Views of Stalin as a person and his actions?

[Always Curious J]

Couldn't really find a thread with clear answers so if there is one feel free to link me. But, anyways, what are do you think of him? I personally think while he had vision and did some (depending who I ask) good things for the USSR, he was in general too far far far authoritative and completely abused his power. Power I don't think he, or anyone else for that matter, deserves. I find his gulags and ridiculous "security" (oppression) measures absolutely unacceptable. I also think he gives a generally bad name to communism and socialism alike. But I'm no expert, so let me know what you think!

Edit: Again! If you have answered his before or this has been discussed just link me to that thread if you dont mind!

[evermilion]

Oh boy! This thread again!

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Stalin, at least in the beginning, like all of the other bolshevicks have nothing but good intentions. Hell, up until his rise to power he was considered a moderate in the Party.

But as Lenin himself predicted in his testament, Stalin just couldn't handle the amount of power he was given. Once he had hit, it basically drove him a little nutty. The guy was already rather paranoid, and once he became the top dawg in the Party, he basically knew that others would want him dead. The terror of his possible assassination made his behavior more and more abnormal. The results was that the blood of innocents was shed in order to sate his paranoia.

[Yuppie Grinder]

OP, this thread is entirely not necessary.

[Always Curious J]

OP, this thread is entirely not necessary.

My bad. Any way to delete it? Maybe I'm just tired and am missing it but I can't seem to find how to delete it!

[Per Levy]

My bad. Any way to delete it? Maybe I'm just tired and am missing it but I can't seem to find how to delete it!

you cant delete it, but you can ask a mod to close it. the point why people dont like these threads is because they have been done to death and nothing good ever comes out of these threads ever. just go to the history subsection and search for stalin threads you will find plenty there. but hey if you want to start a interesting thread, start a thread about the kronstadt rebellion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My bad. Any way to delete it? Maybe I'm just tired and am missing it but I can't seem to find how to delete it!I can delete it if you want, but I think people are being overly harsh for a Learning thread. Why don't comrades post links to another thread on this if you don't want to re-hash rather than just being dismissive to a legitimate question many people have when they begin thinking about these sorts of politics?

Anyway, my view - as someone who is anti-Stalinist - is that Stalin the person was secondary to what happened in Russia. I'm only against Stalin as far as what he represents and the toll that that has taken.

Certaintly induvidual quirks or personalities can and do have a subjective impact on developments (particualrly when that induvidual is in an important or powerful position) but they are no fundamental to what happened in my opinion. The Revolution was failing in Russia and in the conditions at that time, namely that socialism was not possible but the structures created by the revolution remained, there was a section in the population that had an interest in maintaining that structure but directing it towards building up a national economy. Stalin eventually came to represent that group and repression of both the people who still held onto the revolutionary ideas and general repression of the population to allow for a ramping up of exploitation and re-shaping the economy from above were necissary for their tasks. If it wasn't socialism, then someone would have taken a similar position as Stalin and there probably would have more or less been a similar level of repression.

[Always Curious J]

you cant delete it, but you can ask a mod to close it. the point why people dont like these threads is because they have been done to death and nothing good ever comes out of these threads ever. just go to the history subsection and search for stalin threads you will find plenty there. but hey if you want to start a interesting thread, start a thread about the kronstadt rebellion.

Ok makes sense. Would you recommend asking a mod to delete it or should I just not make the same mistake again?

[Always Curious J]

I can delete it if you want, but I think people are being overly harsh for a Learning thread. Why don't comrades post links to another thread on this if you don't want to re-hash rather than just being dismissive to a legitimate question many people have when they begin thinking about these sorts of politics?

Anyway, my view - as someone who is anti-Stalinist - is that Stalin the person was secondary to what happened in Russia. I'm only against Stalin as far as what he represents and the toll that that has taken.

Certaintly induvidual quirks or personalities can and do have a subjective impact on developments (particualrly when that induvidual is in an important or powerful position) but they are no fundamental to what happened in my opinion. The Revolution was failing in Russia and in the conditions at that time, namely that socialism was not possible but the structures created by the revolution remained, there was a section in the population that had an interest in maintaining that structure but directing it towards building up a national economy. Stalin eventually came to represent that group and repression of both the people who still held onto the revolutionary ideas and general repression of the population to allow for a ramping up of exploitation and re-shaping the economy from above were necissary for their tasks. If it wasn't socialism, then someone would have taken a similar position as Stalin and there probably would have more or less been a similar level of repression.
Yeah I had my suspicions it would have been discussed but I hoped to maybe get some links and/or spark some new discussion. And as for your view on him, it makes sense. Just for clarity you are at least partly saying that he was simply a product of the times in Russia? While socialism had failed to take hold many still wanted the social and political structure created from the revolution correct?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

you cant delete it, but you can ask a mod to close it. the point why people dont like these threads is because they have been done to death and nothing good ever comes out of these threads ever. just go to the history subsection and search for stalin threads you will find plenty there. but hey if you want to start a interesting thread, start a thread about the kronstadt rebellion.

I just spilled a glass of milk all over my couch laughing so hard when I read this. You, sir, deserve a round of applause.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just for clarity you are at least partly saying that he was simply a product of the times in Russia? While socialism had failed to take hold many still wanted the social and political structure created from the revolution correct?

I guess that would be accurate - although I don't think what he represents or what the rulers did at that point of time were necissarily the inevitable or only way things could have gone. But with the revolution isolated and on top of that massive disruptions to a society that had gone through WWI, then invasion by anti-revolutionary countries, civil-war, famine, and a big loss of production and territory options were limited. Within that decreasing range of possibility, the path that eventually emerged was to use the power of the national state to build up the economy which meant reorganizing things and increasing exploitation in order to "catch up" to antagonistic western countries.

So in short I guess if the times in Russia are oriented toward building "socialism in one country" then Stalin and the crimes he represents are a product of that. Not only was worker's power thrown under the bus to rapidly industrialize, but then international revolution when it became a possibility again later was also thrown under the bus time and time again as the needs of Russia's "national interests" were more important than supporting Spainish anarchists and marxists in their revolution, supporting worker's uprisings in France in 68, and so on.


I just spilled a glass of milk all over my couch laughing so hard when I read this. You, sir, deserve a round of applause.Drinking milk? Very petty-bourgois, comrade [/disapproving look].

:lol:

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Man makes history, but not under the conditions of his choosing. So Stalin was able to achieve and hold power for three decades not simply because of personal characteristics, but because of the situation in the USSR and the rest of the world, as comrade Higgins has pointed out. But Stalin absolutely had an impact. Obviously, killing off most of the central cadre of the Russian Revolution had an impact. My personal belief is that the man was a very successful sociopath. To mercilessly murder hundreds/thousands of your comrades to remain in power is not something that most people are capable of. Not to mention the families of those comrades. Stalin's biggest political crime was the pasting of nationalism over the internationalism of Marx, Engels, Lenin (and Trotsky). That led to many critical betrayals of the international revolution. Also, reintroducing the Menshevik strategy of two-stage revolution was a major bad. There have been many discussions about Stalin on this forum. And there are some vociferous defenders of Papa Joe on RevLeft. Go figure.

[Brutus]

Ha. Why are some of you people presenting Stalin as a psychopath that was attempting to rack up a big kill count? Stalin's policies, (or more the party's policies as Stalin wasnt some sort of evil dictator that had absolute power), were attempts to increase the living standards of the USSR. Sure, there were mistakes, but these people weren't infailable gods.

As for Trotsky's statement that he would have got the Kulaks into collective farms peacefully, opposed to what happened under Stalin, I must ask: is this man delusional?

