt weren't personally responsible for the wholesale destruction of Japan, and around half of the country's deaths. Albert Hess was a good nazi, who didn't know about the Holocaust as well, although he organized the machine that built it! That makes no fucking sense.

Well, to an anti Marxist such as yourself, perhaps it doesn't make any sort of sense. Though, allow me to explain. Andrew Jackson was not personally responsible for the genocide of Indians, the capitalist mode of productions and the class relations which necessitated which are. Do you think that, had another president gotten into office instead of Jackson, the genocide would not have occurred? Truman, ah Truman, let me explain. He in himself was not responsible, again, the material forces which necessitated it were. The bomb was necessary to retain global hegemonic power for the American bourgeoisie, to frighten the Soviet Union. "LOL dad dusn't make any senses I wazn't taught dat in school or w/e". Had FDR lived a bit longer, the bombs would have been dropped regardless. Individual state-leaders have little to nothing to do with mass historical developments, they are just a medium by which classes exemplify their interests. "Well, since they did it themselves, they are responsible". And that is nothing short of a moralist proclamation. Why? Do you believe in a sort of an objective morality? Tell me, is it certain and specific individuals which need to be deposed from power, and not the bourgeois dictatorship itself (sustained by the rule of capital), for us as communists, now? Christ, you're an embaressment.

And no, the holocaust was definitely something which the German bourgeoisie found necessary and the mass scale butchering of the Jewish masses would have occurred regardless of the existence of whomever happened to have been organizing it. Actually, attributing the holocaust, and it's entirety, to the will of a single man is quite an insult to the victims of the process, if you think about it (something I imagine you are incapable of doing, with your emotionally based, bourgeois-pressuposional moralist outcry you call a reply as evidence). Your sarcasm was not only unfounded and laughable, it was to an extent offensive.


It's hardly a "great man theory," to claim that a leader who was instrumental in shutting out political opponents and lying to millions of people was important in the grand scheme of things. He was the embodyment of everything that went wrong, because he was the chief advocate of the degeneration itself.


What the fuck are you spewing here? I am literally laughing at your terminology here. The only thing proven here, argumentatively, is that you're a bourgeois-liberal and an idealist. Saying Stalin symbolized the revolution's degeneration doesn't at all signify that he was responsible for the revolution's degeneration, but, you then contradict yourself by saying "he was the chief advocate of the degeneration itself" (??). What does this even mean? He was a product of the revolution's degeneration, yes, but "advocate"? Was Stalin planning to directly degenerate the revolution? And even if he was, what social and political mechanisms intrinsic to the Soviet Union allowed him to do so? In the end, Stalin proved himself to be ever more competent and able to address problems existent within the Soviet Union than Trotsky and the rest of the lot were, however, what this signifies is nothing more than the reactionary shift in the class nature of both the Soviet state and all together the degeneration of the revolution, due to conditions existent within the Soviet Union. In order for the Soviet state to survive, the gains from the revolution had to be done away with, slowly, the proletarian class of which the state was previously an instrument of lost it's position of state dictatorship. It is this reason, that the Soviet Union survived so long as a power. What better man than Stalin, then to dig the grave of the revolution and prepare the state for it's degeneration properly and competently (though, obviously not competently enough, see: famines, etc.).

[ComradeOm]

Rafiq's basically arguing that we should abandon any notion of responsibility in favour of a notion of necessity due to material conditions.

Which is fine as far as historical debate goesNo, it's not. Indulging in historical debates does not excuse the abdication of judgement

Even the very language here is loaded: to speak of "necessity" is to imply that Stalin et al had no choice in, well, their choices. The idea that Stalin bears "no responsibility" for the actions and policies pursued under his instruction is to favour some sort of crass mechanicalism that imagines history trundling on regardless of the actions of man. That has no place in a historical discussion

The appropriate response is not to consider judging Stalin an impossibility (or some "villainous great man theory" :rolleyes:) but to situate this within the correct historical context. And like everything else this supposes a dialectal relationship; not just cause and effect. Thus the rise to power of the Stalinist elite was a product of the revolution's degeneration and their rise to power hastened the degeneration of the revolution

[Rafiq]

Thus the rise to power of the Stalinist elite was a product of the revolution's degeneration and their rise to power hastened the degeneration of the revolution

And all you're doing here is reinstating the same thesis I put forward in this very thread. If Stalin was a product of the revolution's degeneration, then how is he in himself responsible for, for example, the purges? If a man like Stalin is to be expected, how is it, in any way, useful to morally criticize him and hold him accountable for such mass catastrophe? It was necessitated, you are simply incapable of understanding the dynamics between material forces and what we call choice. Did Stalin have a "choice"? Not if he wanted to sustain the Soviet state, no. The Soviet state could not have possibly survived as a healthy proletarian dictatorship after the global failure of a proletarian revolution (especially Germany). Of course Stalin authorized many deaths, of course Stalin saw to the death of many, yes, but it's absolutely useless to hold him in himself accountable for those deaths instead of analyzing very dynamic social relations existent within the soviet union of which lead to those very specific decisions to be made. Comradeom, your keenness in constantly disagreeing with me because of your (false) conception of my Marxism has proven itself something of a danger to your own intellectual and theoretical basis: You are pushing yourself off the edge into the pit of Idealism. A word of friendly advise: learn to analyse things objectively and rationally instead of making baseless assertions off of conclusions drawn from your own unrelenting insolence toward users you have something of a disdain for, which do nothing but discredit your own theoretical validity. (By the way, I'm still waiting for a reply in the crusades thread).

[ComradeOm]

And all you're doing here is reinstating the same thesis I put forward in this very threadNo, you're presenting a ridiculously deterministic view of history that disavows the existence of human agency

To take an example: Your suggestion that "the mass scale butchering of the Jewish masses would have occurred regardless of the existence of whomever happened to have been organizing it" is a profoundly stupid assertion that bears no relation to historical reality. The idea that you could remove the Nazis and the "German bourgeoisie" would still, somehow, have found the deaths of millions of Jews to be 'necessary' demonstrates both an ignorance and a railroad-like conception of history


If Stalin was a product of the revolution's degeneration, then how is he in himself responsible for, for example, the purges?This isn't a real question, is it? Because it can quite clearly pointed out how Stalin, and his allies, were responsible for the purges. That is, the latter were sparked and driven by decisions and policies issued by the Stalinist centre. There is little question about responsibility in this matter

Now the correct application of your beloved historical materialism to these years would be to reconstruct the socio-economic context and sit the decisions of the Politburo within these. Effectively, viewing them not as a top-down imposition of some perverse Stalinist ideal but a response to threats to the state. But this does not negate responsibility; it does not assume that the crime is preordained or inevitable. That's because, in this dialectal relationship, just as conditions weighted on the Politburo then so to did the Politburo make decisions that affected the socio-economic context

The liquidation of the Bolshevik leadership, suppression of party democracy and mad economic pace unquestionably hastened the collapse of the revolutionary gains and ultimately gave rise to a new Soviet state

Your bizarre insistence that no responsibility lie with Stalinism is in effect a denial that Stalinist policies had any impact on Soviet history; or indeed, more broadly, that man can influence material conditions. It's a very, very simplistic model that you propose: the revolution failed and that is all you need to know. Anything that comes later (the executions of revolutionaries, the mass violence, the millions of excess deaths, etc) is irrelevant or would have happened anyway. Cause and effect: degeneration leads to mass Stalinist violence and no one's responsible

How myopically stupid


Of course Stalin authorized many deaths, of course Stalin saw to the death of many, yes, but it's absolutely useless to hold him in himself accountable for those deaths instead of analyzing very dynamic social relations existent within the soviet union of which lead to those very specific decisions to be madeSome of us are able to do both. Not confusing 'having an opinion' with 'moralism', we're able to evaluate Stalinism within the context of a degenerating revolution. You however stop at the latter and insist that there's nothing more to be learned; as if the actions of the Stalinist elite were entirely inconsequential


Comradeom, your keenness in constantly disagreeing with me because of your (false) conception of my Marxism has proven itself something of a danger to your own intellectual and theoretical basis: You are pushing yourself off the edge into the pit of Idealism. A word of friendly advise: learn to analyse things objectively and rationally instead of making baseless assertions off of conclusions drawn from your own unrelenting insolence toward users you have something of a disdain for, which do nothing but discredit your own theoretical validityDon't pretend to give me "friendly advice"; not when you embarrass yourself with every post. But I forgot, no one else here is a true Marxist but yourself :rolleyes:


(By the way, I'm still waiting for a reply in the crusades thread)You didn't post anything worth replying to. You can either address the points I'd raised in my preceding post (and hope that I have patience for you) or continue waiting

[Geiseric]

The basic Stalinist arguement for all of the fucked up things he did is basically the same as the committing individual's justification for every atrocity that's happened since the beginning of mankind. Bill Clinton can't really NOT bomb Yugoslavia, there's historic processes that absolve him of responsibility! Same for George Bush Sr, and Jr, and JFK. This thread is such garbage.

[Stalin's Horny Swine]

I admit my personal biased love affair for Stalin's Russia... a country we love

[hetz]

The basic Stalinist arguement for all of the fucked up things he did is basically the same as the committing individual's justification for every atrocity that's happened since the beginning of mankind.
The basic Stalinist argument, if you go from the basic, and that is historical sources, is that there were no atrocities, only "justice" and "excesses".:laugh:

[Unclebananahead]

I--the OP-- am not favorably disposed towards the legacy/policies of Mr. Stalin, in case anyone's interested. My interest here is in determining what can be pinned on him. What's he responsible for? What were the circumstances surrounding his decisions? What if anything, didn't go as planned, and went against the things he--or the bureaucracy he presided over--set into motion?

[ind_com]

I--the OP-- am not favorably disposed towards the legacy/policies of Mr. Stalin, in case anyone's interested. My interest here is in determining what can be pinned on him.

Well you can always call him a godless commie monster.

[Rafiq]

No, you're presenting a ridiculously deterministic view of history that disavows the existence of human agency

To take an example: Your suggestion that "the mass scale butchering of the Jewish masses would have occurred regardless of the existence of whomever happened to have been organizing it" is a profoundly stupid assertion that bears no relation to historical reality. The idea that you could remove the Nazis and the "German bourgeoisie" would still, somehow, have found the deaths of millions of Jews to be 'necessary' demonstrates both an ignorance and a railroad-like conception of history

And with this post, Comradeom, of whom I used to have high regard for (even after our feuds), yet again appears to demonstrate increasing tendencies of intellectual and theoretical degeneration, as I will myself demonstrate in this very post.

