To Stalinists

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why were official pictures doctored so that perceived 'enemies' like Trotsky were cut out of pictures where they might have been next to Lenin, for example?

Can this be defended?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Why were official pictures doctored so that perceived 'enemies' like Trotsky were cut out of pictures where they might have been next to Lenin, for example?

Can this be defended?

For propaganda/shaming purposes. Done. Flame bait thread averted

[hetz]

IRL trolling.
In all seriousness, how can anyone defend something straight out of 1984?
However there are more important issues with Stalinism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

In all seriousness, how can anyone defend something straight out of 1984?

This. The link to 1984 is so striking it's almost absurd how reality imitates art, at least in this one example.


However there are more important issues with Stalinism.

Yup.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

If you're a stalinist you'd say the state was shaming/shunning those who'd become "reactionary". Everyone else would say what everyone else says of stalin. This is common sense. Please don't say more.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm actually pretty interested about how the Soviets, with the primitive technology available back then, were able to so skilfully doctor photographs.

[Leftsolidarity]

If you're a stalinist you'd say the state was shaming/shunning those who'd become "reactionary". Everyone else would say what everyone else says of stalin. This is common sense. Please don't say more.

This is dumb. You're not a "Stalinist" and I've never heard anyone that you'd probably consider a Stalinist even talk about it so I doubt you know what they'd say. And what does everyone else say about Stalin? There's no consensus on Stalin. And why not say more? What is wrong about having a conversation about this?

I'm not super into this topic but if you don't care to hear people's defense then don't read the damn thread. This is absolutely not a flamebaiting question and could be an interesting discussion if anyone is supportive of those actions.

So please, if you got nothing to add and don't care about the subject just shut the fuck up.

[Grenzer]

Steve Jobs has often been credited with the "reality distortion field", but I've always thought that Jobs never had shit on the Stalinists.

[Ottoraptor]

This. The link to 1984 is so striking it's almost absurd how reality imitates art, at least in this one example.


1984 was written by Orwell as a way of criticizing the Soviet Union under Stalin, so the connection isn't so striking.

[Geiseric]

lol steve jobs, obama, and stalin were sociopaths. I'd hope we'd understand this by now. Stalin fucked with his enemies families too, which is often over looked. Trotsky's son who was stuck in the fSU, who didn't want to leave, was sent to a Gulag, along with Kamenev's familly, and the famillies of thousands of other people who were in political opposition to Stalin. Of course they called them terrorists, it's simple functionalist sociology, Stalin wanted to create solidarity among the people who weren't in the nomenclature by creating the image of an outside, and inside enemy who was in reality not a threat at all, but if anything were the ones with a realistic view on the best program for the USSR to take in the late 20's. But the fact of the matter is that the families of the purged were also purged from society, and embarassed, as they were mixed in with the common criminals. I was reading about the Vorkuta hunger strike, which was led by trotskyists, who were trying to get the bureaucracy to agree to work the prisoners 8 hours instead of 12 hours a day, and with more food rations.

The basic point of contention was that the middle peasants were more and more becoming poor peasants, who had to work for the Kulaks, and the left opposition realized that if the population was 75% poor peasant instead of 60%% poor peasant, it would take a much bigger effort to put them into collective farms and to organize the production. Besides the fact that people in the cities were starving to death in the famines that the center and right opposition were completely responsible for, with their policies of giving the Kulaks all of the time they needed to grow their properties, which were about worth 60% of the total farming output by the time the left opposition said that the collectivization needed to happen in 1925.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Just to clarify Broody; Sergei Sedov, the son of Trotsky to whom you refer, even though he NEVER participated in political activities, was arrested on false charges (the usual bullshit), sentenced to death and executed merely because of who is father was.

I disagree with your assessment of the Soviet agricultural economy, because it fails to address the role played by the middle peasantry. Also, while urban areas in the Union were not awash in cheap food, starvation was not an issue in the late 1920s. Finally, both Stalin and the LO ignored a third option, which was to redistribute land from the Kulaks back to middle and poor peasants. Forced collectivization made a bad situation truly horrendous.

[Ostrinski]

The political culture in the Soviet Union was quite insane. It's a pretty interesting subject as well at least to me because it appears to be quite unprecedented in terms of the extent that it was taken to. A good book about the insanity of it all is J Arch Getty's The Road to Terror. Somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand but nevertheless a good read about the bizarre and chaotic political life of the Soviet Union.

[Geiseric]

Just to clarify Broody; Sergei Sedov, the son of Trotsky to whom you refer, even though he NEVER participated in political activities, was arrested on false charges (the usual bullshit), sentenced to death and executed merely because of who is father was.

I disagree with your assessment of the Soviet agricultural economy, because it fails to address the role played by the middle peasantry. Also, while urban areas in the Union were not awash in cheap food, starvation was not an issue in the late 1920s. Finally, both Stalin and the LO ignored a third option, which was to redistribute land from the Kulaks back to middle and poor peasants. Forced collectivization made a bad situation truly horrendous.

Your solution is a petit bourgeois one through and through. Besides the only difference is that instead of collective farms you have a bunch more peasant farms, which creates a class still in opposition to the working class. Besides Kulaks would of formed again as long as capitalist productive relations existed in the countryside, there was a land redistribution at the begining of the N.E.P. and it ended up with famines because there were capitalists running the entire jig, who eventually got more land for themselves, as we see in all capitalist economies.

It's a shame about Sergei though, along with the rest of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were killed. I brought a discussion up in the CU forum but it wasn't too popular, to enforce a historical basis that the purges were wrong. The tensions on the board are only aggrivating as long as they're ignored, and something needs to happen, soon.

Collectivization had to happen if the USSR was to survive as a country with some working class economic victories. Even if you don't agree with that, we should all agree that thinking that isn't worth being shot in the head. Especially when Stalin actually did collectivization, and the same problems happened with it that the left opposition predicted.

[Let's Get Free]

Stalin was also very good at editing out enemies with bullets.

[Geiseric]

why is enemies in quotation marks?

[Ismail]

Why were official pictures doctored so that perceived 'enemies' like Trotsky were cut out of pictures where they might have been next to Lenin, for example?

Can this be defended?First, this practice was not exclusive to the USSR under Stalin. The post-Stalin leadership likewise engaged in such practices, as have the governments of China, Cuba (e.g. the case of Carlos Franqui), Vietnam, etc. Albania, of course, also engaged in such practices.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/169-Retush-1.jpg

(Mehmet Shehu, Fiqret Shehu, and Shehu associate Kadri Hazbiu are removed)

It was no "open secret" after 1928 that Trotsky was head of the Petrograd Soviet and its Military Revolutionary Committee, just as it was no "open secret" that Shehu served as head of state from 1954 until his suicide in 1981. In fact a 1988 Albanian work notes that, "After the elections to the People's Assembly in 1954, the latter approved the new government headed by Mehmet Shehu." What follows is a footnote: "For a long time Mehmet Shehu managed to conceal his activity as an agent, which was uncovered only after his suicide in December 1981. In fact, he had been recruited by foreign intelligence agencies before the Second World War. He engaged in subversive activity both during the years of the Anti-fascist National Liberation War and after the liberation of the country." (The History of the Socialist Construction of Albania, p. 145.)

Photographs such as the one I showed had a political purpose, to demonstrate leading members of the Communist Party of Albania then living (the photo is taken in front of the house where the CPA was founded.) When China invaded Vietnam in 1979 one of the members of the party defected to the Chinese and the party reciprocated in turn by removing him. It was felt that there was nothing honorable about such a person who betrayed his country and party in the service of a power which had come to the defense of Pol Pot.

The political importance of such photographs is shown by the fact that it is Trots and others who trot out photos of Lenin and Trotsky together to make their points as to the supposed closeness of the two men.