[Per Levy]

Ok makes sense. Would you recommend asking a mod to delete it or should I just not make the same mistake again?

hey dont worry, and ask away, this is the learning thread so anything you wish to discuss any topic you want to know something about just ask. dont get discouraged by mine or other posts here. only understand that many stalin/trotsky threads end rather bad and arnt very informative. still if you have questions about any of the dead russians or other people or whatever ask away.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Ha. Why are some of you people presenting Stalin as a psychopath that was attempting to rack up a big kill count? Stalin's policies, (or more the party's policies as Stalin wasnt some sort of evil dictator that had absolute power), were attempts to increase the living standards of the USSR. Sure, there were mistakes, but these people weren't infailable gods.

As for Trotsky's statement that he would have got the Kulaks into collective farms peacefully, opposed to what happened under Stalin, I must ask: is this man delusional?
Where does Trotsky say that he could have gotten the Kulaks into collective farms peacefully? I have never heard that one before. What I would point out is that the extreme brutality of the collectivization set back Soviet agriculture by about thirty years - that is a fact.

I don't think Stalin was necessarily trying to kill as many people as possible (although he was very competent in that regard), I think he was hell bent on maintaining his personal power at any cost. He didn't just kill oppositionists, he killed people that were potential oppositionists. And their families. And everyone they ever spoke with. He was extremely thorough and proactive.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Where does Trotsky say that he could have gotten the Kulaks into collective farms peacefully? I have never heard that one before. What I would point out is that the extreme brutality of the collectivization set back Soviet agriculture by about thirty years - that is a fact.

I don't think Stalin was necessarily trying to kill as many people as possible (although he was very competent in that regard), I think he was hell bent on maintaining his personal power at any cost. He didn't just kill oppositionists, he killed people that were potential oppositionists. And their families. And everyone they ever spoke with. He was extremely thorough and proactive.

Pardon? Stalin's archives show that his most annotated work was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. Trotsky's main beef with Stalin was that he wasn't brutal enough to the peasants. Trotsky never says anything against Stalin's Terror because the Terror was his idea, he only refers to Stalinism as a "Soviet Thermidor" implying that Stalin's terror didn't go far enough and was too conservative, rather than excessive.

[Althusser]

As for Trotsky's statement that he would have got the Kulaks into collective farms peacefully, opposed to what happened under Stalin, I must ask: is this man delusional?


Stalin's archives show that his most annotated work was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. Trotsky's main beef with Stalin was that he wasn't brutal enough to the peasants.

This blog post on M-L-M Mayhem partially about the peasant question is awesome.
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/05/trotsky-stalin-mimesis.html


...Take, for example, the theoretical debate that led to Trotsky's exile. Whereas Trotsky wanted more rapid industrialization and to escalate class struggle against the kulak (wealthy peasant) class in the countryside, Stalin argued for a slower and more measured approach––he was backed in this by Bukharin who probably wanted and even slower and more measured approach in peasant policies. Thus, Trotsky's belief that the kulak class was "a vulture class" of "undeniable and irreconcilable enemies" (Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, 106) was what placed him at odds with the Comintern and led to his exile. What is interesting about this, however, is that Stalin would later reverse his position on the peasant question and adopt the line argued by Trotsky. (In fact, and this hilariously supports my claim about mimetic rivalry, it is interesting to note that one of Stalin's most read books, with the most underlined passages and marginalia, was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism.)...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I love JMP, thanks for linking that post. While obviously I condemn the exile of Trotsky and the extreme aspects of the Great Purge, I don't have any illusions of Trotsky being anything other than a "Too-Stalin-for-Stalinist"

[Bostana]

I just spilled a glass of milk all over my couch laughing so hard when I read this. You, sir, deserve a round of applause.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24635268.jpg
:D

I also think he gives a generally bad name to communism and socialism alike. But I'm no expert, so let me know what you think!

I agree comrade.

Stalin was a corrupt brutal dictator who, when he saw his opportunity, took power and killed all who opposed him. He was more bent on becoming a world power than he was in achieving Communism. So he started counter revolutionary programs and political actions, such as socialism in one country. He dirtied up the name of communism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Ha. Why are some of you people presenting Stalin as a psychopath that was attempting to rack up a big kill count? Stalin's policies, (or more the party's policies as Stalin wasnt some sort of evil dictator that had absolute power), were attempts to increase the living standards of the USSR. Sure, there were mistakes, but these people weren't infailable gods.

As for Trotsky's statement that he would have got the Kulaks into collective farms peacefully, opposed to what happened under Stalin, I must ask: is this man delusional?

Intentions don't count for shit. Results and class character do.

[Brutus]

Intentions don't count for shit. Results and class character do.

And the USSR was collectivised and industrialised- results

[Professional Revolution]

And the USSR was collectivised and industrialised- results

This is not quite true, though. Had collectivization began earlier (immediately following the NEP, no exceptions), the process would have been much more successful. Please consult Trotsky on the matter.

[Old Bolshie]

Stalin's actions were result of the centralization process that USSR went through during the late 20's and throughout the 30's alongside the industrialization process. This centralization was born of the necessity to collectivize and industrialize rapidly the country which deepened it through the decade.

The centralization led to the return of autocracy in Russia which was doomed to occur from the moment the tzarist state machine wasn't dismantled as it should have been after the revolution and the Communist Party became more and more centralized around the Secretary General. The conjugation of these 2 factors allowed one man to have absolute power over the country as the party merged with the state once the Bolsheviks consolidated their power. Also allowed one man to have absolute control over the secret policy and to use it against his opponents as he did it.

[BAMslam15]

I believe that communism has little to do with world domination (that's what fascists want) and I think that's Marx didn't want at all; Stalin made it his aim to spread his iron fist (haha punny) and follow his own agenda, even if that meant killing or "disappearing" anyone who stood in his way, even his own close confidants. If he didn't go mad with power, he could've been seen in a better light ;)1

[Theophys]

Stalin did what he had to do. He attempted to bring forth national unity. Yes, national unity of a Socialist nation is necessary when faced with opposition from Capitalist countries abroad and reactionaries/counter-revolutionaries from within.

He shouldn't have killed the opposing Communists but instead left them, but I can understand the arguments and divisions threatening the unity of action of the Communist Party. The criticism and discussions there ended up turning into an American presidency campaign full of bashing rather than constructive reasoning, debate, and criticism.

The gulags were necessary and not as "evil" as people make them out to be. See this book of statistics which you would find surprising from the Soviet archives:
-edit: can't post links yet, but google ""Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence" by J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn, and Viktor N. Zemskov" and I promise you will find it interesting and eye opening.-

I believe that Stalin found that centralization around him and his sympathizers to be easier in terms of progress and advancement as opposed to being blocked, opposed, and stalled by many opponents within the Party and outside of it. As Marx and Engels said, what would happen when two or more contradictory, irreconcilable, and antagonistic elements came into constant contact with each other? Their analysis was based on society; they came up with class conflict.

Oh and no, I'm not a Stalinist nor do I really give two shits about Trotsky or Stalin, their conflicts, or their two theories.

[Old Bolshie]

but I can understand the arguments and divisions threatening the unity of action of the Communist Party.

Lenin faced bigger opposition than Stalin in a much troubled time and he didn't kill his opponents but even integrated them in the CC of the party. To preserve unity in the party you have democratic centralism.


The gulags were necessary and not as "evil" as people make them out to be.

Why they were necessary?


I believe that Stalin found that centralization around him and his sympathizers to be easier in terms of progress and advancement as opposed to being blocked, opposed, and stalled by many opponents within the Party and outside of it.

He certainly did specially during the industrialization process. Too bad that he had to kill literally the party and the revolution in order to do so.

[Theophys]

Lenin faced bigger opposition than Stalin in a much troubled time and he didn't kill his opponents but even integrated them in the CC of the party. To preserve unity in the party you have democratic centralism.