According to Comradeom, my thesis in regards to the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution is "deterministic" and "disavows the existence of human agency". Hah! The fool! It is nothing short of ironic, the fact that this... This clown of sorts, accuses me of "determinism" and the disregarding of human agency, while inf act, my position in regards (contrary to his) fully emphasizes the full and unquestionable signification of human agency. Comradeom, of whom adheres to an unconcious form of a "great man theory", is really the one who disregards the importance of human social agency. He reduces the entirety of the degeneration of the October revolution to the mere policies and misdoings of men like Stalin and his elite, completely disregarding the existence of the development and radically changes existent within both the productive forces and material conditions respectively, of which are nothing short of human! Unconscious human agency is still human agency. It is this, simple and elementary form of historical materialism that Comradeom, after so long, still can not completely articulate. And he has the audacity to accuse me of disavowing human agency and adhering to "determinism". The Idealist mechanisms within his brain are incapable of recognizing the Marxist conception of the degeneration of the October revolution, it is either Stalin planned everything (or was responsible for everything), or that the degeneration of the revolution was predetermined since the beginning of time. Both inherently Idealist thesis's (if you can call them that).

And now, we shall begin to analyze his almost appalling response to my thesis: That the holocaust would have occurred, regardless of whom the Nazis had deployed to organize it. And secondly, that the holocaust would have occurred regardless of the exact ideological nature of the new, and stronger, bourgeois state in Germany. According to Comradeom, firstly, the Nazis and the German bourgeoisie exist separatly. The Nazis were simply intellectuals who hijacked and won the favor of the German bourgeoisie, according to Comradeom, in order to express their ideas. Of course, this is far from the case. Fascism was not a phenomena exclusive to Germany, it was a spontaneous joining of hands of both the bourgeois and petite bourgeois classes in what appeared to be a mutual interest. Indeed not only Bordiga, but countless Marxists have pointed out the class nature of the holocaust: This was not a mere expression of German racism, it was a result of the necessiation on behalf of German capital (we can see how in Fascist countries like Italy, there was no holocaust) to dispose of the Jewish population, and as such, they were emptied from the process that was capital accumulation and worked to death, as Bordiga himself said, "an old habit of Capital's". But wait, ladies and gentlemen, the most pathetic truth of them all: I was referring to the individual bloody had mentioned, not the entirety of the German bourgeois state. I simply stated that if the Nazis had intended on exterminating the Jewish population, then the extermination itself didn't amount to the will of the individual who organized it. A simple fact, yes, but as I have pointed out in the crusades thread, Comradeom has rendered himself incapable of competently articulating the most simple of statements, for whatever reasons. So much for a "railroad-like" conception of history. Indeed, I do restate that to attribute the holocaust to the will of a single man, such a massive event, is an insult to it's victims. That they, competent human beings, almost an entire people, killed because of the fantasies of a single man? Offensive, at best.


This isn't a real question, is it? Because it can quite clearly pointed out how Stalin, and his allies, were responsible for the purges. That is, the latter were sparked and driven by decisions and policies issued by the Stalinist centre. There is little question about responsibility in this matter


Again, a great irony reveals itself. I read this whole post, by Comradeom, and bellow he attributes to me myopic stupidity. There is nothing more myopic here, as far as I'm concerend, as this little snip above me. "What? Stalin and his friends organized it. Therefore they are responsible. Had only Lenin lived a few more years, or Trotsky assumed power, such would not happen. HA! Take that!". I almost feel bad for you. You are pressuposing in itself a conception of "responsibility" alien to Marxism. "Stalin and his allies" did indeed make decisions and policies which led to the purges, but tell me, does the homeless man who makes the decision to buy drugs with money given out to him responsible for retaining his addiction to drugs, and his homelessness? It is useless to attribute this "personal responsibility". There is nothing wrong with analyzing the process itself, but as far as responsibility goes, you can only attribute the conditions of which birthed those decisions. Comradeom will probably not respond to this here, as this is indeed a deadlock. I don't care though.


Now the correct application of your beloved historical materialism to these years would be to reconstruct the socio-economic context and sit the decisions of the Politburo within these. Effectively, viewing them not as a top-down imposition of some perverse Stalinist ideal but a response to threats to the state. But this does not negate responsibility; it does not assume that the crime is preordained or inevitable. That's because, in this dialectal relationship, just as conditions weighted on the Politburo then so to did the Politburo make decisions that affected the socio-economic context

Ha! He has to truly be joking now. Comradeom simply rephrases "Top down imposition of some perverse Stalinist ideal" with "response to threats to the state". This is golden. Especially his bourgeois-liberal terminology. No, the correct application of our(Myself and those few who are still Marxists) historical materialism would be to analyze the very dynamic social relations existent within the Soviet Union and, effectively, why those decisions were made. This doesn't end at "Stalin wanting power". You accuse me of being myopic... You should feel embarrassed.


The liquidation of the Bolshevik leadership, suppression of party democracy and mad economic pace unquestionably hastened the collapse of the revolutionary gains and ultimately gave rise to a new Soviet state


They did, unquestionably, though this is useless positivism. Why did they occur? What allowed this? Why was the revolutionary dictatorship incapable of combating the forces of counter revolution? Simply because said revolutionary dictatorship did not last for more than a few years, from the start! The revolution was doomed as soon as the revolution did not spread. These things you mentioned were on par with the solidification of capital, something that was necessary if the Soviet Union was to continue to exist. One had to be sacrificed, either the proletarian dictatorship (within the Soviet Union), or the Soviet Union (the proletarian dictatorship as well, anyway) itself. An easy choice for the Stalin-coalition. Their rise was not a diabolical plan, it was a response to conditions existent within the Soviet Union. This was not "predetermined", it existed in correlation with dynamic social forces.


Your bizarre insistence that no responsibility lie with Stalinism is in effect a denial that Stalinist policies had any impact on Soviet history; or indeed, more broadly, that man can influence material conditions. It's a very, very simplistic model that you propose: the revolution failed and that is all you need to know. Anything that comes later (the executions of revolutionaries, the mass violence, the millions of excess deaths, etc) is irrelevant or would have happened anyway. Cause and effect: degeneration leads to mass Stalinist violence and no one's responsible

There are more than a few things I'd like to address here (some of which are laughable, almost). Firstly, I have no interest in participating in a moralist argument with Comradeom, I don't care about his morals and as far as I'm concerned he can shove them up his ass. What I am discussing now, pertains to objectively existing historical phenomena. I just wanted to clear this. Stalin was not "responsible" in the literal sense for this existing phenomena, he cannot be objectively attributed for the degeneration of the revolution. Now, the moralist you are, if you want to make moral proclamations, that the very fact that he participated or was involved int his process makes him responsible, you are free to do so, in your own head.

Now, onto the strawmans. My denial that Stalinism was not responsible is in fact a reinforcement of the fact that Stalinist policies had an effect on the Soviet Union, your Idealist-positivist mind simply cannot understand how this is. I am simply stated that it does not end with Stalinism, there are very specific changes in material movement and in social relations which were indeed responsible for Stalinism, therefore Stalinism cannot be responsible for those policies when Stalinism itself was a product of something larger. Because, if we are to attribute Stalinism with responsibility, then we play into the logic of "If only Lenin lived a few more years longer..." or "Had only Trotsky assumed power...". This is the Marxist conception of responsibility and if Comradeom denies this he is simply not a Marxist.

Man does not influence material conditions. Men are material conditions, material conditions are the entanglement of several wills into something of which no one willed, the production of life itself, the movement in social and class relations to the mode of production. The fact that you consider "material conditions" to be abstract forces reflects your own ignorance in regards to what we call materialism.

I mean, I quite simply state that Stalinism cannot be responsible for those events, and all of a sudden, "anything that comes after the failure of the German revolution" is historically irreverent, according to Comradeom's interperation of a materialist analysis of the degeneration of the October revolution. I almost feel bad for him..


How myopically stupid


That's okay, champ. Maybe you'll understand. Well, there's nothing that wreaks of more stupidity than a grown adult of whom has been a self declared Marxist for at least seven years and still simply cannot grasp the hyperopiac or "bigger picture" of historical materialism. Maybe one day a synapse in that brain of yours will allow you to scream to the heavens "Oh, I get it!".


Some of us are able to do both. Not confusing 'having an opinion' with 'moralism', we're able to evaluate Stalinism within the context of a degenerating revolution. You however stop at the latter and insist that there's nothing more to be learned; as if the actions of the Stalinist elite were entirely inconsequential


What policies do you think could have been made in order for the revolution not to degenerate? Of course policies could have been made to prevent deaths and catastrophe, but as far as the degeneration of the revolution is concerned, within the context of the Stalinist regime no, there is nothing that could have been done to prolong the solidification of capital. See: Socialism in one country cannot exist. And there are those who call me a Stalinist...


Don't pretend to give me "friendly advice"; not when you embarrass yourself with every post. But I forgot, no one else here is a true Marxist but yourself :rolleyes:


There's nothing more embarrassing than a man whose insolence is somewhat unsubstantiated. You have no reason to be arrogant, Comradeom. You've as much an understanding of Marxism as the fools in this thread attributing Stalin himself for the degeneration of the revolution.

There are other Marxists on this forum, some who are not, well, fond of me. Comradeom should know this. But on a larger scale, whether they like to admit it or not, they do concur with me. Any real Bordigist (I am not a bordigist) concurs with me, and they can refer to Bordiga himself should they think otherwise. Any Orthodox Marxist, if they were really Orthodox Marxists, would concur with me. Some non bordigist Left Communists as well, perhaps. The only people who call themselves Marxists and would fully and completely disagree with me are vulgarizers and unqualified Marxists (such as yourself). I've seen anarchists formulate better analysis than you.


You didn't post anything worth replying to. You can either address the points I'd raised in my preceding post (and hope that I have patience for you) or continue waiting


I addressed the supposed necessiation of addressing all of your points, under the premise that there was a misunderstanding. I simply wanted to point it out as I was under the impression you had forgotten.