Photographs likewise had an important role in propaganda and education. Bolshevik leaders were treated as exemplary figures worthy of emulation, their exploits in popular texts were often aligned with photographs. It is not surprising that when the perception of them changes this is likewise altered. What uplifting role could a man like Trotsky have when from 1903-1917 he denounced Lenin as a "dictator" among other things, and when from 1917-1928 he was said to have committed various blunders and have gone against the party and its line of socialist construction? Then, of course, came the charges of the Moscow Trials; whatever services he carried out during the October Revolution were distinctly secondary to what he did before and since then.

So there were various reasons why photographs were retouched. Do not forget that schoolchildren all over the USSR (as well as regular employees) were encouraged to cut out or throw ink on the faces and names of condemned persons in textbooks and other works; this likewise had an educative aspect, demonstrating the party's desire to cast away renegades from an otherwise outstanding history of the party.

Obviously for the historiographer trying to draw a balanced portrait doing all this was not very appealing, but in terms of the interests of the party and of socialism this was considered a correct course.


I'm actually pretty interested about how the Soviets, with the primitive technology available back then, were able to so skilfully doctor photographs.Read The Commissar Vanishes.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Your solution is a petit bourgeois one through and through. Besides the only difference is that instead of collective farms you have a bunch more peasant farms, which creates a class still in opposition to the working class. Besides Kulaks would of formed again as long as capitalist productive relations existed in the countryside, there was a land redistribution at the begining of the N.E.P. and it ended up with famines because there were capitalists running the entire jig, who eventually got more land for themselves, as we see in all capitalist economies.

It's a shame about Sergei though, along with the rest of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were killed. I brought a discussion up in the CU forum but it wasn't too popular, to enforce a historical basis that the purges were wrong. The tensions on the board are only aggrivating as long as they're ignored, and something needs to happen, soon.

Collectivization had to happen if the USSR was to survive as a country with some working class economic victories. Even if you don't agree with that, we should all agree that thinking that isn't worth being shot in the head. Especially when Stalin actually did collectivization, and the same problems happened with it that the left opposition predicted.

While it is tempting to endorse a rule against defending the purge trials, reluctantly I lean against that approach. I would prefer tensions on the board to be open and above-board. Otherwise, either there would be a purge or restriction of a large chunk of RevLefters or they would attempt to communicate their views surreptitiously. Open and vigorous debate will demonstrate the baselessness of the assertions of the Stalin apologists.

With respect to Soviet agricultural policy I must respectfully disagree with your views. History has borne out that smallholders do not constitute the existential threat to a post-revolutionary state feared by the Left Opposition. Gifted as were are with hindsight, we can see that small holders in various "socialist" countries peacefully co-existed with the post-revolutionary states in question. Capitalist restoration occurred in most of those states, but interestingly smallholders did not seem to predominate there.

[Geiseric]

Your views don't matter for shit if they're wrong. That's my point, and there are dozens of these threads that are a waste of time. There is NO justification for the purges, whichever way you look at it, in the same way there isn't a justification for the killing fields.

A bunch of smallholders form into a few bigholders by the way, it's a basic rule of capitalism dude. Unless you make it illegal to buy or sell land, which still wouldn't answer the problems with food production, and ultimately the socio economic problems the USSR had with such an antiquated class.

We can talk about this somewhere else though. This thread needs to stay on track.

[Let's Get Free]

There is NO justification for the purges, whichever way you look at it

But they were "opportunists and counterrevolutionaries" just like the sailors at Kronstadt!:rolleyes:

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would wholeheartedly support making it illegal to buy and well land. As far as this thread staying on track, I am not optimistic. Will check it out in the morning.

[Geiseric]

But they were "opportunists and counterrevolutionaries" just like the sailors at Kronstadt!:rolleyes:
Yeah the sailors who stopped a strike in petrograd that was going on, because the strikers didn't want to identify with them.

[Let's Get Free]

Yeah the sailors who stopped a strike in petrograd that was going on, because the strikers didn't want to identify with them.

Actually, the revolt had been sparked off by the Bolsheviks brutal suppression of a strike by freezing and hungry Petrograd workers.

[Ismail]

You guys already have a thread where you're discussing Kronstadt, why make another?

[Let's Get Free]

Just pointing out the utter cognitive dissonance of opposing Stalin's purges while defending the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion.

[Leftsolidarity]

Just pointing out the utter cognitive dissonance of opposing Stalin's purges while defending the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion.

No, you're derailing a discussion that actually got interesting for a minute to whine about the Bolsheviks even though there's a billion other threads for that.

[prolcon]

So this has accomplished a lot. Solid work as always.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

So this has accomplished a lot. Solid work as always.

I called this thread as a waste of time.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Your views don't matter for shit if they're wrong. That's my point, and there are dozens of these threads that are a waste of time. There is NO justification for the purges, whichever way you look at it, in the same way there isn't a justification for the killing fields.

A bunch of smallholders form into a few bigholders by the way, it's a basic rule of capitalism dude. Unless you make it illegal to buy or sell land, which still wouldn't answer the problems with food production, and ultimately the socio economic problems the USSR had with such an antiquated class.

We can talk about this somewhere else though. This thread needs to stay on track.

Of course there are justifications for the purges. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they can't be justified. Of course saying that something can't be justified doesn't mean anything really. I don't see what the killing fields had to do with this, but you probably had to involve something that was also "evil" to make a point, a shitty point at that.

[Zukunftsmusik]

1984 was written by Orwell as a way of criticizing the Soviet Union under Stalin, so the connection isn't so striking.

haha, that's actually quite a mistake - I've read 1984 and know when and why it was written. Is this what they call brain fart?

[Leftsolidarity]

I called this thread as a waste of time.

Then get the fuck out of the thread. Is it that fucking hard to press "unsubscribe" if you're not interested? Or would you just like to continue to troll the thread?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Then get the fuck out of the thread. Is it that fucking hard to press "unsubscribe" if you're not interested? Or would you just like to continue to troll the thread?

I'm not trolling, i'm stating a fact. No matter what you say or point out, ML's will always defend papaJoe. And no matter what the ML's say, the rest of us will label him as the communist antichrist. These threads go nowhere. All in all, i thought Avanti's bullshit created more debate than these dead ends. Just saying.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm not trolling, i'm stating a fact. No matter what you say or point out, ML's will always defend papaJoe. And no matter what the ML's say, the rest of us will label him as the communist antichrist. These threads go nowhere. All in all, i thought Avanti's bullshit created more debate than these dead ends. Just saying.

Simple solution: get the fuck out of the thread then.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This. The link to 1984 is so striking it's almost absurd how reality imitates art, at least in this one example.

Yup.
Well, Orwell was writing about Stalin and Stalinism in the USSR. I would say in this case art imitated reality.

As for the OP, how can anyone defend those that falsify history? Someone said, "the truth is revolutionary." Lies and distortion get the revolutionary movement nowhere, at best.

[hetz]

Well, Orwell was writing about Stalin and Stalinism in the USSR. I would say in this case art imitated reality.
I really doubt it. Animal Farm though was a pretty obvious analogy at the time, that's why it wasn't published during the War.
1984 is a dystopia that doesn't have much to do with Stalinism or the USSR.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

While it is tempting to endorse a rule against defending the purge trials, reluctantly I lean against that approach. I would prefer tensions on the board to be open and above-board. Otherwise, either there would be a purge or restriction of a large chunk of RevLefters or they would attempt to communicate their views surreptitiously. Open and vigorous debate will demonstrate the baselessness of the assertions of the Stalin apologists.