Actually, after the Right SRs and Mensheviks resigned they were denied entry only later to be kidnapped and killed. If there is anything to learn from Lenin's case it is that opposition hindered him to such an extent that they had to sign the "second" Brest-Litovsk treaty which costed much, much more than what had been signed had Trotsky and Co. not screwed things up. Lenin faced a big opposition, but so did Stalin until the Great Purge. I'd say that was his breaking point after tensions got high. Lenin was a highly influential and respected man within the Bolshevik Party, any opposition he faced was generally quite fearful of him and respecting. After Lenin died, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and Stalin fought each other with no one to stop them (such as Lenin) and the opposition and conflicts there were much, much more fierce than those that existed under Lenin as there is no unifying figure or figure of authority here. There were four opposing individuals that could not be reconciled unless one of them wins over the rest.


Why they were necessary?

You can never let destructive opposition roam freely spreading bourgeois or anti-Communist propaganda to destroy a Soviet Socialist nation. Those held in the Gulags ranged from petty criminals to mass murderers and counter-revolutionaries. The last thing I'd like to see, again, is a political scenario as in the case of the US with its anarchy of free speech that only hinders rather than progresses.


He certainly did specially during the industrialization process. Too bad that he had to kill literally the party and the revolution in order to do so.

I'd argue that he did not "literally" kill the party nor the revolution and that the "party" was not killed nor was the "revolution". What happened was that he strayed from the revolutionary goals with the same party but with different individuals more favorable to him. The party remained, the revolution was already a thing of the past that ended. No, the revolution was not a process that continued under Stalin, that process ended when the Communist Party asserted its position and power and won the revolution.

[Lucretia]

Pardon? Stalin's archives show that his most annotated work was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. Trotsky's main beef with Stalin was that he wasn't brutal enough to the peasants. Trotsky never says anything against Stalin's Terror because the Terror was his idea, he only refers to Stalinism as a "Soviet Thermidor" implying that Stalin's terror didn't go far enough and was too conservative, rather than excessive.

Really? I must have missed this from Trotsky. Do you mind providing me a reference to where Trotsky criticizes Stalin for not being brutal enough in any context?

[Old Bolshie]

Actually, after the Right SRs and Mensheviks resigned they were denied entry only later to be kidnapped and killed.

You were talking about the Communist Party and not other parties. Right SRs and Mensheviks supported the Whites during the Civil War. Nothing strange about being kidnapped and killed even if this wasn't the case of the majority of them. Many Mensheviks joined the Bolsheviks.




If there is anything to learn from Lenin's case it is that opposition hindered him to such an extent that they had to sign the "second" Brest-Litovsk treaty which costed much, much more than what had been signed had Trotsky and Co. not screwed things up.

They signed it after a narrowed democratic approval by the CC of the party.



Lenin faced a big opposition, but so did Stalin until the Great Purge. I'd say that was his breaking point after tensions got high. Lenin was a highly influential and respected man within the Bolshevik Party, any opposition he faced was generally quite fearful of him and respecting. After Lenin died, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky, and Stalin fought each other with no one to stop them (such as Lenin) and the opposition and conflicts there were much, much more fierce than those that existed under Lenin as there is no unifying figure or figure of authority here. There were four opposing individuals that could not be reconciled unless one of them wins over the rest.

Lenin was not so consensual or unifying as you think and proving this is all the opposition that he faced. And respected? He never held any political position which allowed him to dictate things. He was always submitted to the CC and the Congress. He could have been that authoritative figure but he never was. Lenin was never above the party unlike Stalin.



You can never let destructive opposition roam freely spreading bourgeois or anti-Communist propaganda to destroy a Soviet Socialist nation. Those held in the Gulags ranged from petty criminals to mass murderers and counter-revolutionaries. The last thing I'd like to see, again, is a political scenario as in the case of the US with its anarchy of free speech that only hinders rather than progresses.

That's why you had GPU and censorship in USSR which were enough before Stalin. The problem with Gulags is that they served to held communists and not anti-communists.



I'd argue that he did not "literally" kill the party nor the revolution and that the "party" was not killed nor was the "revolution". What happened was that he strayed from the revolutionary goals with the same party but with different individuals more favorable to him. The party remained, the revolution was already a thing of the past that ended. No, the revolution was not a process that continued under Stalin, that process ended when the Communist Party asserted its position and power and won the revolution.

He killed the Old Bolsheviks with few exceptions and thousands of members of the party so he kill literally the party. By killing the party, restoring autocracy in Russia and implementing Socialism in One Country he killed the revolution. Revolution didn't end in 1917. It lasted until the USSR gave up from spreading the revolution when Stalin emerged.

[Theophys]

You were talking about the Communist Party and not other parties. Right SRs and Mensheviks supported the Whites during the Civil War. Nothing strange about being kidnapped and killed even if this wasn't the case of the majority of them. Many Mensheviks joined the Bolsheviks.

The Communist Party underwent a similar degeneration as that of the SR party, the RSDLP, and so on. The party was essentially turned into a factionalized party of parties, the Right SRs were part of the SRs, the Mensheviks were part of the RSDLP, and the Communist Party was divided into the Workers' Opposition, Leftists, Rightists, Centrists, and so on all vying for power and control with constant conflicts taking place. The opposition Lenin faced led him to ban any permanent factions within the party in favor of very temporary "factions" that would take place directly before elections and decision-making in order to organize the multiple sides of a debate. This was under control for a certain time until Lenin passed away at which point bitter power struggles took place without a means of mediation. Lenin did not face the same opposition as Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc. Lenin by his nature was popular and a figure of unity, once that was lost there was no way holding anyone back. Trotsky bashed Stalin, Stalin sided with Kamenev and Zinoviev forming the troika, none of that could have ended well nor was any of it comparable to what Lenin faced in opposition.


They signed it after a narrowed democratic approval by the CC of the party.

Which was after the initial proposal that was rejected which led to the Soviets losing a lot of men, territory, and battles forcing them to concede more land and the Germans imposing more conditions in the later passed treaty.


Lenin was not so consensual or unifying as you think and proving this is all the opposition that he faced. And respected? He never held any political position which allowed him to dictate things. He was always submitted to the CC and the Congress. He could have been that authoritative figure but he never was. Lenin was never above the party unlike Stalin.

Actually the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (second one) passed purely because Lenin threatened to resign. Lenin was actually very popular, influential, and respected within the Bolshevik Party as a founder, figurehead, main theorist, and so on. Respect has little to do with political position, he could be without such a position and still be respected. Dictating things was not the argument in any way, shape, or form. He was submitted to the CC and Congress and yet that does not by any means deny that his arguments, influence, and so on had a large effect on many within the party, to deny this very fact is to deny reality. There is a very good reason why Lenin was glorified after his death, why a new tendency was created after him, etc. and that certainly was not because he was nothing but a mere sidelined issue or an ordinary individual within the party and state. Lenin was an authoritative figure without the position, he was a de facto leader much as found in the case of any social grouping with influential individuals becoming de facto leaders without actually being so by official mandate or consent.


That's why you had GPU and censorship in USSR which were enough before Stalin. The problem with Gulags is that they served to held communists and not anti-communists.

Are you seriously attempting to claim that the Gulags held Communists rather than anti-Communists? The daftness here astounds me. This is a self-evident truth that anti-Communists were held in the Gulags rather than Communists although there could have very well been actual Communists held there. Nevertheless, if someone were to call himself a Communist, he need not even be so especially after the Bolsheviks gained power. There was a very good reason why Lenin put forward the party purges that filtered and expelled millions after the Bolsheviks came to power, it is because of their new position that many flocked to them for the sake of reaping the benefits. Lenin referred to them by many names such as opportunists for instance. The GPU and censorship, clearly, were not enough to deal with the aftermath of the NEP that led to the creation of Capitalist elements within that Socialist society such as the NEPmen, Kulaks, and so on. Such elements had to be dealt with differently.


He killed the Old Bolsheviks with few exceptions and thousands of members of the party so he kill literally the party. By killing the party, restoring autocracy in Russia and implementing Socialism in One Country he killed the revolution. Revolution didn't end in 1917. It lasted until the USSR gave up from spreading the revolution when Stalin emerged.