[ComradeOm]

Comradeom, of whom adheres to an unconcious form of a "great man theory", is really the one who disregards the importance of human social agency. He reduces the entirety of the degeneration of the October revolution to the mere policies and misdoings of men like Stalin and his eliteI stopped reading here. If you're not going to read my posts then I have no intention of returning the favour

I believe that my exact words were that "this supposes a dialectal relationship; not just cause and effect. Thus the rise to power of the Stalinist elite was a product of the revolution's degeneration and their rise to power hastened the degeneration of the revolution". And I went on to argue that the crimes of Stalinism must be placed within their historic context, including the degree to which Soviet policies themselves affected these conditions. Which to me seems a pretty straightforward Marxist position

(Witness Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm): "The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements")

But your determinism is such that apparently even suggesting that state power may have some impact on wider material conditions* is considered to be an expression of the 'Great Man theory'. The mere suggestion that the actions of the Stalinist elite may have had an impact on the course of the revolution is dismissed as "reducing the entirety of the degeneration of the October revolution to the mere policies and misdoings of men like Stalin and his elite". I'm not sure whether that's a very poor strawman or you genuinely believe it

And finally, learn to struture your argument properly. I have no idea if English is your second language but if you're able to type like a Victorian ("The fool! It is nothing short of ironic, the fact that this... This clown of sorts, accuses me of determinism") then there's no excuse for not structuring your ideas and arguments in a coherent manner. As it is, the above post is an incoherent mess and, as I've said before, I am not here to humour you: if your post is unreadable then I will not try to read it

*Or as I occasionally put it when chatting up girls: "Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base"

[Rafiq]

I stopped reading here. If you're not going to read my posts then I have no intention of returning the favour

I've read all of your posts. Denying that you adhere to a form of a "great man theory" does not signify you adhere to a form of the "great man theory". You suppose a "dialectical relationship" between Stalin's diabolical plan and actual material conditions, and that is nothing short of pseudo-dualistic, and an obscene vulgarization of Dialectics. You say that these should be placed into specific historical contexts, however, does not revoke your conception of the degeneration as a form of the great man theory of history, as I addressed in my post.

But to make things even more humorous, I completely concured that this was not a matter of cause and effect, that during the degeneration of the revolution, the "stalinist elite" furtherly solidified the rule of capital. What I was arguing against is this notion of "responsibility", the point I was making was that, be it Stalin or Trotsky, or whomever else, this "dialectical relationship" would have still been existent, just a different gravedigger. My point was that to morally criticize Stalin and attribute to him the failure of the revolution is nothing short of ludicrous and Idealist, as he merely attempted to sustain the existence of the Soviet Union, whether or not that meant destroying the gains of the revolution. You can read my post or you can fuck off, I'm not playing this game again.


I believe that my exact words were that "this supposes a dialectal relationship; not just cause and effect. Thus the rise to power of the Stalinist elite was a product of the revolution's degeneration and their rise to power hastened the degeneration of the revolution". And I went on to argue that the crimes of Stalinism must be placed within their historic context, including the degree to which Soviet policies themselves affected these conditions. Which to me seems a pretty straightforward Marxist position

You are doing nothing but contradicting yourself. Which one is it, were the Soviets making policies out of their own 'free will' to destroy the revolution, or is this to be placed within a "specific historic context" and that they were merely responding to existing material forces (The initial isolation of the revolution, etc.). Was the paranoia and madness existent in the Soviet Union a product of Stalin's ideas or the isolation of the revolution and the threat of foreign sabotage and siege? Or do you really hold that their "free will" is some abstract entity that coexists with the "other" forces, i.e. Material forces? There is something we can catagorize that as, and it's called dualism. You are free to adhere to such garbage, you are, however, not permitted to disguise this as Materialism. Material forces are not ghosts or abstract beings which influence humans, they are humans and they are the very relations existent between them and their mode of production. They are, as I've said, the entanglement of several wills into something no one willed. You before had said "Man influences material conditions". This is evidence of your dualism. What are material conditions to you? Men are material conditions, material conditions are composed of nothing more than men and their relations with each other.


(Witness Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm): "The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements")


And this has absolutely nothing to do with the degeneration of the revolution being attributed to nasty old Stalin. Tell me, is there anything the Bolshevik state could have done, after the international failure of the revolution, to sustain the revolution in the Soviet Union? You're a prick, Comradeom. I addressed all of this in the above post. You can read that or fuck off.


But your determinism is such that apparently even suggesting that state power may have some impact on wider material conditions* is considered to be an expression of the 'Great Man theory'. The mere suggestion that the actions of the Stalinist elite may have had an impact on the course of the revolution is dismissed as "reducing the entirety of the degeneration of the October revolution to the mere policies and misdoings of men like Stalin and his elite". I'm not sure whether that's a very poor strawman or you genuinely believe it


"Oh but it was placed within a specific historical context, they may have been influenced by stuff but yeah they are still responsible and had lenin only lived a few years longer that wouldn't have happened. The problem amounted to bad men with bad morals, not conditions of which necessiate bad men and bad morals"


And finally, learn to struture your argument properly. I have no idea if English is your second language but if you're able to type like a Victorian ("The fool! It is nothing short of ironic, the fact that this... This clown of sorts, accuses me of determinism") then there's no excuse for not structuring your ideas and arguments in a coherent manner. As it is, the above post is an incoherent mess and, as I've said before, I am not here to humour you: if your post is unreadable then I will not try to read it


Really? It's incomprehensible? Perhaps you should take some courses on the English language. I'm curious. Who else in this thread is under the impression my post was incomprehensible?


*Or as I occasionally put it when chatting up girls: "Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base"


And you called me myopic. And you accuse me of developing a straw man. Each post demonstrates your own slow theoretical and intellectual degeneration. You are no longer approaching a steep cliff. You have already fallen down.

Read the post, or quite simply fuck off, Comradeom. I'm not going to go circles here. I addressed 99% of everything you wrote here in the post above.

[ComradeOm]

What I was arguing against is this notion of "responsibility", the point I was making was that, be it Stalin or Trotsky, or whomever else, this "dialectical relationship" would have still been existent, just a different gravediggerAnd would have taken different forms

Your notion of abdication of responsibility is a crude historical substitutionism in which history would have turned out exactly the same if the Stalinist elite had not been in power. That is, we cannot blame Stalin and his circle for the deaths of millions, both by repression and mismanagement, because a Trotsky-led government would have, out of necessity, carried through the exact same policies with the exact same results

This is predeterminist nonsense. The revolution would have almost certainly continued to degenerate no matter who was at the helm - I'm really not sure where you're getting the notion that this is in question - but it is entirely without reason to argue that it would have followed the exact same course. It is silly to suggest that different, ie non-Stalinist, policies would have impacted the economic and social base of the country in the same way

And if we step outside your deterministic bubble and accept that there were alternatives to Stalinism, while ignoring whether they could have salvaged the revolution, then we return to the basic matter of choice. Stalin could not have initiated the purges; the Soviet government could have carried out collectivisation differently; an assault on working class living standards could have been avoided; etc. Where there is that choice then there is responsibility

But you deny the very possibility that human agency. The composition, policies and intentions of the state apparently had no impact on the conditions throughout the country. The Stalinist centre embarked on its mass purge at that time and in that form because it was somehow predestined to do so; historical necessity apparently left no choice to its human actors


You are doing nothing but contradicting yourself. Which one is it, were the Soviets making policies out of their own 'free will' to destroy the revolution, or is this to be placed within a "specific historic context" and that they were merely responding to existing material forces (The initial isolation of the revolution, etc.)There's no contradiction there because no one is talking about "free will" but yourself. No one is assuming that there is but one response to specific circumstances (eg the Soviet state had no choice but to purge itself) but yourself. Everyone but you understands the meaning of the word 'dialectical'

My position, as I've made very clear by now, is that the policies of the Stalinists were in response to the specific conditions in which they found themselves, and that these conditions were influenced by the policies of the Stalinists. This is not complicated and this is not controversial; if you don't understand how it can be both then you clearly are as clued up as you think you are. Yet you keep throwing up 'Great Man' dross in response because frankly you've nothing else to offer. What a surprise

[Rafiq]

And would have taken different forms

Your notion of abdication of responsibility is a crude historical substitutionism in which history would have turned out exactly the same if the Stalinist elite had not been in power. That is, we cannot blame Stalin and his circle for the deaths of millions, both by repression and mismanagement, because a Trotsky-led government would have, out of necessity, carried through the exact same policies with the exact same results

And yet again, Comradeom continues to make grand claims of which are a product of his assumptions of non-existent content within my post. of course it would have taken a form, of this, I thought was a given to any sane person. My point was, that, if the goal of the state, under Stalin or otherwise, to sustain the Soviet Union and at the same time protect the gains of the revolution, such catastrophes, such betrayal's of the revolution, were inevitable no matter who was to administrate the Soviet state. You're pathetic, a "Trotsky led government" could have "carried through" similar policies, with similar results. They would have had to face the same problems the "Stalin led government" had to face, and the radical changes and developments in social relations of which the mode of production is composed of would have existed regardless of the decisions of the state. It takes not even an idiot to understand the Soviet state responded to changes within social relations, they did not create them. Why is the Stalin-lead government an exception here? All Marxists have held that the state does not proceed social relations, but, as you were so keen in mentioning, social relations could furtherly shape the state and in turn, the state could furtherly influence social relations. Of this there can be no doubt. The point is, a Trotsky led government would be faced with the same existing radical changes intrinsic to Soviet material conditions and as a result, although some disasters could have been prevented (All of which were accidental, mind you, so really I don't see how anyone could for see the outcomes of said disaster), many would have existed regardless. You cannot blame 'Stalin and his circle' for the deaths of millions, just as you cannot attribute to a single man or his clique with the salvation of millions. So I will repeat my initial assertion: This dialectical relationship of which the slow and brutal degeneration of the revolution occurred, would have existed regardless of whether Stalin or anyone else remained at helm. Whether certain economic and political disasters would have been carried out in the exact same way... That's something else entirely. They most likely would have existed though, as no one could have predicted the future.


This is predeterminist nonsense. The revolution would have almost certainly continued to degenerate no matter who was at the helm - I'm really not sure where you're getting the notion that this is in question - but it is entirely without reason to argue that it would have followed the exact same course. It is silly to suggest that different, ie non-Stalinist, policies would have impacted the economic and social base of the country in the same way


The purging of the old bolsheviks and the enemies of the new slave of capital would be absolute necessity to pave way for the solidification of capital. I am sorry, comradeom, but this is the reality of the capitalism and it's social relations. Trotsky, or Lenin for that matter, would have done the same. Of course, rhetorically, in a different way.