With respect to Soviet agricultural policy I must respectfully disagree with your views. History has borne out that smallholders do not constitute the existential threat to a post-revolutionary state feared by the Left Opposition. Gifted as were are with hindsight, we can see that small holders in various "socialist" countries peacefully co-existed with the post-revolutionary states in question. Capitalist restoration occurred in most of those states, but interestingly smallholders did not seem to predominate there.
I personally hate the whole idea of bans except for fascists. I'm still very pissed that AMH was banned -- simply for pissing off a rather irrational moderator. I mean, we all expect Ismail to go off and tell us arcane facts about Albania -- while taking an almost Talmudic view of the purge trials. Not really a big deal -- he certainly adds something to the discussion at times and we are all free to ignore or bash him when we want.

The problem is that the natural interest of the peasant small-holder is against socialism. And it was a huge problem in the nascent USSR. The peasants were withholding grain after a good harvest in 1927 and 1928. That was in their direct economic interests -- it also threatened the cities with starvation. I also think it is hard to argue that the small peasant holders in any of the deformed worker's states largely are pro-socialist (even in the limited way that they might understand it).

[Geiseric]

I really doubt it. Animal Farm though was a pretty obvious analogy at the time, that's why it wasn't published during the War.
1984 is a dystopia that doesn't have much to do with Stalinism or the USSR.

Have you read the book? It's obvious, and I mean obvious, that it's about the USSR. It specifically talks about a revolution that "went bad," with the bureaucracy taking control of and perverting the revolution. If you've read any of the parts where it talks about "Goldstein," it's obviously about Trotsky. The propaganda, racism, and general "doublethink," theme and stuff also mirrors England and Nazi germany, so the book isn't uniquely about the USSR. However it's impossible to misinterpret it if you've read the entire book. The forced confessions are also specifically about the USSR.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I really doubt it. Animal Farm though was a pretty obvious analogy at the time, that's why it wasn't published during the War.
1984 is a dystopia that doesn't have much to do with Stalinism or the USSR.
Really? You don't think that "Goldstein" was analogues to Trotsky? We read the book in high school in the 1970s and had little doubt it mainly referenced the USSR under Stalin.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Really? You don't think that "Goldstein" was analogues to Trotsky? We read the book in high school in the 1970s and had little doubt it mainly referenced the USSR under Stalin.

IMO it may not have been entirely about the USSR of the Stalin era, but to my mind Stalinism was probably a major and perhaps the major (if not singular) point of reference for Orwell. In addition to Lev Bronsteinovich's excellent point about Goldstein/Trotsky (Bronstein) there are other examples. The entire inner party/outer party dichotomy seems to me to be be derived from the Soviet experience. The side-changing in the wars is reminiscent of Soviet-German relations circa 1939-1945. Rationing of food and essential items such as razor blades also falls into this category. If I re-reviewed the book I am sure more examples would come to mind.

[hetz]

You don't think that "Goldstein" was analogues to Trotsky?
It certainly does, but it also could relate to many other persons.
1984 world as a whole has little to do with the 30s or 40s or 50s geopolitics.
The book reflects a certain fear humanity has long been occupied with, even before CCTV.
Take Zamyatin's "We" for example, it has certain similarities with 1984. That was written in 1921, long before Stalinism rose.

[prolcon]

1984 world as a whole has little to do with the 30s or 40s or 50s geopolitics.

I don't think I buy that, comrade.

[hetz]

I don't think I buy that, comrade.
Why not? The "Three worlds" of the times when Stalin was still alive were not at permanent war with each other.
How does the 1984 world even resemble the real word as it was back then?

[prolcon]

Why not? The "Three worlds" of the times when Stalin was still alive were not at permanent war with each other.
How does the 1984 world even resemble the real word as it was back then?

Are we talking about geopolitics specifically? I guess I meant I didn't buy that it didn't really have anything to do with the Soviet Union.

[hetz]

I guess I meant I didn't buy that it didn't really have anything to do with the Soviet Union.
Well I guess it could be said that the book had something to do with any totalitarian ( I know, I know..) or what not society.

[Ismail]

As Isaac Asimov noted (http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm):

He wasn't much affected, apparently, by the Nazi brand of totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard animals against human masters.

He completed Animal Farm in 1944 and had trouble finding a publisher since it wasn't a particularly good time for upsetting the Soviets. As soon as the war came to an end, however, the Soviet Union was fair game and Animal Farm was published. It was greeted with much acclaim and Orwell became sufficiently prosperous to retire and devote himself to his masterpiece, 1984. That book described society as a vast world-wide extension of Stalinist Russia in the 1930s, pictured with the venom of a rival left-wing sectarian. Other forms of totalitarianism play a small role. There are one or two mentions of the Nazis and of the Inquisition. At the very start, there is a reference or two to Jews, almost as though they were going to prove the objects of persecution, but that vanishes almost at once, as though Orwell didn't want readers to mistake the villains for Nazis.

The picture is of Stalinism, and Stalinism only.

[Comrade Jogiches]

As Isaac Asimov noted

Regardless of whether Orwell wrote his 1984 on just Stalinism, or both Stalinism and Fascism, one can't doubt his anti-fascist track record. He got a bullet in the neck, proving himself a true internationalist, anti-fascist. As anti-Stalinists would likely agree, Stalinism was a big threat to the working class -- and to the socialist political movement as a whole.

If we would wish to delve into a deeper conversation, though I probably do not agree with the sentiment, one could say he held a view similar to that of CLR James. The view that the USSR under Stalin WAS a form of fascism.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

As Isaac Asimov noted (http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm):
Nice quote comrade. I take it from the review that Asimov may have been a member of the CPUSA or fellow traveler at some point. I did not know that. And I really like his science fiction. There was a man that can write about an imagined future. Plus his son writes a pretty good wine column for the NY Times.

[prolcon]

It's always been interesting to me that, as a culture, we're more interested in presenting a "socialistic" dystopian future to ourselves rather than a truly fascistic (corporate) one. I guess it's hard to get people to accept a dystopia unless it represents something they can easily identify as alien or other. Even more capitalistic dystopias in fiction tend to really exaggerate privatization. I guess if one were to present a more subtle image of dystopia to an audience, they wouldn't understand why the society they see in the book so closely reflects their own.

Capitalism is freedom, after all.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It's always been interesting to me that, as a culture, we're more interested in presenting a "socialistic" dystopian future to ourselves rather than a truly fascistic (corporate) one. I guess it's hard to get people to accept a dystopia unless it represents something they can easily identify as alien or other. Even more capitalistic dystopias in fiction tend to really exaggerate privatization. I guess if one were to present a more subtle image of dystopia to an audience, they wouldn't understand why the society they see in the book so closely reflects their own.

Capitalism is freedom, after all.

Bourgeois cultural hegemony would recoil at a capitalistic dystopia. It would hit too close to home. Might encourage the workers to organize and who KNOWS what THAT could lead to. Better to leave a potential hot potato like that alone. No Publisher would touch it. No "Mad men" to promote it. No commercial potential.

[Invader Zim]

I'm actually pretty interested about how the Soviets, with the primitive technology available back then, were able to so skilfully doctor photographs.

Given how flagrantly obvious the distortions are I would suggest that the primitive development of the technology is manifest.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Given how flagrantly obvious the distortions are I would suggest that the primitive development of the technology is manifest.

Game, set and match to Invader Zim.

[hetz]

Sorry but this is pretty good even for today's Photoshop:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1IocOn42RY_8cMjWuDJVdzk5JwJn4I mi7HkRbAukhIZmyP7HGBzF7r0tr4w

[GoddessCleoLover]

Sorry but this is pretty good even for today's Photoshop:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1IocOn42RY_8cMjWuDJVdzk5JwJn4I mi7HkRbAukhIZmyP7HGBzF7r0tr4w

I am not an expert, but it looks awkward to me. Using digital technology wouldn't it be possible to replace Yezhov with Beria thus recreating the original balance of the "troika"?