Oh please, spare me. He did not kill the Old Bolsheviks as many of them continued under Stalin. I remember reading on this very issue with a list of names of "Old Bolsheviks" remaining with Stalin. The "Old Bolsheviks" is a very vague term, do you refer to those before the October Revolution or the more "opportunists", as Lenin called them, that came after the October Revolution? A party is not killed by killing some of its members, a party is killed when it dies. This is very much like the example of the human body and the regeneration of the cells. Restoring autocracy? Are you seriously forgetting the actions of the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution and around the Civil War even under Lenin? Are you forgetting who wrote the excellent (I mean this seriously) book "Terrorism and Communism" as a reply to Kautsky on the utmost necessity of revolutionary violence? Are you forgetting the suppression of the Kronstadt rebels? The Makhnovists? The Soviet government was always autocratic, and that is exactly why it existed, not because of its liberal parliamentary bourgeois perversion but because of its revolutionary and authoritarian character.

I also never got Socialism in One Country and the issues surrounding it. It was a necessity as the revolutions in other countries failed and did not come to fruition. The USSR could never stand on the side hands folded, they had to build their society, defend their society, and send aid to other countries in hopes of revolution. As Trotsky explained in "Terrorism and Communism" when justifying the Brest-Litovsk Treaty to Kautsky, it was a historical necessity to protect, defend, and ensure the continued existence of the first ever proper proletarian revolution that actually got past the revolution at whatever cost or else they would never be forgiven.

The revolution, despite all that rhetoric about the continuation of a revolution, ended after 1917, specifically after the Civil War with the proper victory of the Bolsheviks above all others. It is only when the revolutionaries assume power and are capable of securing it that a revolution is won and complete. No, do not come up with that nonsensical bullshit about "Da revolution be da process until world revolution and unicorn und fairies!!!" A revolution is a revolution, it starts with a physical struggle for power by two or more sides and ends with the victory of one side over another.

[Old Bolshie]

The Communist Party underwent a similar degeneration as that of the SR party, the RSDLP, and so on. The party was essentially turned into a factionalized party of parties, the Right SRs were part of the SRs, the Mensheviks were part of the RSDLP, and the Communist Party was divided into the Workers' Opposition, Leftists, Rightists, Centrists, and so on all vying for power and control with constant conflicts taking place. The opposition Lenin faced led him to ban any permanent factions within the party in favor of very temporary "factions" that would take place directly before elections and decision-making in order to organize the multiple sides of a debate. This was under control for a certain time until Lenin passed away at which point bitter power struggles took place without a means of mediation. Lenin did not face the same opposition as Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc. Lenin by his nature was popular and a figure of unity, once that was lost there was no way holding anyone back. Trotsky bashed Stalin, Stalin sided with Kamenev and Zinoviev forming the troika, none of that could have ended well nor was any of it comparable to what Lenin faced in opposition.

Why is not comparable? As you correctly pointed out the Bolshevik Party had factions against Lenin. He didn't purged or killed them and instead brought the leaders of factions into the Central Committee of the party. If Stalin wanted to be the leader of the party he should have done it within the framework of Democratic Centralism principles which he completely perverted.



Which was after the initial proposal that was rejected which led to the Soviets losing a lot of men, territory, and battles forcing them to concede more land and the Germans imposing more conditions in the later passed treaty.

Some times the best decision isn't take. That's a risk that democratic organizations must have it. Some people in the CC (namely the Left Communists) believed that it was possible to wage a revolutionary war against the Central Powers. Others thought that the conditions of the Treaty were too harsh for Russia.

But worst is having an undemocratic organization taking bad decisions.


Actually the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (second one) passed purely because Lenin threatened to resign. Lenin was actually very popular, influential, and respected within the Bolshevik Party as a founder, figurehead, main theorist, and so on. Respect has little to do with political position, he could be without such a position and still be respected. Dictating things was not the argument in any way, shape, or form. He was submitted to the CC and Congress and yet that does not by any means deny that his arguments, influence, and so on had a large effect on many within the party, to deny this very fact is to deny reality.
There is a very good reason why Lenin was glorified after his death, why a new tendency was created after him, etc. and that certainly was not because he was nothing but a mere sidelined issue or an ordinary individual within the party and state. Lenin was an authoritative figure without the position, he was a de facto leader much as found in the case of any social grouping with influential individuals becoming de facto leaders without actually being so by official mandate or consent.

I never denied it and I even said "He could have been that authoritative figure and never was". My point is that Lenin never positioned himself above the party unlike Stalin. If Lenin could persuade others through his reputation and respect that his merit pretty much like any other political leader who rises to the condition of leader through his charisma and oratory. The issue here is that it wasn't the case of Stalin who used precisely his political position to be impose his leadership which the majority of the party didn't want.


Are you seriously attempting to claim that the Gulags held Communists rather than anti-Communists? The daftness here astounds me. This is a self-evident truth that anti-Communists were held in the Gulags rather than Communists although there could have very well been actual Communists held there. Nevertheless, if someone were to call himself a Communist, he need not even be so especially after the Bolsheviks gained power. There was a very good reason why Lenin put forward the party purges that filtered and expelled millions after the Bolsheviks came to power, it is because of their new position that many flocked to them for the sake of reaping the benefits. Lenin referred to them by many names such as opportunists for instance. The GPU and censorship, clearly, were not enough to deal with the aftermath of the NEP that led to the creation of Capitalist elements within that Socialist society such as the NEPmen, Kulaks, and so on. Such elements had to be dealt with differently.


I'm sure now that you obviously don't know too much about this. Lenin purge was directed towards opportunists and careerists (people who had joined the party after the revolution) while Stalin's purge was conducted against Bolsheviks who were members of the party since its foundation. People who were part of the CC of the party when the revolution broke out.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/cc-1917.jpg




Oh please, spare me. He did not kill the Old Bolsheviks as many of them continued under Stalin. I remember reading on this very issue with a list of names of "Old Bolsheviks" remaining with Stalin. The "Old Bolsheviks" is a very vague term, do you refer to those before the October Revolution or the more "opportunists", as Lenin called them, that came after the October Revolution?

No I'm referring before the revolution. Look above.


A party is not killed by killing some of its members, a party is killed when it dies. This is very much like the example of the human body and the regeneration of the cells.

Some? Don't make me laugh. Do you ever heard about the Congress of the Condemned? The party is killed when you kill its old elements and turn it into something totally different than it was in the past.


Restoring autocracy? Are you seriously forgetting the actions of the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution and around the Civil War even under Lenin? Are you forgetting who wrote the excellent (I mean this seriously) book "Terrorism and Communism" as a reply to Kautsky on the utmost necessity of revolutionary violence? Are you forgetting the suppression of the Kronstadt rebels? The Makhnovists? The Soviet government was always autocratic, and that is exactly why it existed, not because of its liberal parliamentary bourgeois perversion but because of its revolutionary and authoritarian character.

Since when Russia turned into a single man dictatorship under Lenin's rule? Because that's what it means autocracy if you don't know...

And Stalin's period was anything but a revolutionary one. The Kronstadt rebellion and the Makhnovists occurred during the Civil War if you don't remember.


I also never got Socialism in One Country and the issues surrounding it. It was a necessity as the revolutions in other countries failed and did not come to fruition. The USSR could never stand on the side hands folded, they had to build their society, defend their society, and send aid to other countries in hopes of revolution. As Trotsky explained in "Terrorism and Communism" when justifying the Brest-Litovsk Treaty to Kautsky, it was a historical necessity to protect, defend, and ensure the continued existence of the first ever proper proletarian revolution that actually got past the revolution at whatever cost or else they would never be forgiven.

USSR under Lenin remained committed to spread the Revolution and it was only with Stalin's ascension that this goal was abandoned when he adopted the SIOC as state doctrine. You just need to check the history of the III International.