And if we step outside your deterministic bubble and accept that there were alternatives to Stalinism, while ignoring whether they could have salvaged the revolution, then we return to the basic matter of choice. Stalin could not have initiated the purges; the Soviet government could have carried out collectivisation differently; an assault on working class living standards could have been avoided; etc. Where there is that choice then there is responsibility


This is so easy. Christ. Are you going easy on me, because you're older?

There were no alternatives to Stalinism, as far as the degeneration of the revolution and the mass scale disasters of which were necessary for the solidification of capital to exist . Well, if you were to go back in time and orchestrate the state as you pleased, perhaps other alternatives were possible. But within the historical context of the Soviet state, their were none. There could be no "soft" social democratic capitalism in the Soviet union, there were virtually no existent, serious factions of which it was in their interest to do so. Christ, the Marxian conception of history is completely alien to you, isn't it?

It was not a matter of choice, as far as sustaining the Soviet state went. Said decisions of which were made in order to sustain the Soviet state furtherly birthed conditions of which allowed "Stalin and his clique" to furtherly solidify their interests. But as I've said again, I'm sure that if you were at helm, and you made decisions on a very exact and precise scale, things would have turned out better for "Working class living standards", etc.


But you deny the very possibility that human agency. The composition, policies and intentions of the state apparently had no impact on the conditions throughout the country. The Stalinist centre embarked on its mass purge at that time and in that form because it was somehow predestined to do so; historical necessity apparently left no choice to its human actors



The Idealist mechanisms within his brain are incapable of recognizing the Marxist conception of the degeneration of the October revolution, it is either Stalin planned everything (or was responsible for everything), or that the degeneration of the revolution was predetermined since the beginning of time. Both inherently Idealist thesis's (if you can call them that).


I don't even need a straw man, you're too perfect, it is as if you act in exact accordance with the ways in which I describe you. The State in itself, as a vacuum which was not a product of certain complex and radical changes in social relations within the Soviet Union, influenced not even the grain of salt Stalin poured on his daily meal.


There's no contradiction there because no one is talking about "free will" but yourself. No one is assuming that there is but one response to specific circumstances (eg the Soviet state had no choice but to purge itself) but yourself. Everyone but you understands the meaning of the word 'dialectical'


Then everyone should be able to understand the very obvious difference between Dialectical and Dualistic. Tell me now, Comradeom, do you really even think you have a shred of knowledge regarding Dialectics? :laugh: Do you think there is a dialectical relationship between Idealist and Materialist conceptions of history which are literally orchestrated in reality? This is too easy... I really don't know why I even bother responding to you, because you'll most likely respond to about two sentences, take their meaning out of context, and respond to a straw man. And then I'll have to continue entertaining myself by properly responding to just about every half assed, shit slung "rebuttal" you've attempted to make. I mean you just previously asserted Stalin and his clique are responsible for the deaths of millions, themselves, that the deaths were made out of the "free will" of Stalin and his clique, and now you're asserting you are not holding Stalin fully responsible? What does it mean to be partially responsible for the deaths of millions, Comradeom? That makes about as much sense as the rest of the garbage you've spewed in this thread. Yes the Soviet Union had to purge the revolutionary proletarian organs within itself in order to furtherly pave the way for capital's solidification. What of it? Hmm? You're going to sit here and call me a determinist for recognizing this very obvious fact? Go fuck yourself, assclown. You're pathetic.


My position, as I've made very clear by now, is that the policies of the Stalinists were in response to the specific conditions in which they found themselves, and that these conditions were influenced by the policies of the Stalinists.

Your position is obviously much more than this, as you've brought along with you a moralist analyzation of the events, attributing these "Stalinists" of whom you just admitted were influenced and products of specific conditions, responsibility for several disasters. It is this conception of "responsibility" which signifies your Idealism. Which one is it? Were conditions existent, which furtherly influenced Stalinists, which furtherly made decisions as they were product of these conditions, or was it a product of their will, which apparently existed in a vacuum? You do nothing but contradict yourself. If the former is true for you, how could they hold any responsibility?


but tell me, does the homeless man who makes the decision to buy drugs with money given out to him responsible for retaining his addiction to drugs, and his homelessness?


You won't respond to most of this post, because you can't, because you know you've been placed in a deadlock. Instead you'll respond to a few sentences and, while they are out of context, create another straw man. Pathetic.

[hetz]

Do you think there is a dialectical relationship between Idealist and Materialist conceptions of history which are literally orchestrated in reality?
Could you explain this dialectical relationship between the two?

[Rafiq]

Could you explain this dialectical relationship between the two?

I cannot, for there is no such thing. Idealism vs. Materialism doesn't simply amount to the chicken vs. The egg argument. Idealists hold that on a consistent historical basis Ideas, choices, etc. have hegemony over material conditions, that thought precedes material movement, that man determines his social being, as Comradeom has asserted, that Stalin and his clique determined their social being, and therefore are responsible for the deaths of millions. He then attempts to put a materialist mask on his idealist self by furtherly asserting "well, it existed within a historical context and material conditions influenced Stalin, and then Stalin went to influence material conditions". He still doesn't know why he's contradicting himself, because if material conditions birthed Stalin, then how can he in himself be responsible? If the magnitude of his choices were shaped by material forces, how is he responsible? How could anyone expect him to make other decisions? Yes, Marxists hold that all of these things, the superstructure and the base, react upon each other. The difference between us and the Idealists, though, is that we hold that the base holds a hegomony over the superstructure, not simply that it precedes it. Material forces shape the decisions and in turn those decisions influence material forces, by which said social relations constantly reinforce themselves (unless of course there is a systemic contradiction, be it class or something else).

[ComradeOm]

You won't respond to most of this post, because you can't, because you know you've been placed in a deadlock. Instead you'll respond to a few sentences and, while they are out of context, create another straw man. Pathetic. You always do this. You are the only person here talking about 'free will' or some metaphysical nonsense. Everyone else is interested in a historical discussion about Stalinism. But you know nothing about Soviet history so you waffle on and on about concepts that you don't understand in posts that no one reads. It's boring

Why didn't I respond to an analogy about a homeless drug addict in a thread about Stalin's control over and knowledge of the crimes of the Soviet state? Do I really need to answer that? Really? This is your checkmate?

Don't answer that. I'm not going to waste time on your stupid mechanicalist notions

[Rafiq]

Why didn't I respond to an analogy about a homeless drug addict in a thread about Stalin's control over and knowledge of the crimes of the Soviet state? Do I really need to answer that? Really? This is your checkmate?


Are you trolling now? Do you not know what an analogy is? You know what, you did this in another thread as well, when I cited the existence of religious suicide bombers as evidence that many people are obviously personally motivated by religion. You, the idiot you are, replied: "HA? What the fuck does this have to do with the discussion?" When you yourself were trying ot argue that crusaders were motivated by their religion. There are two possible explanations here. You are either incapable of addressing this very, very simple claim or you're just a moron. Either way, I've decided you're a waste of my time, I've destroyed you countless times, whether or not people "like to read them" or not, they are there, and they remain objectively valid. If you don't want to bother reading or responding to my posts in their entirety then you have absolutely no right to make claims regarding the extent of my knowledge regarding the discussion. Any idiot can recognize this and come to the same conclusion. You're done, Comradeom. Although I have not changed your position, which was never my intention, I revealed to everyone just how seriously your posts should be taken, and the questionable nature of their theoretical foundations.

[Invader Zim]

This thread suggests that people fail to understand the basic tenets of functionalism and structuralism. These processes seek to explain how societies, as a whole, evolved to create certain conditions, and suggest that various individuals play functional roles within those structure. But that does not limit individual agency of those functionaries. While individuals like Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann, etc, undoubtedly could not have orchestrated the holocaust, without conditions, beyond their control, conspiring to come together in a manner which facilitated their policies of extermination - to absolve them from responsibility for the carnage of those policies, which they created, ordered and implemented, is simply ridiculous. These are guilty men. And the same goes for Stalin and his, to borrow Om's term, minions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

[Old Bolshie]

This thread suggests that people fail to understand the basic tenets of functionalism and structuralism. These processes seek to explain how societies, as a whole, evolved to create certain conditions, and suggest that various individuals play functional roles within those structure. But that does not limit individual agency of those functionaries. While individuals like Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann, etc, undoubtedly could not have orchestrated the holocaust, without conditions, beyond their control, conspiring to come together in a manner which facilitated their policies of extermination - to absolve them from responsibility for the carnage of those policies, which they created, ordered and implemented, is simply ridiculous. These are guilty men. And the same goes for Stalin and his, to borrow Om's term, minions.


Once again comparing what isn't comparable. The Nazi political structure was built from the bottom by those individuals like Hitler and Himmler. Organizations like SS came directly from the Nazi structure and not from the old state apparatus from the Weimar Republic.

Unlike Hitler, Stalin didn't built his political and security structure machine. He inherited first from the old tsarist apparatus and then from the first soviet years. This is extremely well elucidated by Lenin when he said that the soviets took over the tsarist state bureaucratic apparatus and anointed with Soviet Oil. The soviet police from Checka to KGB always enjoyed a great deal of autonomy from Moscow.

[Invader Zim]

Once again comparing what isn't comparable

Given that a great many historians have compared, and contrasted, the Stalinist regime and the Third Reich, that is plainly absurd. Not only can be usefully compared, they already have been, in a number of very famous historical monographs (notably these include, Alan Bullock's, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, and, Richard Overy's, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia).

The fact is that there is far more evidence available to us to discover, in greater precision, the role Stalin, as an individual, played in the mass murders of the regime he headed, than in the case of Hitler and the Third Reich. Given the lack of documentation, directly linking him to an order to begin the Endlösung, historians have had to work very hard to examine precisely when and how he gave that order (as i recall, Richard Evan's suggests that the current best guess, is that Hitler gave the order to Himmler in private in late 1941. Overy, on the other hand, suggests that Eichmann received an order from Goering in August 1941, suggesting that Hitler had come to the decision to increase the scale and intensity of the the mass murder of Jews either that month or slightly earlier). But only the likes of David Irving, using a willfully dishonest and specious application of hyper-structrialism, deny that the order must have come from Hitler himself and that he, Hitler, was left in the dark and the whole thing was conducted by various underlings acting outside his control and authority.

In the case of Stalin this is not so problematic, as Om notes in his first post in this thread, there are plenty of examples of Stalin, personally, signing orders for mass executions. To take one lone example:

http://www.armahellas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/katyn1.jpg

Here we have the first page of the infamous document which ordered the execution of thousands of captured Polish POWs in 1940, it is signed by Stalin himself.