[Zealot]

This. The link to 1984 is so striking it's almost absurd how reality imitates art, at least in this one example.

1984 was a piece of fiction that was written by an agent of the bourgeoisie who had never visited the USSR and which does a terrible job at describing the Soviet Union.


I disagree with your assessment of the Soviet agricultural economy, because it fails to address the role played by the middle peasantry. Also, while urban areas in the Union were not awash in cheap food, starvation was not an issue in the late 1920s. Finally, both Stalin and the LO ignored a third option, which was to redistribute land from the Kulaks back to middle and poor peasants. Forced collectivization made a bad situation truly horrendous.


With respect to Soviet agricultural policy I must respectfully disagree with your views. History has borne out that smallholders do not constitute the existential threat to a post-revolutionary state feared by the Left Opposition. Gifted as were are with hindsight, we can see that small holders in various "socialist" countries peacefully co-existed with the post-revolutionary states in question. Capitalist restoration occurred in most of those states, but interestingly smallholders did not seem to predominate there.

Of course smallholders have never predominated in socialist countries, they've never predominated in capitalist countries either. And that's the whole point. The Soviets redistributed land following the revolution and, for various reasons, it simply led to the development of a capitalist class in the countryside who were concentrating more and more land under themselves. Redistribution of land again would not solve the fundamental contradiction, which at some point had to be dealt with.

[GoddessCleoLover]

1984 was a piece of fiction that was written by an agent of the bourgeoisie who had never visited the USSR and which does a terrible job at describing the Soviet Union.





Of course smallholders have never predominated in socialist countries, they've never predominated in capitalist countries either. And that's the whole point. The Soviets redistributed land following the revolution and, for various reasons, it simply led to the development of a capitalist class in the countryside who were concentrating more and more land under themselves. Redistribution of land again would not solve the fundamental contradiction, which at some point had to be dealt with.

And, oh boy, were they dealt with. BTW Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov were leading Communists who advised against "dealing with" the peasantry in a brutal fashion. Given the outcome, perhaps they were right IMO.

[Ismail]

Given how flagrantly obvious the distortions are I would suggest that the primitive development of the technology is manifest.As I said, in a lot of cases people just put ink over photos of condemned persons or, failing that, simply tore or cut them out from the pages. The only time you saw photos with drawing or airbrushing utilized was in official publications.

Professional effort: http://myweb.lmu.edu/rrolfs/LONGTERMFRIEND%2807%29b.JPG
Proletarian effort (the cutting method): http://myweb.lmu.edu/rrolfs/Sarcophhaguspg144.JPG
Proletarian effort (the ink method): http://myweb.lmu.edu/rrolfs/IZELENSKY(01)b.JPG

[GoddessCleoLover]

Given the extent of the purges ink must have been one of the few things that the Soviet economy was able to produce in abundance.

[Prometeo liberado]

Why were official pictures doctored so that perceived 'enemies' like Trotsky were cut out of pictures where they might have been next to Lenin, for example?

Can this be defended?

So you still can't understand that humans populated the CCCP and were sometime idiots and made mistakes? OK. Let me know when you are faced with building a country and an entirely new way of living. Yeah, get back to me on that one.:thumbup1:

[Geiseric]

Jbeard, get real. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is a wee bit more than a "mistake." Especialy since the purges and general top down bureaucratization happened internationally.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Jbeard, get real. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is a wee bit more than a "mistake." Especialy since the purges and general top down bureaucratization happened internationally.

When one includes the horrors of violent collectivization the body count reaches into the millions. Just cannot wrap my mind around the concept of writing it off as collateral damage.

[Ismail]

Another editing out of Shehu:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/HoxhaShehuretouched_zps2b758a6d.jpg

They put up a larger version of the photo to include Adil Çarçani, that way the same amount of persons are in the photo, just one of those persons not being Shehu.

[GoddessCleoLover]

That one is more sophisticated than the Yezhov photo. The Yezhov picture seems to me to be out of balance. This one retains a sense of balance. I wonder how Mehmet Shehu was able to maintain his role as a deep-cover agent for almost forty years? Remarkable.;)

[prolcon]

Killing hundreds of thousands of people is a wee bit more than a "mistake."

The consequences of human error are sometimes broader in scope than misfiled paperwork, comrade. I think to suggest otherwise gives us nowhere to go but to start labeling people "evil."

[GoddessCleoLover]

The consequences of human error are sometimes broader in scope than misfiled paperwork, comrade. I think to suggest otherwise gives us nowhere to go but to start labeling people "evil."

Good post. Frames the question well. My conclusion is that these deaths resulted from a combination of human error and evil. Although I don't subscribe to idealist notions of evil, the concept of evil does seem useful in characterizing certain modes of human conduct. I am not really a DiMat believer at the end of the day. Common sense would seem to lead to the conclusion that human agency has some role to play in human events.

[Geiseric]

Oh ok so yezhov just "made a mistake," when he ordered the execution of hundreds of communists who were on hunger strike at vorkuta. And when they executed the victims families, it was a mistake! I'm not going to buy this. If ordering the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people isn't evil I don't know what is.

[Prometeo liberado]

Jbeard, get real.

I get it. I wasn't there trying, regardless, just attempting to build a new society in the midst of a world of enemies. The numbers are yours, I'll build and learn from mistakes.

[Invader Zim]

Jbeard, get real. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is a wee bit more than a "mistake." Especialy since the purges and general top down bureaucratization happened internationally.

You are out by a whole order of magnitude.

[Geiseric]

What does that even mean?

[Invader Zim]

What does that even mean?

In this context it basically means a factor of 10.

10 is an order of magnitude lower than 100. 1,000 is an order of magnitude higher than 100.

Thus when you stated that the Stalinist regime murdered 'hundreds of thousands of people' you were out by a factor of ten.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Oh ok so yezhov just "made a mistake," when he ordered the execution of hundreds of communists who were on hunger strike at vorkuta. And when they executed the victims families, it was a mistake! I'm not going to buy this. If ordering the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people isn't evil I don't know what is.

Evil is a meaningless word though.
Of all the aproaches there are of critiquing the USSR, moralism is the worst

[prolcon]

Oh ok so yezhov just "made a mistake," when he ordered the execution of hundreds of communists who were on hunger strike at vorkuta. And when they executed the victims families, it was a mistake! I'm not going to buy this. If ordering the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people isn't evil I don't know what is.

So instead of actually making an argument responding to anything I actually said, you went for more highly moralized crap. Good work as usual.

[KurtFF8]

IRL trolling.
In all seriousness, how can anyone defend something straight out of 1984?
However there are more important issues with Stalinism.

Well Nineteen Eighty Four was an attack on Stalin to an extent.

[Drosophila]

So instead of actually making an argument responding to anything I actually said, you went for more highly moralized crap. Good work as usual.

Lol, it's not "moralistic" to be against the mass executions of innocent people. Gain some fucking perspective.

[prolcon]

Lol, it's not "moralistic" to be against the mass executions of innocent people. Gain some fucking perspective.

Yep. That was the point of my post. You totally nailed it.

Seriously, though, why all the impotent rage and need to bicker on RevLeft? You people will argue even if you don't have a damn thing to actually say.

[Drosophila]

Yep. That was the point of my post. You totally nailed it.

Seriously, though, why all the impotent rage and need to bicker on RevLeft? You people will argue even if you don't have a damn thing to actually say.

You're the one apologizing for senseless mass murder. Tell me: is your ideology so awful that the only way you can defend it is by saying "why must you guys spend so much time whining about Stalin!?!"

That's a rhetorical question.

[prolcon]

My "ideology?" What do you think that is, exactly? And why is it that Stalin-baiting gets to be so sacred to you, but the moment I dare suggest anything like "Can we do something beside just nod our heads at how bad that was?" suddenly I'm the cultist? I will give you my next five paychecks if you can quote, in full, any post in which I was trying to rationalize the judicial murder of thousands of people.