The revolution, despite all that rhetoric about the continuation of a revolution, ended after 1917, specifically after the Civil War with the proper victory of the Bolsheviks above all others. It is only when the revolutionaries assume power and are capable of securing it that a revolution is won and complete. No, do not come up with that nonsensical bullshit about "Da revolution be da process until world revolution and unicorn und fairies!!!" A revolution is a revolution, it starts with a physical struggle for power by two or more sides and ends with the victory of one side over another.

The revolution ends when the principles and achievements of the revolution are reverted and the old order returns. Autocracy, nationalism and conservantism returned in Russia with Stalin, not with Lenin.

[Theophys]

Why is not comparable? As you correctly pointed out the Bolshevik Party had factions against Lenin. He didn't purged or killed them and instead brought the leaders of factions into the Central Committee of the party. If Stalin wanted to be the leader of the party he should have done it within the framework of Democratic Centralism principles which he completely perverted.

He should have, but didn't. Seeing that he did so, he took it a "step further" and eliminated all opposition by force even though I do not agree with that, although as I had explained I can see why he would do it. Lenin's opposition, as previously explained, is nothing in comparison to the factional conflicts witnessed after Lenin's death. Such conditions gave rise to the use of force after bitter struggle between the competing factions.


Some times the best decision isn't take. That's a risk that democratic organizations must have it. Some people in the CC (namely the Left Communists) believed that it was possible to wage a revolutionary war against the Central Powers. Others thought that the conditions of the Treaty were too harsh for Russia.

But worst is having an undemocratic organization taking bad decisions.

Oh? And what's so good about democracy that you glorify it in such a manner? It was a democratic process that inhibited a "right" answer. An undemocratic organization can very well take bad decisions but that is generally due to false information and beliefs rather than majority decision-making and petty disagreements. Those that thought the conditions were too harsh made it even worse by refusing what they had already been presented. The slogan for the Bolsheviks was "Land, peace, and bread", they had to by definition struggle for peace, not the continuation of an imperialist war.


I never denied it and I even said "He could have been that authoritative figure and never was". My point is that Lenin never positioned himself above the party unlike Stalin. If Lenin could persuade others through his reputation and respect that his merit pretty much like any other political leader who rises to the condition of leader through his charisma and oratory. The issue here is that it wasn't the case of Stalin who used precisely his political position to be impose his leadership which the majority of the party didn't want.

Lenin did not position himself above the party and that is exactly why the initial Brest-Litovsk Treaty amongst other policies failed. Lenin apparently knew what had to be done, it was the other party members that kept standing in his way. Nevertheless, Stalin could never do the same. Stalin, Trotsky, and Co. did not have the reputation that Lenin had to use their word as "law", they had to earn all that respect and reputation. Earning that respect and reputation would have been impossible when the party is split into multiple sides all vying for power. Had the same conditions taken place in Lenin's case then he would have very well expelled them from the party, but not killed them. As I had already explained as well, Lenin and Co. already imposed a ban on factions within the party. Stalin did not face the same conditions that Lenin faced, Stalin, just as the others, resorted to extreme measures in order to assert their dominance over the others. Lenin did not need to do the same.


I'm sure now that you obviously don't know too much about this.

Oh trust me, I know.


Lenin purge was directed towards opportunists and careerists (people who had joined the party after the revolution)

Which I had stated myself.


while Stalin's purge was conducted against Bolsheviks who were members of the party since its foundation. People who were part of the CC of the party when the revolution broke out.

*facepalm*

Start reading:


From http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/mo-trial.html, "The Moscow Trial Was Fair", article two:

The most serious statements which have appeared in the Press, and the most misleading, are: (a) that Stalin now stands alone, having "murdered" all the "Bolshevik Old Guard"; (b) that the trial was a "frame-up" because the accused all confessed their guilt; and (c) that this trial detracts from the significance of the new Draft Constitution.

If we just examine the present leadership in the Bolshevik Party, and the positions held by the leading personalities, we find that practically all are Bolsheviks of over thirty years standing. For nearly twenty years, therefore, they worked with Lenin. Just consider these:

Kalinin, President of the U.S.S.R. since 1922, was originally a metal worker. He joined the Party in 1898 (even before it bore the name of "Bolshevik"), and has been a member of the Central Committee of the Party since 1919. Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, has been a member of the Party since 1906, was a member of the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee in 1919, and Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the years following 1920, and one of Lenin’s closest collaborators. Ordjonikidze, Commissar for Heavy Industry, has been a member of the Party since 1903, was elected to the Central Committee in 1912, and played an active part in the leadership of the Revolution in the Caucasus. Voroshilov, Commissar of Defence, was a worker who joined the Party in 1903, played an outstanding part in the Civil War, and was then elected to the Central Committee of the Party. Kaganovitch was a leather-goods worker, who joined the Party in 1911.

So that the youngest of these leaders had worked under Lenin’s leadership for at least ten years, and most of them for twenty years, and have now been thirty years in the Party. So it is fair to say that Stalin remains alone, and the "old guard" has been killed off? Ah, but it may be argued that only those now remain in power who were in minor positions when Lenin was alive.

So let us look at two individuals who, up to 1917, worked in close contact with Lenin all the time. People who had leading positions. Let us examine the records of these persons. In 1917, when the Party was preparing the armed uprising, the two intellectuals, Kamenev and Zinoviev, opposed this uprising in a meeting of the Central Committee. When defeated, they carried their opposition into the public Press---and gave away the Bolsheviks’ plans to the government. At that time Lenin wrote: "I should consider it disgraceful on my part if, on account of my former close relations with these former comrades, I were not to condemn them. I declare outright that I do not consider either of them comrades any longer and that I will fight with all my might, both in the Central Committee and at the Congress, to secure the expulsion of both of them from the Party. … Let Messrs. Zinoviev and Kamenev found their own party from the dozens of disoriented people. … The workers will not join such a party …"

So we find that two intellectuals, who were having "former close relations" with Lenin before October, 1917, and who are now hailed from "Daily Mail" to "Daily Herald" as the "Bolshevik Old Guard," were condemned by Lenin for their treachery at one of the most serious moments of the Revolution, and he tried to get them expelled from the Party. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks who are working in closest collaboration with Stalin to-day are working men, who have been in the Party for from 20 to 30 years, and who rose to power as a result of their activities in the Civil War, after Zinoviev and Kamenev had already discredited themselves.

And as for Trotsky, there is no claim that this man was with Lenin for years before the Revolution. Actually, he called Lenin the "leader of the reactionary wing of the Party" in 1903, and in 1917 he said that the "Bolsheviks had de-Bolshevised themselves" and that "Bolshevik sectarianism" was an "obstacle to unity." And to-day, in a recent interview with the "News Chronicle," he refers to the "new Conservatism" of the Soviet leadership---a direct repetition of his attack on Lenin as far back as 1903.

But even when inside the Party, between July, 1917---when it was clear that only the Bolsheviks could lead the masses to success---until his expulsion, Trotsky opposed Lenin, who was supported throughout by Stalin, on one issue after another. And in the leadership of the Red Army, for which Trotsky became famous, there were continual conflicts with the Party leadership and with Lenin and Stalin. But while Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representative of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin.

And when Lenin died, Trotsky buried all his old quarrels with Lenin. No longer did he refer to his earlier accusations that the Bolsheviks had been "bureaucratic" and "reactionary" under Lenin, but introduced his attacks now on the "Stalinist bureaucracy," accusing Stalin of breaking with the policy of Lenin.


No I'm referring before the revolution. Look above.
I keep seeing that image and it's getting ridiculous. Look above.


Some? Don't make me laugh. Do you ever heard about the Congress of the Condemned? The party is killed when you kill its old elements and turn it into something totally different than it was in the past.

Yes, some. You are already making me laugh with this ridiculous nonsense of yours. Nonsense, if your claim that a party is killed when its old elements are killed then by extension a party dies when its founders/old elements die, ergo even if they were not killed off, when they die the party is dead. That there simply shows the extent of your "logic". You seem to think that a party bases itself on the old individuals that were with the party before the revolution and that once they leave the party, die, or get killed then the party dies and we must, by extension also, scrap the entire project and call the system in place various names. If that isn't a perverted form of No True Scotsman fallacy then I do not know what is. Nevertheless, the "old elements" were not killed off, only a small minority of them were killed off and that took place in varying years and after many conflicts and expulsions. Oh and the Communist Party remained the same as it was in the past, it merely had people in favor of Stalin for one reason or another that turned him into a de facto leader.