Meanwhile we also have examples, from the Great Terror, such as lists of individuals for execution, which were again signed off by Stalin. Again, an example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Great_Purge_Stalin_Voroshilov_Kaganovich_Zhdanov_M olotov_.jpg

The fact is that this historical record clearly shows that Stalin played a central role in the bloody activities orchestrated by the regime he headed. he cannot be absolved from responsibility simply because the regimes bureaucratic infrastructure was, organizationally, more anrachic than historians had previously believed. Stalin still played a pivotal role in the majority of major decisions made by the regime, including the Great Terror. For a detailed discussion of that role see the following chapter of a monograph dedicated to exploring the role of Stalin, and his most senior colleagues, in the activities of the regime:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jv7neiRlkVEC&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Luís Henrique]

Unlike Hitler, Stalin didn't built his political and security structure machine. He inherited first from the old tsarist apparatus and then from the first soviet years.

Well, wasn't putting an end to the friggin Okhrana one of the points of the Revolution?

I very much doubt that there was significant continuity from Okhrana to NKVD via Cheka. But if it were, then those who failed to notice the need to extirpate such massive cancer are at the very least quite negligent surgeons.

And Dzhugashvilli is one of them.

Luís Henrique

[Old Bolshie]

Well, wasn't putting an end to the friggin Okhrana one of the points of the Revolution?

I very much doubt that there was significant continuity from Okhrana to NKVD via Cheka. But if it were, then those who failed to notice the need to extirpate such massive cancer are at the very least quite negligent surgeons.

And Dzhugashvilli is one of them.

Luís Henrique

There was a continuity. If it were significant or not can't really tell but according to Lenin's own words yes it was significant.

But even if there wasn't a continuity, those polices were created way before Stalin took charge of USSR and took their shape while Lenin was still leader of USSR. Trotskiysts say that those creations were meant to be temporary until the civil war was over but the OGPU was created in 1923.

[Old Bolshie]

Given that a great many historians have compared, and contrasted, the Stalinist regime and the Third Reich, that is plainly absurd. Not only can be usefully compared, they already have been, in a number of very famous historical monographs (notably these include, Alan Bullock's, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, and, Richard Overy's, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia).

Absurd is to call USSR while Stalin was in power the "Stalinist regime". As I said many times before, the political regime which Stalin headed was built and shaped before Stalin assumed the leadership of USSR. The security system with its Checka, the prohibition of any opposition to the Bolsheviks, the ban on factions within the Bolshevik party, etc... Everything of this wasn't implemented by Stalin.

Another thing, Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives is not about comparing both political regimes but the personal and political life of Hitler and Stalin. I don't know Overy's work but I'll make a research later.




The fact is that there is far more evidence available to us to discover, in greater precision, the role Stalin, as an individual, played in the mass murders of the regime he headed, than in the case of Hitler and the Third Reich. Given the lack of documentation, directly linking him to an order to begin the Endlösung, historians have had to work very hard to examine precisely when and how he gave that order (as i recall, Richard Evan's suggests that the current best guess, is that Hitler gave the order to Himmler in private in late 1941. Overy, on the other hand, suggests that Eichmann received an order from Goering in August 1941, suggesting that Hitler had come to the decision to increase the scale and intensity of the the mass murder of Jews either that month or slightly earlier). But only the likes of David Irving, using a willfully dishonest and specious application of hyper-structrialism, deny that the order must have come from Hitler himself and that he, Hitler, was left in the dark and the whole thing was conducted by various underlings acting outside his control and authority.

In the case of Stalin this is not so problematic, as Om notes in his first post in this thread, there are plenty of examples of Stalin, personally, signing orders for mass executions. To take one lone example:



Here we have the first page of the infamous document which ordered the execution of thousands of captured Polish POWs in 1940, it is signed by Stalin himself.

Meanwhile we also have examples, from the Great Terror, such as lists of individuals for execution, which were again signed off by Stalin. Again, an example:



The fact is that this historical record clearly shows that Stalin played a central role in the bloody activities orchestrated by the regime he headed. he cannot be absolved from responsibility simply because the regimes bureaucratic infrastructure was, organizationally, more anrachic than historians had previously believed. Stalin still played a pivotal role in the majority of major decisions made by the regime, including the Great Terror. For a detailed discussion of that role see the following chapter of a monograph dedicated to exploring the role of Stalin, and his most senior colleagues, in the activities of the regime:


I never denied Stalin's involvement in the Katyn issue (nor I ever talked about this on RevLeft) and it was a very bad example that you gave. Only Stalin could have ordered the shooting of foreign military officers as it's obvious. But we are not talking about foreign military officers but ordinary soviets citizens. Once more you are talking about two completely different issues and trying to mix it.

According to your sources, from the 700,000 deaths during the Great Terror western scholars find the signature of Stalin on 40,000 death sentences of which 90% were executed. We are already talking about 90% of 40,000 and not 700,000. But when I consulted the source I wasn't able to find a single evidence of Stalin signature on 40,000 death sentences.

As you can see even your sources don't back your position that Stalin played a pivotal role in the Great Terror and can't prove it. All you have is a bunch of western propaganda which claims that Stalin killed from 20 million to 80 million persons. Some of this people already recognized their miscalculation and exaggeration and dropped the figure way down.

Btw, I was surprised you didn't mentioned Conquest works...

[Invader Zim]

Absurd is to call USSR while Stalin was in power the "Stalinist regime". As I said many times before,

Wait, so you are suggesting that the regime did not alter under Stalin's leadership? Now that is absurd.

You do realize that the Stalinist regime purged the infrastructure it inherited, including the NKVD, right? You realize that Stalin kept a very tight rein on the OPGU? You infer that you have read Bullock (though, plainly you haven't, reading such a work (or indeed any serious scholarly monograph on the Stalinist regime written in the last 20 or so years) would swiftly disabuse you of the ludicrous nonsense you cling to) you would know that he actually describes the period of 1928-1934 as a period of revolution within the USSR, so profound and wide ranging were the changes implemented by the Stalinist regime. But you haven't read it, and the painfully clear reality is that you don't know anything about the Stalinist regime.


Another thing, Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives is not about comparing both political regimes but the personal and political life of Hitler and Stalin.

Oh dear. Clearly you haven't read the book in question. While it is certainly true that the book is primarily biographical in nature, the idea that these individuals can be divorced from the regimes they headed is equally absurd. Bullock spends many thousands of words carefully illustrating the varying degrees of control the two dictators held over their respective regimes, how those regimes operated and responded to this control, and how the different emphases the dictators placed on different means of exacting control upon the regimes.

You should read it, its a good book.


I never denied Stalin's involvement in the Katyn issue (nor I ever talked about this on RevLeft) and it was a very bad example that you gave.

Nonsense, my point was that even within the confines of regime orchestrated mass-murder, and the clear structural conditions that were necessary in Germany and the USSR before that could be achieved, there is a clear element of personal agency on the part of those individuals who headed these regimes- namely, Stalin and Hitler. And the example of Katyn, in which 22,000 POWs were murdered by the NKVD, is a prime example.


But we are not talking about foreign military officers but ordinary soviets citizens.

No, we are talking about mass murder, you are trying to shift the goal posts to exclude an act of mass murder that doesn't fit your ideological preconceptions of Soviet history. But, this is a moot point anyway, because I also offered examples of Stalin's direct, and personal, involvement in the mass murder of many tens of thousands of people in the purges, in which he would consign entire lists of people to their death with a single pen stroke. This is utterly ruinous to your contention that Stalin can, due to structural forces, be absolved of responsibility for the murderous actions of the regime which he headed. Not only did he play a major role in creating the conditions that led to the purges, but he also instigated them, and he played a direct role in orchestrating them on a bureaucratic and administrative level. In this respect he not only played the same role as Hitler, in that he gave the campaign of murder his nod of approval, setting the bloody trail of events into motion, but also partially filled the roles of individuals like Heydrich, Himmler and Eichmann - personally involving himself in the actual administration of the campaign of terror and murder he had ordered.



According to your sources, from the 700,000 deaths during the Great Terror western scholars find the signature of Stalin on 40,000 death sentences of which 90% were executed.

Well, actually, far more than 700,000 died during the Great Terror. Even incomplete NKVD files suggest that far more than 700,000 died when you include camp/prison deaths, etc. These groups too were murdered, while not by summary execution, but through being worked to death while subjected to the elements and without adequate nutrition. Slave labour is, of course, notoriously lethal.
As regards your main point, as noted earlier, there is no single document, with the exception of the murder of disabled individuals, which links Hitler to the genocides committed by the Nazi regime. Yet I doubt you would make the same specious argument in defense of Hitler. The fact is that you are misreading the evidence. This statistic does not imply that Stalin played a role only in the execution of 40,000 individuals, what it does is show that he was so invested in the purges that he, unlike Hitler, did not merely leave the management of murder to his lieutenants, but actually took a personal role in the bureaucratic apparatus of the terror. This does not absolve his guilt, rather it reinforces it.To take your line of argument we would have to assume that, in spite of the clear evidence of his personal role in the administration of some of these murders, he kept in the dark, about the rest of them - thus suggesting that these killings did not have his approval, and that he was utterly unaware of the scale of repression being conducted within the remit of the policy he orchestrated. And that is truly absurd, and if you want to make that argument - where is your evidence?



Where, also, can I read serious professional historians making that claim? Quotes and full references please. If you fail to present evidence, quotes and full references I will be forced to take that as a tacit admission that you haven't got any, and, like most teenage Stalin kiddies, are simply full of shit.



All you have is a bunch of western propaganda which claims that Stalin killed from 20 million to 80 million persons.
And where have I made that claim? Even if we include the famine which killed 4.5 million people, as a deliberate act of murder (which it was not, rather the regime simply allowed it to happen as a result of cruel indifference to suffering in the face of ‘progress’, abysmal operational inefficiency, worse planning and a failure to grasp the economics of the situation) then the likely tally of the Stalinist regime likely sits at ten million. The Stalinist regime likely actually murdered, as opposed to being merely indifferent to deaths and suffering, between 4 to 6 million people – if we add the regimes failures regarding the famine, then we are looking at 8-10 million. These are the current benchmark figures deployed by nearly all serious professional historians (while there are, inevitably some, like Conquest, who are way out beyond the periphery of the academic norm).