You don't know a god damn thing about who I am or what I believe in, so why is it you need to pick a fight? Why is it that you have to put yourself above someone else so badly that you can't just engage me like a person? Like you have honest concerns about the things I'm saying and you'd like to talk about them? We can be pretty sure that's what these forums were created for, but fuck me if anyone's going to use them for that purpose.

[Ismail]

"In January 1938 the Central Committee passed a resolution which heralded what was to be called the 'Great Change.' ... The new enemy was identified as the Communist-careerist. He had taken advantage of the purge to denounce his superiors and to gain promotion. He was guilty of spreading suspicion and undermining the party. A purge of careerists was launched. At the same time mass repression diminished and the rehabilitation of victimized party members began... Stalin could not maintain direct control over the purge. He was aware that the NKVD had arrested many people who were not guilty and that of the 7 to 14 million people serving sentences of forced labor in the GULAG camps many were innocent of any taint of disloyalty. They were inevitable sacrifices, inseparable from any campaign on this scale. But he resented this waste of human material. The aircraft designer Yakovlev recorded a conversation with him in 1940, in which Stalin exclaimed: 'Ezhov was a rat; in 1938 he killed many innocent people. We shot him for that!'

Throughout these terrible years Stalin showed an extraordinary self-control and did not lose sight of his purpose. He knew what he was doing. He was convinced that the majority of the people liquidated were guilty in principle. And he acted with a cold merciless inhumanity. According to Medvedev, Stalin with Molotov signed during the years 1937-39 some 400 lists, containing the names of 44,000 people, authorizing their execution. Stalin could not have known or studied the cases of so many people, and he had to accept the advice of men who he disliked and distrusted like Ezhov. He would have acted, however, on the principle that such sacrifices were completely justified by the purpose being pursued."
(Ian Grey. Stalin: Man of History. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1979. pp. 288-290.)

"Speakers at the Eighteenth Party Congress, held in March 1939, consistently suggested that the struggle against internal enemies was largely over. Beria... spoke about this problem mostly in the past tense and pointedly stated that troubles in the economy could not be explained solely by reference to sabotage... Perhaps the most remarkable speech of the congress was Andrei Zhdanov's... The purges had allowed enemy elements inside the party to persecute honest members. Following his lead, the congress resolved to ban mass purges and to strengthen the rights of communists at all levels to criticize any party official....

Of course, Stalin's words on the subject were the most important. At the Eighteenth Party Congress he indicated that internal subversion was largely a thing of the past and specifically noted that the punitive organs had turned their attention 'not to the interior of the country, but outside it, against external enemies.' Between the end of the congress in March 1939 and the German invasion in June 1941, he offered no more comments on spies and saboteurs. The official slogans for the May Day holiday in 1939 contained not a word about the NKVD or enemies but dwelt on the glories and responsibilities of the army, fleet, and border guards."
(Robert W. Thurston. Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1996. pp. 130-131.)

Stalin at that Congress:
"It cannot be said that the purge was not accompanied by grave mistakes. There were unfortunately more mistakes than might have been expected. Undoubtedly, we shall have no further need of resorting to the method of mass purges. Nevertheless, the purge of 1933-36 was unavoidable and its results, on the whole, were beneficial."
(J.V. Stalin. Works Vol. 14. London: Red Star Press Ltd. 1978. p. 401.)

Notice he mentions 1933-36 (which was internal party expulsions until 1936), not 1937 and '38.

[Geiseric]

That's a laugh, they passed a motion to ban purges? That's as rediculous as trying to outlaw war with the Kellog Briand pact. Who were the ones with interests in the purges? Obviously the ones passing the law saying "Ok those other guys are dead, we're in charge, let's not kill ourselves."

Also Stalin gave Ezhov and Beria their jobs in the first place, to do what he ordered them. It's ridiculous to think they were somehow independent of Stalin. That's like saying the FBI is independent of the U.S. presidency. Or Mossad is independent of Israel.

[prolcon]

Bloody Guthrie, you make me facepalm like nothing else in the world. Not even Twilight fan fiction comes close to making my forehead sting as much.

[Ismail]

Also Stalin gave Ezhov and Beria their jobs in the first place, to do what he ordered them. It's ridiculous to think they were somehow independent of Stalin. That's like saying the FBI is independent of the U.S. presidency. Or Mossad is independent of Israel.This is asinine. To give one example before the Yezhovschina even started:

"In June 1936, Stalin interrupted Ezhov at a Central Committee Plenum to complain about so many party members being expelled:

EZHOV: Comrades, as a result of the verification of party documents, we expelled more than 200,000 members of the party.
STALIN: Very many.
EZHOV: Yes, very many. I will speak about this. . .
STALIN: [interrupts] If we expelled 30,000. . . [inaudible remark], and 600 former Trotskyists and Zinovievists, it would be a bigger victory.
EZHOV: More than 200,000 members were expelled. Part of this number of party members, as you know, have been arrested.

At about this time, Stalin wrote a letter to regional party secretaries complaining about their excessive 'repression' of the rank and file. This led to a national movement to reinstate expelled party members, on the eve of the Great Terror."
(J. Arch Getty & Roberta T. Manning (ed). [I]Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 1993. pp. 50-51.)

Stalin gave Yezhov broad powers and leeway to do what he did on the assumption that he would do his task well. This is what Stalin's responsibility in regards to the purges is based on. The actual content of the purges and their rapid development beyond central control is hardly the responsibility of Stalin outside of this.

[Grenzer]

As always, Stalin's actions were guided by sheer opportunism. The idea of the Show Trials and the liquidation of the Old Bolsheviks was initially Yezhov's idea, which was rejected by Stalin at first. The conditions were not yet correct for this action to be taken, and it reflects a common proclivity of Stalin to reject an idea of a subordinate so as to deny them prestige and influence, only to adopt it later. Yezhov was not executed for his "mistakes", but because he was becoming too powerful and influential to be effectively controlled by Stalin. This entire problem already presupposes that the Soviet government was totally illegitimate, and that there was no effective proletarian dictatorship to exercise control in the first place. As Marxists, we understand that the state is a vehicle for class rule, and it's painfully obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense that the actions of the Soviet state organs did not reflect the class interest of the working class.

Of course the idea that Stalin was some all-powerful dictator must be rejected; this was not close to being the case until after the purges were complete. It is undeniable that Stalin was the most powerful and influential political actor, however. The power dynamics of the Soviet bureaucracy prior to World War 2 were most comparable to that of a feudal court, with Stalin occupying the role of King. The King is the most powerful and influential actor, but his vassals have a considerable amount of autonomy and resources of their own to draw upon, certainly enough to pose a credible threat to their liege, particularly when they band together.

The conditions that necessitated this decentralized, top-down bureaucratic system of rule(and it goes without saying that this precludes a proletarian dictatorship, which must be exercised by the class as a whole at the grassroots level) lays with the sprawling geography of Russia and its total lack of transportation and communication infrastructure. Broad powers needed to be delegated to regional and local bureaucrats in order to effectively deal with problems that might arise. With the success of forced collectivization, containment of the "peasant problem" of the 1920's, and improvement of infrastructure, such autonomy was no longer required. In large part, the purges served as the vehicle by which the Soviet power dynamics were restructured into a more modern, centralized form. However, Stalin's paranoid delusions of being displaced by influential subordinates remained as shown by his intention to execute trusted lieutenants like Molotov. The analogy to a feudal court is a common one invoked by many scholars, including Getty himself and adequately illustrates the realities and nuance of the system to a degree.