Since when Russia turned into a single man dictatorship under Lenin's rule? Because that's what it means autocracy if you don't know...

Oh nice, you actually used autocratic to mean a single man dictatorship rather than a dictatorship of an entity such similar to the case of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Nice, you actually think Stalin was a dictator then. So much for giving you the benefit of a doubt. In that case, since when did the USSR ever turn into a single man dictatorship, even under Stalin? Never. The Politburo, the Soviets, etc. were all still very well functioning and elections were still existent. Stalin even, infamously, offered his resignation multiple times which were refused by the Politburo. That is the reason why I mentioned Lenin, that if you claim that Stalin was autocratic then Lenin would as a result also fall under such an assessment. Stalin did not have complete power in his own hands, there existed those that opposed him and a whole system of government other than him. Stalin was by no means autocratic.


And Stalin's period was anything but a revolutionary one. The Kronstadt rebellion and the Makhnovists occurred during the Civil War if you don't remember.

Did I say Stalin or the "Soviet government"? My claim was based on me thinking you used the term "autocratic" to mean the same as the "dictatorship" in the case of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I stated that the Soviet government had always been autocratic in that sense, a dictatorship of one class/party, revolutionary and authoritarian ever since its foundation. Now here you claim that the USSR during Stalin's period was "anything but a revolutionary one", you seem to forget what "revolutionary" means. "Revolutionary" is quite different from "revolution", people and entities (such as state in the case of the Soviet government) are "revolutionary" in the Communist sense if they support revolutions, Communist revolutionary movements, etc. so yes Stalin's period was still revolutionary. The Kronstadt and Makhnovist rebellions were during the Civil War, which is exactly why I spoke of the Soviet government as a whole and its history, not claiming that they ever took place under Stalin's period.




Abandoned? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you so ignorantly forget the numerous revolutions and revolutionary movements support by Stalin and Co.? Do you even know what Socialism in One Country is and what it entails? The USSR strengthened itself and aided revolutions wherever they took place. Socialism in One Country does not mean isolationism and the avoidance/opposition to world revolution. No, YOU need to check your own history. This kid seriously forgot Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, China (fuckups there), Spain (fuckups there), Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, and the support of numerous parties, revolutions, and so on. Hell even Eastern Europe was turned to Communism whether you like what happened or not they still spread Soviet Socialism to numerous other countries.

[quote]The revolution ends when the principles and achievements of the revolution are reverted and the old order returns. Autocracy, nationalism and conservantism returned in Russia with Stalin, not with Lenin.

Bullshit. More trivial superficial nonsense rather than analytical observation from you. The principles and achievements of the revolution being reverted? First of all, the principles were already done away with numerous times even under Lenin in exchange for pragmatism. Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about so I'll just mention the existence of a standing army which was opposed by Lenin in "The State and Revolution", the marginalization of the Soviets, the class alliances, the imposing of the NEP, etc. The old order returns? Are you fucking shitting me here? I challenge you to show me where the Tsar and his system returned. Now. But again, you are not capable of doing so as, thanks to your ignorant superficial "analysis", think that Tsarism and the Feudal system there were nothing but "autocracy, nationalism and conservatism" whilst completely ignoring any deep and proper analysis, context, etc. of those terms you used. For example, autocracy, before the Duma the Tsar was an autocrat capable of overruling everything and deciding on anything with no legislation/consent/opposition from anyone at any time. That was not the case under Stalin or any others. Nationalism? The difference between the nationalism of the old order and the nationalism of the USSR was that the former was a nationalism of reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, Monarchists, Capitalists, Feudalists, clergymen, and Tsarism whilst the latter was a nationalism of the workers, peasants, Socialists, Communists, and revolutionaries. The nationalism of the USSR was nothing more than pride in the achievement of the workers, peasants, Socialists, Communists, and revolutionaries. Conservatism? Bullshit. The conservatism of the Tsarist system was reactionary and backwards conservatism that relied on Monarchism, religion, anti-Communism, the enslavement of women, the attempted preservation of the Feudal system, opposition to progress, and so on. The conservatism of the Soviet (or Stalinist) system was progressive and progressive conservatism that was nothing more than the attempt to ensure that the present system remained as it was in opposition to the reformists and revisionists that would seek to change it. The supporters of the conservatism of the Soviet system was colloquially referred to as the "Communist hardliners", not the "Tsarist reactionaries".

Seriously, either start properly analyzing everything or keep wallowing in your superficial ridiculous Anarchist nonsense where you attack systems by words and labels rather than knowing that these words and labels completely differ from system to system and depend upon context, as I have shown you previously and above.

[Old Bolshie]

He should have, but didn't. Seeing that he did so, he took it a "step further" and eliminated all opposition by force even though I do not agree with that, although as I had explained I can see why he would do it. Lenin's opposition, as previously explained, is nothing in comparison to the factional conflicts witnessed after Lenin's death. Such conditions gave rise to the use of force after bitter struggle between the competing factions.

Yes it is comparable. It's about opposition within the party that we are talking about. Stalin and Lenin had two different approaches on how to deal with opposition. While Lenin allowed opposition within the party, Stalin purged and killed all the opposition to him. The democratic debate ended with Stalin.




Oh? And what's so good about democracy that you glorify it in such a manner? It was a democratic process that inhibited a "right" answer. An undemocratic organization can very well take bad decisions but that is generally due to false information and beliefs rather than majority decision-making and petty disagreements. Those that thought the conditions were too harsh made it even worse by refusing what they had already been presented. The slogan for the Bolsheviks was "Land, peace, and bread", they had to by definition struggle for peace, not the continuation of an imperialist war.

Communism is about collective leadership and collective decision-making.
You can't pervert the principles of your party just because one decision displeases you. You need to have opposition and that opposition must be heard no matter what cost. What you are defending is sacrifice the whole ideology to simplify the decision-making which is pretty non-communist. That's what Stalin did and that's why Stalin can't be considered a communist.Lenin did it well by preserving those principles until the end of his life.




Lenin did not position himself above the party and that is exactly why the initial Brest-Litovsk Treaty amongst other policies failed. Lenin apparently knew what had to be done, it was the other party members that kept standing in his way. Nevertheless, Stalin could never do the same. Stalin, Trotsky, and Co. did not have the reputation that Lenin had to use their word as "law", they had to earn all that respect and reputation. Earning that respect and reputation would have been impossible when the party is split into multiple sides all vying for power. Had the same conditions taken place in Lenin's case then he would have very well expelled them from the party, but not killed them. As I had already explained as well, Lenin and Co. already imposed a ban on factions within the party. Stalin did not face the same conditions that Lenin faced, Stalin, just as the others, resorted to extreme measures in order to assert their dominance over the others. Lenin did not need to do the same.

If Stalin couldn't affirm himself as a leader through his own personal qualities than he just had . Your justification of Stalin actions towards opposition is pathetic. And saying that Lenin would have done the same in similar conditions is even more pathetic. Lenin didn't born as the natural leader of the Bolsheviks. All the respect that he gain was result of his own political virtues. He didn't have to kill anyone to affirm himself as the leader of the party.

And the ban on factions wasn't a ban on opposition btw. The opposition had the right to keep organize themselves before the Congresses and present their solutions before the members of the Congresses. After the Congress made their voting they had to respect its decisions. In that same Congress of the ban on factions the leader of the Workers Opposition was incorporated in the CC of the party. So stop trying to compare Lenin's attitude towards opposition with Stalin's one because it's damn ridiculous.