Regardless, you plainly haven't a clue about the most basic historiography of either the Nazi or Soviet regimes. If you want to have a serious discussion on this topic, I suggest you go to a library - or better yet, don't try, at all, to discuss a subject of which you plainly ignorant and only able to spout banal ideological platitudes in the face of overwhelming evidence from the historical record.

[Old Bolshie]

Wait, so you are suggesting that the regime did not alter under Stalin's leadership? Now that is absurd.

Absurd is to say that the changing of personal just itself changes the structure.

No, the regime (specially in its security system) did not alter under Stalin's leadership. If you have anything to back your position that Stalin shaped the soviet structure show it here.


You do realize that the Stalinist regime purged the infrastructure it inherited, including the NKVD, right?

So? Do you know the difference between personal and infrastructure? Changing personal doesn't change the infrastructure by itself.


You realize that Stalin kept a very tight rein on the OPGU? You infer that you have read Bullock (though, plainly you haven't, reading such a work (or indeed any serious scholarly monograph on the Stalinist regime written in the last 20 or so years) would swiftly disabuse you of the ludicrous nonsense you cling to) you would know that he actually describes the period of 1928-1934 as a period of revolution within the USSR, so profound and wide ranging were the changes implemented by the Stalinist regime. But you haven't read it, and the painfully clear reality is that you don't know anything about the Stalinist regime.

Actually it was only in 1934 with the creation of NKVD that Stalin put his hands on the organization of the soviet security system. So it seems you are the one who know nothing about the "Stalinist" regime.


Oh dear. Clearly you haven't read the book in question. While it is certainly true that the book is primarily biographical in nature, the idea that these individuals can be divorced from the regimes they headed is equally absurd. Bullock spends many thousands of words carefully illustrating the varying degrees of control the two dictators held over their respective regimes, how those regimes operated and responded to this control, and how the different emphases the dictators placed on different means of exacting control upon the regimes.

You should read it, its a good book.

You said it. Is biographical in nature. For me was the only thing that matter. The personal conclusions of the author influenced by the prejudices against Stalin aren't really important.

Once again. The Nazi security services came directly from the Nazi party unlike what happened with the USSR. You can't compare two completely different realities. Remember what Lenin said about it. I already mentioned in my previous post. USSR was the old Tsar state apparatus anointed with soviet oil.




Nonsense, my point was that even within the confines of regime orchestrated mass-murder, and the clear structural conditions that were necessary in Germany and the USSR before that could be achieved, there is a clear element of personal agency on the part of those individuals who headed these regimes- namely, Stalin and Hitler. And the example of Katyn, in which 22,000 POWs were murdered by the NKVD, is a prime example.

Is a wrong prime example and shows that you are ignorant and dumb. Killing thousands of pow's always happened and will continue to happen as long as we have wars and is clearly not an example to prove your point that Stalin was behind the mass killings of soviet citizens in the Great Purge.




No, we are talking about mass murder, you are trying to shift the goal posts to exclude an act of mass murder that doesn't fit your ideological preconceptions of Soviet history. But, this is a moot point anyway, because I also offered examples of Stalin's direct, and personal, involvement in the mass murder of many tens of thousands of people in the purges, in which he would consign entire lists of people to their death with a single pen stroke. This is utterly ruinous to your contention that Stalin can, due to structural forces, be absolved of responsibility for the murderous actions of the regime which he headed. Not only did he play a major role in creating the conditions that led to the purges, but he also instigated them, and he played a direct role in orchestrating them on a bureaucratic and administrative level. In this respect he not only played the same role as Hitler, in that he gave the campaign of murder his nod of approval, setting the bloody trail of events into motion, but also partially filled the roles of individuals like Heydrich, Himmler and Eichmann - personally involving himself in the actual administration of the campaign of terror and murder he had ordered.



Well, actually, far more than 700,000 died during the Great Terror. Even incomplete NKVD files suggest that far more than 700,000 died when you include camp/prison deaths, etc. These groups too were murdered, while not by summary execution, but through being worked to death while subjected to the elements and without adequate nutrition. Slave labour is, of course, notoriously lethal.
As regards your main point, as noted earlier, there is no single document, with the exception of the murder of disabled individuals, which links Hitler to the genocides committed by the Nazi regime. Yet I doubt you would make the same specious argument in defense of Hitler. The fact is that you are misreading the evidence. This statistic does not imply that Stalin played a role only in the execution of 40,000 individuals, what it does is show that he was so invested in the purges that he, unlike Hitler, did not merely leave the management of murder to his lieutenants, but actually took a personal role in the bureaucratic apparatus of the terror. This does not absolve his guilt, rather it reinforces it.To take your line of argument we would have to assume that, in spite of the clear evidence of his personal role in the administration of some of these murders, he kept in the dark, about the rest of them - thus suggesting that these killings did not have his approval, and that he was utterly unaware of the scale of repression being conducted within the remit of the policy he orchestrated. And that is truly absurd, and if you want to make that argument - where is your evidence?

You show ignorance in this evidence issue. You are the one claiming that Stalin was responsible for all those Great Purge deaths so you're the one who needs to prove it.




Where, also, can I read serious professional historians making that claim? Quotes and full references please. If you fail to present evidence, quotes and full references I will be forced to take that as a tacit admission that you haven't got any, and, like most teenage Stalin kiddies, are simply full of shit.

The only shit that I got is the one you have inside your brain. You are the one making facts, not me. So far you didn't present any evidence, quotes or full references regarding the Great Purge. So why should I? The burden of proof is on your side, dumbfuck.




And where have I made that claim? Even if we include the famine which killed 4.5 million people, as a deliberate act of murder (which it was not, rather the regime simply allowed it to happen as a result of cruel indifference to suffering in the face of ‘progress’, abysmal operational inefficiency, worse planning and a failure to grasp the economics of the situation) then the likely tally of the Stalinist regime likely sits at ten million. The Stalinist regime likely actually murdered, as opposed to being merely indifferent to deaths and suffering, between 4 to 6 million people – if we add the regimes failures regarding the famine, then we are looking at 8-10 million. These are the current benchmark figures deployed by nearly all serious professional historians (while there are, inevitably some, like Conquest, who are way out beyond the periphery of the academic norm).



Regardless, you plainly haven't a clue about the most basic historiography of either the Nazi or Soviet regimes. If you want to have a serious discussion on this topic, I suggest you go to a library - or better yet, don't try, at all, to discuss a subject of which you plainly ignorant and only able to spout banal ideological platitudes in the face of overwhelming evidence from the historical record.

Overwhelming evidence??? :laugh:

If it is so overwhelming why don't you show it?

You are clearly some dumb and ignorant fuck who believes in western fairy tales...

[goalkeeper]

Unconscious human agency is still human agency

This statement is outlandish. If the agent is not, at least in part, the author of his own destiny he is not an active agent. Someone being "Unconscious" of their actions means they do not have any sort of actual ability to control and decide them.

[Invader Zim]

Absurd is to say that the changing of personal just itself changes the structure.

This is a misleading view: of course changing the personnel, and replacing them with boot-lickers inherently changes an organisation. The appointment of Ezhov, an obedient mutt of a man without any moral scruples, at the head of the NKVD evidently allowed Stalin to even further facilitate his wishes and further consolidate control over the State security forces, beyond the considerable power he had already amassed in the years prior to 1936. The arrival of Ezhov, who proceeded to purge the upper echelons of the NKVD and replace them with his bootlickers of his very own allowed the regime to alter the practises of its security services. Ezhov introduced secret arrests, and in 1937 the regime introduced torture as a legal instrument of extracting confessions. Thus the NKVD, which was already a weapon of terror, saw its mandate of cruelty and murder expanded, and was firmly placed under Stalin’s control.

Furthermore, the internal apparatus of the security forces did change, and the Stalinist regime introduced new legislation designed specifically to facilitate terror, and further consolidate Stalin’s autocratic control. Specifically, the legislation introduced on 1 December 1934 after the assassination of Kirov. The jury is still out on whether Stalin orchestrated the murder of Kirov (though he probably did), but he certainly used it to his advantage and further consolidate his power. Of course, there was also the introduction of NKVD Order no. 00486, ordering the security services to arrest the wives and children of victims.


No, the regime (specially in its security system) did not alter under Stalin's leadership. If you have anything to back your position that Stalin shaped the soviet structure show it here. So? Do you know the difference between personal and infrastructure? Changing personal doesn't change the infrastructure by itself.

Even if we take your view that changing the personnel, by purging potential opponents and replacing them with loyal dogs, is not an ‘alteration’, at face value, then it is perfectly simple to point to changes in legislation that fundamentally altered the purpose and abilities of the security services. As noted, in 1934 Stalin granted the security services the power to eliminate political enemies at will, and by 1937 he had also granted them the power to torture confessions out of victims.

There has also been considerable work done on the changing nature of Soviet policing and security under the Stalinist regime, which very much altered the internal structure and mandate of the agencies, from the highest levels right down to local officialdom. For a brief discussion of this see the following short essay:

http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mbaker/cshs522/shearerNKVD.pdf (http://home.ku.edu.tr/%7Embaker/cshs522/shearerNKVD.pdf)

As you can see, the fact is that the apparatus of security, and political repression, was massively expanded, professionalised, reconstituted on both a local and state level. Its mandate was changed, and its leadership was purged to ensure that it would remain malleable to the wishes of the regime. In the years immediately prior to 1936, the security apparatus was actually drifting away from the centre, becoming more autonomous, and Stalin and his inner circle reigned them back in.

For a full discussion of soviet policing see:

David R. Shearer, Policing Stalin's Socialism Repression and Social Order in the Soviet Union, 1924-1953 (Yale, 2009).


Actually it was only in 1934 with the creation of NKVD that Stalin put his hands on the organization of the soviet security system. So it seems you are the one who know nothing about the "Stalinist" regime.

Stalin, in his role as General Secretary of the party, and its chief administrator, had, even before he consolidated his power, his tentacles wrapped around the security services and police – how else do you imagine he managed to get the police to break up Trotsky’s street protest in October 1927? Regardless, after 1927, Stalin was in a position of increased power given his control over the Party apparatus. Similarly, how do you also imagine that, without control over police, party and security, Stalin was able to implement his disastrous polcies against the peasants in the early 1930s? How do you suppose that, without that control, the regime would have been able to arrest, deport and murder any resistance to the changes it was implementing, at Stalin’s behest?

For a fuller discussion see:

Getty and Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 (London, 1999), pp. 33-74; 108-125.