Whether Stalin approved of the purges or not(and obviously, he did in the main) is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that such occurrences would be impossible under a proletarian dictatorship. Creep is right to say that a critique of Stalinism based on moralism is incorrect, but the question remains as to why the working class would unleash a wave of murderous terror against itself based on some extremely tenuous and fantastic fiction about a vast conspiracy that would be more appropriate in the journals of Adolf Hitler than from a country allegedly adhering to scientific socialism and allow itself to be ruled by a distant bureaucracy rather than vice versa. That the allegations of the Moscow Trials, which served as the the ideological justification for the purges, were complete fiction is something that is more or less universally acknowledged by most serious people. The only thing worthy of a real discussion is why it happened.

The conspiracy theorists and quacks like Grover Furr will continue to fantasize about their hero Stalin standing up to the vast hordes of Trotskyite and Bukharinite counter-revolutionaries, and in the meantime, the people that are actually sane will have moved on from the 1930's and into the real world.

[Ismail]

Creep is right to say that a critique of Stalinism based on moralism is incorrect, but the question remains as to why the working class would unleash a wave of murderous terror against itselfExcept most of those targeted in the Great Purges were precisely managers and party bureaucrats, "former" rightists and ex-Trotskyists. Getty himself noted this in his very first work on the subject.

And let us not forget that the Great Purges coincided with moves towards democratization and grass-roots efforts at anti-bureaucratic activities in trade unions and in elections. The former can be demonstrated for instance in "Stalinist Terror and Democracy: The 1937 Union Campaign" by Wendy Goldman, the latter is noted by Getty in his article on the 1937 electoral campaign, by Sarah Davies in the chapter pertaining to it in Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia, etc.

[GoddessCleoLover]

And let us not forget that the Great Purges coincided with moves towards democratization and grass-roots efforts at anti-bureaucratic activities in trade unions and in elections. The former can be demonstrated for instance in "Stalinist Terror and Democracy: The 1937 Union Campaign" by Wendy Goldman, the latter is noted by Getty in his article on the 1937 electoral campaign, by Sarah Davies in the chapter pertaining to it in Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia, etc.

These so-called grassroots efforts are notable for the fact that they failed to take hold. Stalin may or may not have subjectively hoped that they would gain traction, but subsequent history proved such efforts to be evanescent at best. With all due respect to historians Davies, Getty and Goldman no grassroots campaign really came to fruition. Soviets continued to be ineffectual, just widow dressing and they were ultimately abolished de jure having exercised no power de facto. On balance, proletarian democracy was absent in the Union, and Stalin's successors continued party rule rather than proletarian rule.

[Geiseric]

The largest anti bureaucracy and restore democracy movement was the left opposition, which Stalin crushed. That was the point of the purges, to get rid of people inside the party who didn't like the way things were going. I don't see any other possible basis for the purges other than attempts to not increase but quell democracy.

[prolcon]

I disagree that the largest democratic movement opposed Stalin. Indeed, Stalin himself pushed for a lot of democratic reforms that got shot down by opposition to him. I'm not here to defend Stalin as a sacred figure, but I am interested in approaching an accurate historical account, and I feel like Stalin deserves more credit than he gets. I agree he presided over a time of judicial murder of innocent people and I'm not willing to completely absolve him of his fault. I just feel like he isn't the Red Hitler so many people insist he is.

[Geiseric]

Democratic reforms like letting middle to rich peasants, who supported petit bourgeois peasant politicians, in the party en masse. He was supportive of that move, while he was in charge with Bukharin, which allowed the right opposition and Kulaks to wage a war against the working class through using their political power to withhold food, leading to starvations.

[Prometeo liberado]

Morality, Orwell and of course Stalin. The ony person you left out was the mythical hand of Shiva or Vishnu.

[prolcon]

Democratic reforms like letting middle to rich peasants, who supported petit bourgeois peasant politicians, in the party en masse. He was supportive of that move, while he was in charge with Bukharin, which allowed the right opposition and Kulaks to wage a war against the working class through using their political power to withhold food, leading to starvations.

Is it that your brain can't physically accept that maybe Stalin didn't exist just to fuck everything up back to front? Seriously, I'm going to let Ismail handle this; he's got a track record of blowing asinine bullshit like this out of the water.

[Geiseric]

You're missing the poin and this is well recorded, stalin and bukharinl et thousands of peasants with petit bourgeois consciousness into the bolshevik party during the 20's.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Democratic reforms like letting middle to rich peasants, who supported petit bourgeois peasant politicians, in the party en masse. He was supportive of that move, while he was in charge with Bukharin, which allowed the right opposition and Kulaks to wage a war against the working class through using their political power to withhold food, leading to starvations.

Conflating the middle peasantry with the Kulaks muddies the issue. It is straight out of the Stalin play book, although I have to credit Stalin with belatedly at leat partially recognizing his blunder, eg. "Dizzy with Success".

If were are being coldly honest here we ought to also recognize the fact that middle peasants even under NEP were being being squeezed by the Soviet state in terms of low prices for their grain and other produce. Bukharin was a veteran Bolshevik and it would be a mischaracterization to portray his line as favoring a kulak-led restoration of capitalism.

[Geiseric]

He was a Kulak supporter through and through, the entire right opposition was. What was the purpose of the right opposition other than to support the petit bourgeois peasantry, and extend the N.E.P? Bukharin was around for a while, but he held some rediculous positions, such as continuing the war against Germany. Stalin let in through rich peasants, and middle peasants who still advocated the same politics as the Kulaks. Who else would of wanted to continue the N.E.P. other than peasantry? The working class, who were at the recieving end of the Kulaks once they owned 3/4ths of the food, and charged rediculous prices?

Any "bullying," of the middle peasantry is insignificant compared to the attack on the cities perpetuated by the Kulaks, who benefited from positions the Right Opposition and Bukharin won for them.

[GoddessCleoLover]

He was a Kulak supporter through and through, the entire right opposition was. What was the purpose of the right opposition other than to support the petit bourgeois peasantry, and extend the N.E.P? Bukharin was around for a while, but he held some rediculous positions, such as continuing the war against Germany. Stalin let in through rich peasants, and middle peasants who still advocated the same politics as the Kulaks. Who else would of wanted to continue the N.E.P. other than peasantry? The working class, who were at the recieving end of the Kulaks once they owned 3/4ths of the food, and charged rediculous prices?

Any "bullying," of the middle peasantry is insignificant compared to the attack on the cities perpetuated by the Kulaks, who benefited from positions the Right Opposition and Bukharin won for them.


Much of what you have posted is a reasonable analysis. IMO it is fair to note that Bukharin was a Leftcom before he swung to the right. OTOH it is not so fair to characterize Bukharin and his supporters as supporters of the Kulaks. Bukharin sought to balance a number of interests, including the middle peasantry. Stalin chose to force the middle peasantry into collectives thereby inciting their resistance. Trotsky was in exile by then so given the choice between the Stalin approach and the Bukharin approach the latter seems preferable.

[hetz]

In practice, during the collectivization there was little difference between kulaks and serednyaki, because you could be proclaimed a kulak for having an extra cow or two or something. The "class lines" were not clearly delineated and it wasn't clear just where exactly kulaks stop, and where the middle-peasant begins.

[Geiseric]

Yeah the way collectivization was carried out was wrong, the middle peasants should have been left alone.

HOWEVER it wouldn't of been necessary to do that if the attempts were pre emptive in 1925 before this massive class of Kulaks were able to make the soviet state scramble for food, in the fastest way it could, once the Kulaks withheld grain after the good harvest in 1927. It could of all been avoided, the cattle trains and all, if it started earlier with the workers state being the ones expropiating the Kulaks, at a point when they weren't threatened with starvation by doing so, due to the amount of middle peasants still willing to send grain to the cities.