*facepalm*

Start reading:


From http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/mo-trial.html, "The Moscow Trial Was Fair", article two:

The most serious statements which have appeared in the Press, and the most misleading, are: (a) that Stalin now stands alone, having "murdered" all the "Bolshevik Old Guard"; (b) that the trial was a "frame-up" because the accused all confessed their guilt; and (c) that this trial detracts from the significance of the new Draft Constitution.

If we just examine the present leadership in the Bolshevik Party, and the positions held by the leading personalities, we find that practically all are Bolsheviks of over thirty years standing. For nearly twenty years, therefore, they worked with Lenin. Just consider these:

Kalinin, President of the U.S.S.R. since 1922, was originally a metal worker. He joined the Party in 1898 (even before it bore the name of "Bolshevik"), and has been a member of the Central Committee of the Party since 1919. Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, has been a member of the Party since 1906, was a member of the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee in 1919, and Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the years following 1920, and one of Lenin’s closest collaborators. Ordjonikidze, Commissar for Heavy Industry, has been a member of the Party since 1903, was elected to the Central Committee in 1912, and played an active part in the leadership of the Revolution in the Caucasus. Voroshilov, Commissar of Defence, was a worker who joined the Party in 1903, played an outstanding part in the Civil War, and was then elected to the Central Committee of the Party. Kaganovitch was a leather-goods worker, who joined the Party in 1911.

So that the youngest of these leaders had worked under Lenin’s leadership for at least ten years, and most of them for twenty years, and have now been thirty years in the Party. So it is fair to say that Stalin remains alone, and the "old guard" has been killed off? Ah, but it may be argued that only those now remain in power who were in minor positions when Lenin was alive.

So let us look at two individuals who, up to 1917, worked in close contact with Lenin all the time. People who had leading positions. Let us examine the records of these persons. In 1917, when the Party was preparing the armed uprising, the two intellectuals, Kamenev and Zinoviev, opposed this uprising in a meeting of the Central Committee. When defeated, they carried their opposition into the public Press---and gave away the Bolsheviks’ plans to the government. At that time Lenin wrote: "I should consider it disgraceful on my part if, on account of my former close relations with these former comrades, I were not to condemn them. I declare outright that I do not consider either of them comrades any longer and that I will fight with all my might, both in the Central Committee and at the Congress, to secure the expulsion of both of them from the Party. … Let Messrs. Zinoviev and Kamenev found their own party from the dozens of disoriented people. … The workers will not join such a party …"

So we find that two intellectuals, who were having "former close relations" with Lenin before October, 1917, and who are now hailed from "Daily Mail" to "Daily Herald" as the "Bolshevik Old Guard," were condemned by Lenin for their treachery at one of the most serious moments of the Revolution, and he tried to get them expelled from the Party. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks who are working in closest collaboration with Stalin to-day are working men, who have been in the Party for from 20 to 30 years, and who rose to power as a result of their activities in the Civil War, after Zinoviev and Kamenev had already discredited themselves.

And as for Trotsky, there is no claim that this man was with Lenin for years before the Revolution. Actually, he called Lenin the "leader of the reactionary wing of the Party" in 1903, and in 1917 he said that the "Bolsheviks had de-Bolshevised themselves" and that "Bolshevik sectarianism" was an "obstacle to unity." And to-day, in a recent interview with the "News Chronicle," he refers to the "new Conservatism" of the Soviet leadership---a direct repetition of his attack on Lenin as far back as 1903.

But even when inside the Party, between July, 1917---when it was clear that only the Bolsheviks could lead the masses to success---until his expulsion, Trotsky opposed Lenin, who was supported throughout by Stalin, on one issue after another. And in the leadership of the Red Army, for which Trotsky became famous, there were continual conflicts with the Party leadership and with Lenin and Stalin. But while Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representative of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin.

And when Lenin died, Trotsky buried all his old quarrels with Lenin. No longer did he refer to his earlier accusations that the Bolsheviks had been "bureaucratic" and "reactionary" under Lenin, but introduced his attacks now on the "Stalinist bureaucracy," accusing Stalin of breaking with the policy of Lenin.

LOL. You present a Stalinist piece of text that sates that from the Old guard of the party a handful remained alive after the purges and that's is enough to prove that Stalin didn't kill the Old bolsheviks. How ridiculous can you be?

I will quote a post from this forum that deals in more detail with this issue.


Lately I've exchanged quite a few PMs with a Stalinist, mostly on the subject of Stalinism - "Marxism-Leninism"(!) - and it's relationship towards Bolshevism, Lenin and Marxism. In my quest to illustrate that most of the Bolshevik leadership from the 1900s and the 1910s and the early 1920s was executed(excluding those that were killed during the Civil War and died of natural causes in the 1920s) during Stalin's purges in the 1930s and that Stalin's party was built on the corpse of Bolshevik party, I've stumbled upon this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_Bolsheviks). It's a list of 174 prominent Bolsheviks from Lenin's time, ordered alphabetically. "Prominent" meaning they have an article on the English wikipedia.



Sultan Majid Afandiyev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Majid_Afandiyev) - Bolshevik since 1904, one of the main Social-Democrats in Azerbaijan. Executed in 1938.
Andrey Andreyevich Andreyev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Andreyevich_Andreyev)- Bolshevik since 1916, survived the Purges. Died of natural causes
Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antonov-Ovseyenko) - Menshevik since 1903, organized armed uprisings against the Czarist State during the 1905 revolution. Joined the the anti-war Mezhraiontsy after August 1914, and then the Bolsheviks when he returned to Russia in 1917. High-ranking commander of the Red Army during the Civil War, leader of the Red Army in the Ukraine. Executed in 1938.
Jaan Anvelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaan_Anvelt) - Bolshevik since 1904, leader of the Communist Party of Estonia. Tortured to death in 1937.
Aleksandra Artyukhina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Artyukhina) - Bolshevik since 1906. Apparently she was targeted during the Great Purges but was never killed and died in 1969.
Varlam Avanesov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varlam_Avanesov) - Armenian Menshevik until 1914, when he joined the Bolsheviks. died in 1930, can't find the cause of death.
Meshadi Azizbekov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshadi_Azizbekov) - Azeri Bolshevik, one of the 26 Baku Commisars butchered in 1918.
Ivan Babushkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Babushkin) - Bolshevik active in the Russian Marxist movement since the 1890s, executed in 1906.
Sergey Yustinovich Bagotsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Yustinovich_Bagotsky) - Bolshevik since 1903. Soviet head of the Red Cross representative mission to Geneva from 1918 to 1936. Survived the purges.
Vladimir Bazarov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bazarov)- Bolshevik since 1904. Soviet economist. One of the victims of the 1931 Menshevik trial. Died in 1939, aged 55. Probably executed in prison, not sure.
Pavel Bazhov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Bazhov) - More writer than revolutionary, though he fought in the Red Army and joined the Bolsheviks after August 1914. Died of natural causes in 1950.
Demyan Bedny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyan_Bedny) - Soviet poet, but a revolutionary also. Bolshevik since 1912. Died of natural causes in 1945.
Jānis K. Bērziņš (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81nis_K._B%C4%93rzi%C5%86%C5%A1) - Bolshevik since 1905, one of the few Bolsheviks who were in Russia to participate in the February Revolution, one of the main Latvian Bolsheviks and a Chekist. Executed in 1938.
Vasily Blyukher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blyukher) - Joined the Bolsheviks in 1916. Bolshevik commander during the Civil War, Marshal of the Soviet Union. Tortured to death in 1938.
Cecilia Bobrovskaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Bobrovskaya) - Died of natural causes in 1960.
Vladimir Bobrovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bobrovsky) - Husband of Cecilia Bobrovskaya. Died of natural causes in 1924.
Gleb Bokii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Bokii) - Bolshevik since 1903, one of the leading Chekists. Executed in 1937.
Vladimir Bonch-Bruyevich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bonch-Bruyevich) - Died of natural causes in 1955.
Mikhail Borodin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Borodin) - Bolshevik since 1903. Purged in 1949, probably killed in the GULAG in 1951.
Yevgenia Bosch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgenia_Bosch) - Committed suicide in 1925 due to poor health(physical, not psychological).
Nikolai Bryukhanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bryukhanov) - Bolshevik since 1903. Narkom of Finance, executed in 1938.
Andrei Bubnov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Bubnov) - Bolshevik since 1903. The English wiki says he was killed in 1940, but the Russian says he was executed in 1938.
Nikolai Bukharin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin) - Bolshevik since 1906, joined when he was 18. Everyone knows Bukharin. Executed in 1938.
Alexander Chervyakov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chervyakov) - Bolshevik since 1917. Founder and leader of the Belarussian Communist Party. According to the official Soviet version, committed suicide in 1937, right after he was denounced at the 16th Congress of the Belarussian Communist Party, though it's much more likely that he was killed or tortured to death(he was denounced in June and supposedly killed himself in June too, so he was probably tortured to death in the next few months and then later his disappearance was explained as a suicide).
Vlas Chubar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlas_Chubar) - Joined the Bolsheviks in 1907, when he was 16 or 15. Member of the Central Committee since 1921, Chairman of the Ukrainian Sovnarkom. Executed in 1939.
Gaioz Devdariani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaioz_Devdariani) - Not much info on this one. Executed in 1938.
Semyon Dimanstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Dimanstein)- Bolshevik since 1904. Executed in 1938.
Pavel Dybenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Dybenko) - Colorful personality. Executed in 1938.
Felix Dzerzhinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky) - My favorite Bolshevik. Died of a heart attack in 1926.
Ilya Ehrenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ehrenburg) - Soviet writer, not Bolshevik revolutionary. Died of natural causes in 1967.
Shalva Eliava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalva_Eliava) - Bolshevik since 1904. Executed in 1937.
Avel Enukidze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avel_Enukidze) - Bolshevik since who knows when. Member of the Central Committee of the party. Executed in 1937.
Evgenia Bosh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgenia_Bosh) - Suicide in 1924 due to bad health.
Mikhail Frunze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Frunze) - Died of chloroform poisoning in 1925 during the simplest of surgeries.
Yakov Ganetsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Ganetsky) - A "close associate" of Lenin and one of the leaders of Luxemburg and Dzerzhinsky's SDKPiL. Executed in 1937.
Aleksei Gastev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksei_Gastev) - Bolshevik since 1903. Executed in 1939.
Sasha Gegechkori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Gegechkori) - Suicide in 1928.
Konstantin Gey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Gey) - Bolshevik since 1916. Member of the Central Committee of the party since 1924. Shot in 1939.
Nikolai Glebov-Avilov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Glebov-Avilov) - Bolshevik since 1904. Shot in 1937.
Jacob Golos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Golos) - Soviet spy in America. Died of heart attack in 1943.
Nikolai Gorbunov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gorbunov) - Executed in 1938.
Vladimir Gorev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Gorev) - Executed in 1938, after he returned to Russia from fighting in the Spanish Civil War.
Andriy Ivanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Ivanov) - Died in 1927.