You said it. Is biographical in nature. For me was the only thing that matter. The personal conclusions of the author influenced by the prejudices against Stalin aren't really important.

As I noted, the book deals in great detail with the regime, and its relationship with the man. Your denial of this point is, as suggested earlier, evidence that you have not, in fact, read the book.



Once again. The Nazi security services came directly from the Nazi party unlike what happened with the USSR. You can't compare two completely different realities. Remember what Lenin said about it. I already mentioned in my previous post. USSR was the old Tsar state apparatus anointed with soviet oil.

This is false, the origins of the Gestapo were from the pre-existing political and intelligence sections within the various German police forces. Like Stalinist regime, the Nazis, bent them to their will by purging those sections and replacing them with Nazis.



Is a wrong prime example and shows that you are ignorant and dumb. Killing thousands of pow's always happened and will continue to happen as long as we have wars and is clearly not an example to prove your point that Stalin was behind the mass killings of soviet citizens in the Great Purge.

So, mass murder is only bad when it doesn’t happen to POWs? And no, it does not ‘always’ happen, and certainly not to prisoners of a war which had ended a year earlier. It happened under the Stalinist regime, because it was peculiarly cruel and murderous.
The fact is that I contended that Stalin has personal responsibility for his role in the mass-murders that occurred under his regime, and that we have evidence that he not only knew about them, but ordered many of them personally. Katyn is as prime an example as any others.




You show ignorance in this evidence issue. You are the one claiming that Stalin was responsible for all those Great Purge deaths so you're the one who needs to prove it.

And I have. We know that Stalin was deeply involved in the purges, and to prove it I provided evidence that he, personally, (something Hitler never did) signed the death warrants of thousands of people during those purges. Therefore it is impossible for you to argue that he was somehow unaware of the situation, that he had no control over the regime which he headed or the security forces under his comment.

The fact is that no serious historian takes the line you do. Even the most structuralist of arguments, proposed by Getty and Naumov in 1999, places Stalin as the instigator of the violence, and cites him, and his own personality and actions, as one of several prime factors in the terror. He had personal agency and he shares personal responsibility, more so than any other single individual – even Ezhov.

Of course, that does not for a moment imply that Stalin orchestrated the entire event, down to the very first and last arrest and execution, and each in between. Nor does it imply that the entire phenomenon was coldly pre-planned – in was not a product of design by Stalin. Rather it was multi-faceted and multi-dimensioned phenomenon that had distinctly ad hoc processes. But, never the less, these processes were allowed to develop in the manner they did, the regime, and Stalin, knew the degree of carnage, and the mass destruction of lives they had wrought. Moreover they had instigated it. They, and Stalin, as the head of the regime, the instigator of the purges and the driving force behind them, is no exception. He is guilty, and personally responsible for his considerable role. And no serious historian disagrees.

And to prove it, let’s see what some of these serious historians have to say:

“We have provided evidence of numerous factors and elements of this phenomenon [the Terror] […] and, last but not least the ‘Stalin factor.’”

Getty and Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 (London, 1999), p. 571.

“In the light of the documents we possess, we can claim with complete assurance that every step of the organs of state security toward the realization of the ‘Great Terror’ thoroughly conformed with Stalin’s intentions. His instructions were incorporated into the methodology of investigators, prosecutors, and judges. N. I. Ezhov acted the part of most zealous executor.”

Boris A. Starkov, ‘Narkom Ezhov’ in J. Arch Getty & Roberta T. Manning (eds.), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, 1993), p. 29.

“Yet neither arguments from social context nor functionalist deductions from effects to causes have successfully eliminated the principal catalyst to the Terror, the will and ambition of Stalin … Stalin guided and prodded the arrests, show trials, and executions forward, aided by the closest members of his entourage”.

Ronald Grigor Suny, ‘Stalin and his Stalinism’, in David L. Hoffmann, Stalinism (Oxford, 2003), p. 31.

“What was Stalin’s objective [in instigating the Terror]? He wanted supreme power for himself. Without doubt he wished to destroy all enemies, actual and potential.”

Alec Nove, Stalinism and After (London, 1975), p. 57.

“In the mind of the Stalinist leadership this was precisely a purge of society, an attempt by one blow to rid themselves of all those who in this or that measure had been subject to coercion in the preceding years or had fallen under suspicion on some other count. This operation was conceived as a means of eliminating a ‘fifth column’ in a period when the threat of war was increasing, and also as a means of disposing of loyal cadres who for various reasons were no longer needed by Stalin.”

Oleg Khlevnyuk, ‘The Objectives of the Great Terror, 1937-8’, in Christopher Read (ed.), The Stalin years: A Reader (Basingstoke, 2003), p.117.

And finally, perhaps the most eloquent statement of the entire lot:

“Russians are still struggling with the myth that Stalin somehow did not know what was happening.”

J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of Repression’, in Chris Ward (ed.) The Stalinist Dictatorship (London, 1998), p. 121.


You are clearly some dumb and ignorant fuck who believes in western fairy tales...

So, you deny that the Stalinist regime organised and administrated the destruction of around six million lives, and that the famine, of 1932, killed 4.5 million people? Is this a fairy tale that only 'dumb fucks' believe? If so, I'm in very good

[Luís Henrique]

“Russians are still struggling with the myth that Stalin somehow did not know what was happening.”

J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of Repression’, in Chris Ward (ed.) The Stalinist Dictatorship (London, 1998), p. 121.

Apparently, not only the Russians.

Luís Henrique

[DancingEmma]

Obviously Stalin was just one person, and for millions of people to be killed, there needs to be a lot of people supporting it and making it happen. And the structural conditions need to be right, too. But Stalin definitely shared responsibility for all the people who died in the USSR during the 30s and the 40s. He was the fucking head of state. Even if he hadn't signed a single death warrant, he would have had a responsibility to stop the slaughter to avoid culpability. But, of course, to contemplate such a thing is ridiculous because Stalin was very much in favor of what was happening. So he did share responsibility for millions of people dying, and he was a shitty human being.

[Invader Zim]

I see that neither Xico, nor any of the other Stalinist nincompoops have a response. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

...The NKVD, which was already a weapon of terror, saw its mandate of cruelty and murder expanded, and was firmly placed under Stalin’s control.

No, it was not. If you are going to make such an outlandish claim, give the evidence, because as far as I know, the NKVD had a lot of autonomy in Russia's vast rural regions. Also: are you honestly going to whine about "the weapon of terror" which is the necessary proletarian dictatorship?

To "DancingEmma": it is interesting that your title is "I hate Stalin" and not some of the other persons, like, I don't know, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill or Truman, which made the very existence of a Soviet Monopoly of Violence necessary.

[DancingEmma]

To "DancingEmma": it is interesting that your title is "I hate Stalin" and not some of the other persons, like, I don't know, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill or Truman, which made the very existence of a Soviet Monopoly of Violence necessary.

I'm not sure how Hitler, Churchill, or Truman made it necessary for Stalin's regime to commit genocide in the Ukraine and murder millions of impoverished peasants. But regardless, I hate Hitler, Churchill, and Truman, too. There would be little point of noting this here on RevLeft, however, as these sentiments are widely shared by all posters. Stalin, on the other hand, is widely excused and even admired here. So I feel it's useful to take a stand against him.

[Invader Zim]

No, it was not. If you are going to make such an outlandish claim, give the evidence, because as far as I know, the NKVD had a lot of autonomy in Russia's vast rural regions. Also: are you honestly going to whine about "the weapon of terror" which is the necessary proletarian dictatorship?



'As far as you know', well evidently, you know very little. The fact is that the the Dekulakization policy was, in no small part, facilitated by Stalin's OGPU henchmen like Evdokimov. To deny that the Soviet security services, ranging from party officials, to bodies like the OGPU, were not involved, willing and complicit in the Stalinist regimes criminality is nothing short of abject ignorance.

Regardless, I've already posted relevant sources for the transformation of the OGPU under the Stalin era. If you want to make a serious point you should read the thread, until then, there isn't a lot to add.

[Old Bolshie]

I see that neither Xico, nor any of the other Stalinist nincompoops have a response. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.

Dude, I have to be honest with you, I didn't red a damn word of your long testament and you know why? Because the anti-stalin oration is always the same from the Nazi propaganda to the books of Conquest (which were largely based on nazi propaganda) which served as the basis for the western backlash against Stalin. It's like a tape that is in your mouths and is repeated all over again. I already know that discourse from the front to the back. Unlike you I am going to back my position with moderate and impartial sources which are not fanatically pro or opposed to Stalin.

You were asking me references and sources to back my position that the Great Terror had to do more with the Structural nature of the soviet regime and not with the will of a sole man. This academic line born out of the opening of the soviet archives during the Perestroika which gave us a much more detailed account of the Great Terror and destroyed the image built for decades by Conquest and other authors who blame solely Stalin for the Great Terror.

Origins of the Great Purge, The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938. J. Arch Getty.

Yezhov: The Rise of Stalin's "Iron Fist" from J. Arch Getty and Oleg V. Naumov.

You can conclude important points from these studies:

1- Great Terror was not result of a centralized planned elaborated and conducted by Stalin.

2- Stalin gave Yezhov free reign and autonomy to get rid of all the anti-soviet elements in USSR's society. Yezhov became the second most powerful man in USSR next to Stalin. This was Stalin's mistake and should be blame for it.

3- Regional bosses and low-level NKVD officers had autonomy to elaborate lists and kill without the approving of the central authorities. The majority took advantage of the situation for personal purposes (either to get promoted or to firm their position within the system)

4- Stalin did know that killings were taking place but never realized the real extension of it. When he finally realized he started to questioning Yezhov motives and methods (that are letters proving it) and finally dismissed him.

I will give a short google review from the first study which I indicated above:

This is a study of the structure of the Soviet Communist Party in the 1930s. Based upon archival and published sources, the work describes the events in the Bolshevik Party leading up to the Great Purges of 1937-1938. Professor Getty concludes that the party bureaucracy was chaotic rather than totalitarian, and that local officials had relative autonomy within a considerably fragmented political system.

[Invader Zim]

Dude, I have to be honest with you, I didn't red a damn word of your long testament and you know why? Because the anti-stalin oration is always the same from the Nazi propaganda to the books of Conquest (which were largely based on nazi propaganda) which served as the basis for the western backlash against Stalin. It's like a tape that is in your mouths and is repeated all over again. I already know that discourse from the front to the back. Unlike you I am going to back my position with moderate and impartial sources which are not fanatically pro or opposed to Stalin.