Bukharin was a dirt bag though, he shouldn't of been shot but I wouldn't of supported any of his policies, given the power of hindsight, seeing as his policies made the famine of 1927 possible.

[Raskolnikov]

#1:

The peasantry despised the state, as noted in the black Book of Communism.

As they quote Karl Radek;

"The peasantry had just received the land from the state, they had just returned home from the front, they had kept their guns, and their attitude to the state could be summed up as "who needs it?" They couldn't have cared less about it. If we had decided to come up with some sort of food tax, it wouldn't have worked, for none of the state apparatus remained. The old order disappeared, and the peasants wouldn't have handed over anything without actually being forced. Our task at the beginning of 1918 was quite simple: we had to make them understand two things: that the state had some claims on what they produced, and that it had the means to exercise those rights." Karl Radek, Paths of the Russian Revolution, page 188, found within page 66 of the Black Book of Communism.

As this was noted back in the Civil War..I doubt they had changed their thoughts greatly over this time period inbetween 1918 and 1927.

[Sea]

the black Book of Communismgo snort some asbestos while you're at it

[Leftsolidarity]

the black Book of Communism.



I really don't care what that book says

[Zostrianos]

Also Stalin gave Ezhov and Beria their jobs in the first place, to do what he ordered them. It's ridiculous to think they were somehow independent of Stalin. That's like saying the FBI is independent of the U.S. presidency. Or Mossad is independent of Israel.

Beria was a sadist, and he was more than happy to take initiative and fulfill his master's wishes; Stalin didn't have to force him, he was pleased to oblige. Much like Himmler did for Hitler.

And the purges were no "mistake", and they didn't solely target 'bureaucrats' and their ilk. THe NKVD had to find people to kill, supposed plotters, and so it did, forcing confessions through torture out of people who were probably innocent. A good example is what they did to the Poles:

Precisely because there was no Polish plot, NKVD officers had little choice but to persecute Soviet Poles and other Soviet citizens associated with Poland, Polish culture, or Roman Catholicism. The Polish ethnic character of the operation quickly prevailed in practice, as perhaps it was bound to from the beginning. Yezhov’s letter authorized the arrest of nationalist elements, and of “Polish Military Organization” members who had yet to be discovered. These categories were so vague that NKVD officers could apply them to almost anyone of Polish ethnicity or with some connection to Poland. NKVD officers who wished to show the appropriate zeal in carrying out the operation would have to be rather vague about the charges against individual people. Balytskyi’s previous actions against Poles had created a pool of suspects sufficient for a few purges, but this was far from enough. Local NKVD officers would have to take the initiative—not in looking up the card files, as in the kulak operation, but in creating a new paper trail to follow. One Moscow NKVD chief understood the gist of the order: his organization should “destroy the Poles entirely.” His officers looked for Polish names in the telephone book.14 (http://www.epubbud.com/Bloodlands_Europe_Between_Hitle_split_024.html#fil epos1321174)
Soviet citizens would have to “unmask” themselves as Polish agents. Because the groups and scenarios of the ostensible Polish plot had to be generated from nothing, torture played an important role in the interrogations. In addition to the traditional conveyer method and the standing method, many Soviet Poles were subjected to a form of collective torture called the “conference method.” Once a large number of Polish suspects had been gathered in a single place, such as the basement of a public building in a town or village of Soviet Ukraine or Soviet Belarus, a policeman would torture one of them in full view of the others. Once the victim had confessed, the others would be urged to spare themselves the same sufferings by confessing as well. If they wanted to avoid pain and injury, they would have to implicate not only themselves but others. In this situation, each person had an incentive to confess as quickly as possible: it was obvious that everyone would be implicated eventually anyway, and a quick confession might at least spare the body. In this way, testimony that implicated an entire group could be assembled very quickly (.[/URL]...)

Biographies became death sentences, as attachment to Polish culture or Roman Catholicism became evidence of participation in international espionage. People were sentenced for the most apparently minor of offenses: ten years in the Gulag for owning a rosary, death for not producing enough sugar. Details of everyday life were enough to generate a report, an album entry, a signature, a verdict, a gunshot, a corpse. After twenty days, or two cycles of albums, Yezhov reported to Stalin that 23,216 arrests had already been made in the Polish operation. Stalin expressed his delight: “Very good! Keep on digging up and cleaning out this Polish filth. Eliminate it in the interests of the Soviet Union.” (http://www.epubbud.com/Bloodlands_Europe_Between_Hitle_split_024.html#fil epos1321396)
...
Janina Juriewicz, then a young Polish girl in Leningrad, saw her life altered by these early arrests. The youngest of three sisters, she was very attached to Maria, the eldest. Maria fell in love with a young man called Stanisław Wyganowski, and the three of them would go for walks together, little Janina serving as chaperone. Maria and Stanisław, married in 1936, were a happy couple. When Maria was arrested in August 1937, her husband seemed to know what this meant: “I will meet her,” he said, “under the ground.” He went to the authorities to make inquiries, and was arrested himself. In September the NKVD visited the Juriewicz family home, confiscated all of the Polish books, and arrested Janina’s other sister, Elżbieta. She, Maria, and Stanisław were all executed by a shot to the back of the neck, and buried anonymously in mass graves. When Janina’s mother asked the police about them, she was told the typical lie: her daughters and son-in-law had been sentenced to “ten years without the right to correspondence.” Because this was another possible sentence, people believed it and hoped. Many of them kept hoping for decades.

[URL="http://www.epubbud.com/Bloodlands_Europe_Between_Hitle_split_024.html#fil epos1321937"]
People such as the Juriewiczes, who had nothing to do with Polish espionage of any kind, were the “filth” to which Stalin was referring. The family of Jerzy Makowski, a young Leningrad student, suffered a similar fate. He and his brothers were all ambitious, wishing to build careers for themselves in the Soviet Union, and fulfill their deceased father’s wish that they master a trade. Jerzy, the youngest of the brothers, wanted to be a shipbuilder. He studied each day with his older brother Stanisław. One morning the two of them were awakened by three NKVD men, who had come to arrest Stanisław. Though he tried to reassure his little brother, he was so nervous that he could not tie his shoes. This was the last Jerzy saw of his brother. Two days later, the next brother, Władysław, was also arrested. Stanisław and Władysław Makowski were executed, two of the 6,597 Soviet citizens shot in the Leningrad region in the Polish operation. Their mother was told the typical lie: that her sons had been sent to the Gulag without the right of correspondence.

(T. Snyder, Bloodlands chapter 3)

[Leftsolidarity]

Beria was a sadist, and he was more than happy to take initiative and fulfill his master's wishes; Stalin didn't have to force him, he was pleased to oblige. Much like Himmler did for Hitler.



What's up with you relating people to Hitler and other Nazis? You just equated Kim Il-Sung with Hitler earlier today too. It's incredible offensive and historically inaccurate. Not to mention it makes you sound like a complete moron incapable of having an argument that doesn't go "I don't like it = Nazi"

[Sea]

Precisely because there was no Polish plot, NKVD officers had little choice but to persecute Soviet Poles and other Soviet citizens associated with Poland, Polish culture, or Roman Catholicism.That's absurd.

So the fact that there wasn't a Polish plot meant that "Hey, let's murder all the Poles!" was the logical conclusion?

And the reason they BRUTALLY MURDERED his highness the czar was because King Nick never did anything wrong!

[Zostrianos]

What's up with you relating people to Hitler and other Nazis? You just equated Kim Il-Sung with Hitler earlier today too. It's incredible offensive and historically inaccurate. Not to mention it makes you sound like a complete moron incapable of having an argument that doesn't go "I don't like it = Nazi"

I only compare murderous dictators to Hitler, because the comparison is well warranted in both cases.