You were asking me references and sources to back my position that the Great Terror had to do more with the Structural nature of the soviet regime and not with the will of a sole man. This academic line born out of the opening of the soviet archives during the Perestroika which gave us a much more detailed account of the Great Terror and destroyed the image built for decades by Conquest and other authors who blame solely Stalin for the Great Terror.

Origins of the Great Purge, The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938. J. Arch Getty.

Yezhov: The Rise of Stalin's "Iron Fist" from J. Arch Getty and Oleg V. Naumov.

You can conclude important points from these studies:

1- Great Terror was not result of a centralized planned elaborated and conducted by Stalin.

2- Stalin gave Yezhov free reign and autonomy to get rid of all the anti-soviet elements in USSR's society. Yezhov became the second most powerful man in USSR next to Stalin. This was Stalin's mistake and should be blame for it.

3- Regional bosses and low-level NKVD officers had autonomy to elaborate lists and kill without the approving of the central authorities. The majority took advantage of the situation for personal purposes (either to get promoted or to firm their position within the system)

4- Stalin did know that killings were taking place but never realized the real extension of it. When he finally realized he started to questioning Yezhov motives and methods (that are letters proving it) and finally dismissed him.

I will give a short google review from the first study which I indicated above:

This is a study of the structure of the Soviet Communist Party in the 1930s. Based upon archival and published sources, the work describes the events in the Bolshevik Party leading up to the Great Purges of 1937-1938. Professor Getty concludes that the party bureaucracy was chaotic rather than totalitarian, and that local officials had relative autonomy within a considerably fragmented political system.




You plainly haven't read that book either. While Getty and Naumov certainly see the terror through a structuralist lens they do not relieve Stalin of direct personal responsibility for his part in the purges, in fact they do the precise reverse:

“We have provided evidence of numerous factors and elements of this phenomenon [the Terror] […] and, last but not least the ‘Stalin factor.’”

Getty and Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 (London, 1999), p. 571.

Getty also states elsewhere that:

“Russians are still struggling with the myth that Stalin somehow did not know what was happening.”

J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of Repression’, in Chris Ward (ed.) The Stalinist Dictatorship (London, 1998), p. 121.

And Getty also published an essay, in a collection he edited, by Boris Starkov that concludes:

“In the light of the documents we possess, we can claim with complete assurance that every step of the organs of state security toward the realization of the ‘Great Terror’ thoroughly conformed with Stalin’s intentions. His instructions were incorporated into the methodology of investigators, prosecutors, and judges. N. I. Ezhov acted the part of most zealous executor.”

Boris A. Starkov, ‘Narkom Ezhov’ in J. Arch Getty & Roberta T. Manning (eds.), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, 1993), p. 29.

So don't try to cite the work of historians don't support your assertions and whom you plainly haven't read. I will know.

[Old Bolshie]

You plainly haven't read that book either. While Getty and Naumov certainly see the terror through a structuralist lens they do not relieve Stalin of direct personal responsibility for his part in the purges, in fact they do the precise reverse:

“We have provided evidence of numerous factors and elements of this phenomenon [the Terror] […] and, last but not least the ‘Stalin factor.’”

Getty and Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 (London, 1999), p. 571.

Getty also states elsewhere that:

“Russians are still struggling with the myth that Stalin somehow did not know what was happening.”

J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of Repression’, in Chris Ward (ed.) The Stalinist Dictatorship (London, 1998), p. 121.

And Getty also published an essay, in a collection he edited, by Boris Starkov that concludes:

“In the light of the documents we possess, we can claim with complete assurance that every step of the organs of state security toward the realization of the ‘Great Terror’ thoroughly conformed with Stalin’s intentions. His instructions were incorporated into the methodology of investigators, prosecutors, and judges. N. I. Ezhov acted the part of most zealous executor.”

Boris A. Starkov, ‘Narkom Ezhov’ in J. Arch Getty & Roberta T. Manning (eds.), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, 1993), p. 29.

So don't try to cite the work of historians don't support your assertions and whom you plainly haven't read. I will know.


How the "Stalin factor" is to put all responsibility on Stalin??? 1 of the elements... You clearly misquoted the author...

Boris Starkov is not Getty so don't try to mix them both. I don't know what is the interpretation of Starkov but I already presented a short review of Getty's one. Just because they both participate in the same essay doesn't mean that they share the same interpretation.

If you look at my comments about this subject on this thread and on the other about the trials of Moscow you will see that I never exculpate Stalin of all responsibility. My point from the beginning was to show that this was not a plan of Stalin and that he should not be directly account for all the Great Terror (all the 700,000 deaths) like most of the people think. I disagree with those who said that Stalin was 100% guilty but also with those who say that he was 100% innocent.

[Invader Zim]

How the "Stalin factor" is to put all responsibility on Stalin??? 1 of the elements... You clearly misquoted the author...

Boris Starkov is not Getty so don't try to mix them both. I don't know what is the interpretation of Starkov but I already presented a short review of Getty's one. Just because they both participate in the same essay doesn't mean that they share the same interpretation.

If you look at my comments about this subject on this thread and on the other about the trials of Moscow you will see that I never exculpate Stalin of all responsibility. My point from the beginning was to show that this was not a plan of Stalin and that he should not be directly account for all the Great Terror (all the 700,000 deaths) like most of the people think. I disagree with those who said that Stalin was 100% guilty but also with those who say that he was 100% innocent.


How the "Stalin factor" is to put all responsibility on Stalin??? 1 of the elements... You clearly misquoted the author...

At no stage have I ever stated that Getty, et al., place Stalin with the sole blame. I have not made that suggestion either.

However, you are attempting to use the structuralist argument (taken to an extreme) to minimize Stalin's personal responsibility for the major, and pivotal role, he played in instigating the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people.


Boris Starkov is not Getty so don't try to mix them both.

I never suggested he was, however, Starkov contributed that essay to Getty's book, and Getty, in the introduction of that edited collection, signals his agreement with Starkov. You should read it.


My point from the beginning was to show that this was not a plan of Stalin

And you are wrong, while Stalin obviously could not have been aware of the full details of the purge he set into motion, indeed it is doubtful that any one single individual could be aware of every aspect of the administrative, bureaucratic and logistical apparatus necessary to commit an atrocity on the scale of the Great Terror - but we know that Stalin was kept abreast of the main details, we know that he closely involved himself in the administration of mass murder personally signing death warrants of tens of thousands of people. Your attempt to argue that the purge was beyond Stalin's control, or that he was unaware of its broad extent is not supported by the evidence - and certainly not by Getty - who I'll quote again:


“Russians are still struggling with the myth that Stalin somehow did not know what was happening.”

J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of Repression’, in Chris Ward (ed.) The Stalinist Dictatorship (London, 1998), p. 121.

Stalin knew what was happening, he ordered, supported it, and was directly complicit in it. That isn't to suggest that he controlled every last detail, or was aware of every last detail, or that he could have achieved the level of carnage without the massive bureaucracies, from the Party to the security services and police, all malleable to the regimes purposes, but it was his will, his paranoia and his determination to gain and consolidate power that created the purges and drove them.

For a recent authoritative assessment of Stalin's personal role within the regime, see:

Oleg, V.Khlevniuk, Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle (Yale University Press, 2008).

[Old Bolshie]

At no stage have I ever stated that Getty, et al., place Stalin with the sole blame. I have not made that suggestion either.

However, you are attempting to use your piss-poor understanding of the structuralist argument to minimise Stalin's personal responsibility for the major, and pivotal role, he played in instigating the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

Piss-pooring is your understanding of English. I didn't minimize or maximize anything. I simply corrected the bullshit which you were propagated here against Stalin.




I never suggested he was, however, Starkov contributed that essay to Getty's book, and Getty, in the introduction of that edited collection, signals his agreement with Starkov.

Agreement on that particular subject in the introduction? Again mixing everything just to confuse.




And you are wrong, while Stalin obviously could not have been aware of the full details of the purge he set into motion, indeed it is doubtful that any one single individual could be aware of every aspect of the administrative, bureaucratic and logistical apparatus necessary to commit an atrocity on the scale of the Great Terror - but we know that Stalin was kept abreast of the main details, we know that he closely involved himself in the administration of mass murder personally signing death warrants of tens of thousands of people. Your attempt to argue that the purge was beyond Stalin's control, or that he was unaware of its broad extent is not supported by the evidence - and certainly not by Getty - who I'll quote again:


“Russians are still struggling with the myth that Stalin somehow did not know what was happening.”

J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of Repression’, in Chris Ward (ed.) The Stalinist Dictatorship (London, 1998), p. 121.

And how that quote contradicts my point that Stalin didn't know its broad extent? He did know what was happening but not the real extension of it. This is confirmed by the fact that you didn't see Stalin signatures in all the 700,000 death sentences but rather a few thousand as you said.

And I already mentioned the autonomy of local bosses within the soviet system which got out of Stalin's control based on a Getty's book.


Stalin knew what was happening, he ordered, supported it, and was directly complicit in it. That isn't to suggest that he controlled every last detail, or was aware of every last detail, or that he could have achieved the level of carnage without the massive bureaucracies, from the Party to the security services and police, all malleable to the regimes purposes, but it was his will, his paranoia and his determination to gain and consolidate power that created the purges and drove them.

For a recent authoritative assessment of Stalin's personal role within the regime, see:

Oleg, V.Khlevniuk, Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle (Yale University Press, 2008).

If my understanding of structuralism is piss poor than yours is completely null and ludicrous.Otherwise you wouldn't continue to say such absurdities. Go read that book of Getty's Origins of the Great Purge to understand what happened in USSR in the 30's.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Stalin was definitely repsponsible for all the deaths of gulags, & famine. He was totalitarian
he brainwashed the whole nation.

[Geiseric]

No, it was not. If you are going to make such an outlandish claim, give the evidence, because as far as I know, the NKVD had a lot of autonomy in Russia's vast rural regions. Also: are you honestly going to whine about "the weapon of terror" which is the necessary proletarian dictatorship?

To "DancingEmma": it is interesting that your title is "I hate Stalin" and not some of the other persons, like, I don't know, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill or Truman, which made the very existence of a Soviet Monopoly of Violence necessary.

You're regurgitating the old "obama Kennedy, or Clinton don't really know what's going on in Israel, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia, they just sign the papers," bullshit. Fuck I'm sick of these threads. Honestly these are worse than 4chan arguments.