[Sea]

What's up with you relating people to Hitler and other Nazis? You just equated Kim Il-Sung with Hitler earlier today too. It's incredible offensive and historically inaccurate. Not to mention it makes you sound like a complete moron incapable of having an argument that doesn't go "I don't like it = Nazi"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"..In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis."

btw solidarity you're like totally a nazi :)
I only compare murderous dictators to Hitler, because the comparison is well warranted in both cases.So now that you've been so kindly informed by the wonder oracles of Revleft that making comparisons to Hitler pretty much sucks ass, you instead compare to what Hitler was.

Niet mucho of an imprüvement, tovarisch.

[Leftsolidarity]

I only compare murderous dictators to Hitler, because the comparison is well warranted in both cases.

Even if you view them as "murderous dictators" (which I don't like Stalin but I also don't just go in line with the whole "HE IS THE HUMAN SATAN AND ATE 98235470123 MILLION BA-JILLION BABIES!!1!11!!" nonsense) comparing them to a fascist state that systematically tried to exterminate Jewish people, non-whites, queer people, communists, etc. and invaded the Soviet Union committing untold amounts of atrocities and devastation, is by no means a good comparison.

[Ismail]

Bloodlands is an anti-communist work which, as usual, contains a large number of distortions. See for instance: http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/timothy_snyder_protest_0412.html

[Raskolnikov]

At left - You do realize that in the Black Book, it pretty much debunks the myth of the GULAG systems prisoners were not all 'political prisoners' and each eyar 20-30% of the prisoner populations left the GULAG for their term was up? And 57% of the sentences ended in early 1940. This, of course, goes to the article by J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittensporn, and Victor N. Zemskov titled Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the pre-War Years: A first approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence.

The fact remains that this presents two things.

That you've read the attacks and accusations of your detractors, analyzed them and showed that they actually debunk the myths some people my actually hold today. And, it shows you've looked at the otherside and shown how it distorts and proves your point.

Is it a boring book? Yes. But in a world we live in where someone has heard of Stalin, and murder and Great Purges and Communism iz bad manz, then you have to debunk it using Communist-sources, logical reasoning and even anti-communist sources. I suppose you won' shudder and gasp at J. Arch Getty, even though the Black Book cites him?

And most of my post couldn't made it bu it was directed at the Great Purges are very complicated and not headed by one man, but a notorious amount of factions, which
Simon De montifore notes in court of the Red Tsar, and there were many characters involved in it.

Citing it was the epitome of murder can be extreme false, at least when comparing it to Hitler. In that, for example, more people escaped or were released in the GULAG system than actually killed by the conditions or by bullets.

[Leftsolidarity]

At left - You do realize that in the Black Book, it pretty much debunks the myth of the GULAG systems prisoners were not all 'political prisoners' and each eyar 20-30% of the prisoner populations left the GULAG for their term was up? And 57% of the sentences ended in early 1940. This, of course, goes to the article by J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittensporn, and Victor N. Zemskov titled Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the pre-War Years: A first approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence.

The fact remains that this presents two things.

That you've read the attacks and accusations of your detractors, analyzed them and showed that they actually debunk the myths some people my actually hold today. And, it shows you've looked at the otherside and shown how it distorts and proves your point.

Is it a boring book? Yes. But in a world we live in where someone has heard of Stalin, and murder and Great Purges and Communism iz bad manz, then you have to debunk it using Communist-sources, logical reasoning and even anti-communist sources. I suppose you won' shudder and gasp at J. Arch Getty, even though the Black Book cites him?

And most of my post couldn't made it bu it was directed at the Great Purges are very complicated and not headed by one man, but a notorious amount of factions, which
Simon De montifore notes in court of the Red Tsar, and there were many characters involved in it.

Citing it was the epitome of murder can be extreme false, at least when comparing it to Hitler. In that, for example, more people escaped or were released in the GULAG system than actually killed by the conditions or by bullets.

Do I read a Bible before I can say I don't believe it and don't give a shit about anything that uses it as a source? No, because I know it's bullshit.

[Raskolnikov]

Do I read a Bible before I can say I don't believe it and don't give a shit about anything that uses it as a source?

You should. Why? Because then you can see what it says, and maybe even use it in your own favor.

Ignoring something and then just citing it off as "I don't need to read it because I know it's bullshit!" can be seen as a arrogant and assumption-filled statement.

How do you know it's bullshit? If I was a skeptical guy who wasn't communist, how would I believe you? If you haven't read it, and I haven't read it, than why should I believe someone who hasn't read it and holds to a standard for it's apparent nature of skewing information or being in complete opposition against you?

Hell, you don't have to read it all. All that'd be required is read sections, and if it ever comes up in a discussion, or in class, or wherever, you can come in and bring in a new perspective.

Besides, the Old Testament is incredibly boring and has many contradictions within consecutive pages.

The New Testament is a tad bit fun, but reading it and learning the history and dwelling in it - now you can assert yourself and ask real questions.

Both atheistic as well as towards a "If Jesus supported the poor, cared about the condition, and constantly preached this Good News which was about Love and Peace - why does the message in this church, or why do you say this in apparent opposition to this?"

Maybe even more fun questions like - why do you believe in the Trinity when the Bible not only gives no mention to the nature of it, in a literal description, but the only real identity of the Trinity comes from the Ecumenical Councils headed by the Roman Emperors and Bishops of their day? Aka, if the Trinity was thought up by man and was written as doctrine, why is it you teach it as if God told you there was a Trinity with him, the Holy Spirit and Jesus when there is no explicit mention?

You can't bring up these questions, for fun or serious reasons, without going into it a bit.

[Leftsolidarity]

You should. Why? Because then you can see what it says, and maybe even use it in your own favor.


I simply don't give a shit.



Ignoring something and then just citing it off as "I don't need to read it because I know it's bullshit!" can be seen as a arrogant and assumption-filled statement.



It could be seen that way. I'm right, though.



How do you know it's bullshit? If I was a skeptical guy who wasn't communist, how would I believe you? If you haven't read it, and I haven't read it, than why should I believe someone who hasn't read it and holds to a standard for it's apparent nature of skewing information or being in complete opposition against you?



Because I don't believe in talking burning bushes just like I don't think Stalin ate infants with his bear hands.

There's a lot of things out there that counter that book. I thought it was common knowledge that that book is full of shit.

[Raskolnikov]

I simply don't give a shit.

It's called connecting with the apparent crowd and having people connect with you either due to knowledge, being a friend and called connectin with the masses.


It could be seen that way. I'm right, though.

It just so happens you're right.

But alienating allies and people who could damn well join you, regardless of religious statements on helping the poor and oppression, is pretty damn wrong.


Because I don't believe in talking burning bushes just like I don't think Stalin ate infants with his bear hands.

And then I could go into other skeptical questions such as "Well, yes, that was a famous part of the Old Testament, the Burning Bush. But it could be an allegory to an epiphany, or even an allegory to someone telling him what was going down. And if you haven't read it, why do you criticize it to the extend of bullshitdom when you go on the basis of stories that could be interpreted in a variety of ways, leaving no room for toleration or openness while still being firm?"


I thought it was common knowledge that that book is full of shit.

Not full of shit. I'd suppose the whole peace, love, against rich, and for poor messages in the New Test. aren't shitty.

But to the everyday atheist on the internet or anti-theist?

Yes.

Common knowledge to those whom believe in it, hold dearly to it, or who firmly believe in the love and peace message?

I'd guess not.

[Leftsolidarity]

This is dumb. We're talking about the black book of communism :lol:

[Zostrianos]

He does have a point. The Black Book is notoriously inaccurate

[Raskolnikov]

It is in some respects, and you point those out.

But it's also, hilariously, sometimes more explanatory of Soviet policies as well as clearing up some myths.

It's a mixed result. But has boring language. It's "difficult" to even try to get into reading it.