And so and so on, the list is way too long for me to do the whole thing. Of the 43 Old Bolsheviks I mentioned, 23 were were executed in the 30s, 9 survived the purges and 10 died before the purges began. Moreover, 17 members of the central committee of the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution survived until the 30s, the rest died of natural causes or were killed in the Civil War. Of these 17, 13 were executed during the Great Purges, and only 4 survived. One of those 4 was Stalin.


I've counted the rest of the list, and out of the 174 Old Bolsheviks listed, 43 died before the Stalinist purges began. That means of the 131 Old Bolsheviks listed that didn't die before the Great Purges, 89(!) were executed or tortured to death accidentally. Only 42 survived, mostly those from Stalin's inner circle, those who were completely sidelined and made irrelevant and those who were on important assignments abroad, like Kollontai.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/old-bolsheviks-many-t175309/index.html?t=175309


I keep seeing that image and it's getting ridiculous. Look above.

Look above again.




Yes, some. You are already making me laugh with this ridiculous nonsense of yours. Nonsense, if your claim that a party is killed when its old elements are killed then by extension a party dies when its founders/old elements die, ergo even if they were not killed off, when they die the party is dead. That there simply shows the extent of your "logic". You seem to think that a party bases itself on the old individuals that were with the party before the revolution and that once they leave the party, die, or get killed then the party dies and we must, by extension also, scrap the entire project and call the system in place various names. If that isn't a perverted form of No True Scotsman fallacy then I do not know what is. Nevertheless, the "old elements" were not killed off, only a small minority of them were killed off and that took place in varying years and after many conflicts and expulsions. Oh and the Communist Party remained the same as it was in the past, it merely had people in favor of Stalin for one reason or another that turned him into a de facto leader.

A small minority? You must be referring a small minority of those who survived Stalin. Stalin killed all his opposition within the party and built a NEW party around him with people submitted to him.


it merely had people in favor of Stalin for one reason or another

Again making me laugh. There was only one reason to had people in favor of Stalin: FEAR.


Oh nice, you actually used autocratic to mean a single man dictatorship rather than a dictatorship of an entity such similar to the case of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Nice, you actually think Stalin was a dictator then. So much for giving you the benefit of a doubt. In that case, since when did the USSR ever turn into a single man dictatorship, even under Stalin? Never. The Politburo, the Soviets, etc. were all still very well functioning and elections were still existent. Stalin even, infamously, offered his resignation multiple times which were refused by the Politburo. That is the reason why I mentioned Lenin, that if you claim that Stalin was autocratic then Lenin would as a result also fall under such an assessment. Stalin did not have complete power in his own hands, there existed those that opposed him and a whole system of government other than him. Stalin was by no means autocratic.

Yes but they were all killed during the 30's. Yes he was autocratic and positioned himself above the party and the whole country. That's why he got rid of all the opposition within the party. The Secretary General became dominant within the regime.

Again wrongly comparing Stalin with Lenin. Stalin had a party totally submitted to him while Lenin always had opposition. That's why he was a dictator unlike Lenin. To give the most clear example of it of the 139 members elected to the Central Committee at the 17th Congress, 98 people were killed in the period 1936–40. Remember the Congress of the Condemned?




Did I say Stalin or the "Soviet government"? My claim was based on me thinking you used the term "autocratic" to mean the same as the "dictatorship" in the case of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I stated that the Soviet government had always been autocratic in that sense, a dictatorship of one class/party, revolutionary and authoritarian ever since its foundation. Now here you claim that the USSR during Stalin's period was "anything but a revolutionary one", you seem to forget what "revolutionary" means. "Revolutionary" is quite different from "revolution", people and entities (such as state in the case of the Soviet government) are "revolutionary" in the Communist sense if they support revolutions, Communist revolutionary movements, etc. so yes Stalin's period was still revolutionary. The Kronstadt and Makhnovist rebellions were during the Civil War, which is exactly why I spoke of the Soviet government as a whole and its history, not claiming that they ever took place under Stalin's period.

If you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what autocracy means that's your problem.

Revolutionary? Nope. The revolutionary period ended when Stalin began to centralize all the power around him thus allowing the return of autocracy in Russia. This alongside with the return of the old tzar costumes.




[QUOTE]Abandoned? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you so ignorantly forget the numerous revolutions and revolutionary movements support by Stalin and Co.? Do you even know what Socialism in One Country is and what it entails? The USSR strengthened itself and aided revolutions wherever they took place. Socialism in One Country does not mean isolationism and the avoidance/opposition to world revolution. No, YOU need to check your own history. This kid seriously forgot Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, China (fuckups there), Spain (fuckups there), Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, and the support of numerous parties, revolutions, and so on. Hell even Eastern Europe was turned to Communism whether you like what happened or not they still spread Soviet Socialism to numerous other countries.

China? Stalin ordered the Communist Party to submit to the reactionary Kuomintang. Spain? Are you fucking serious? You are the one who need to check your history. As for the rest I don't remember of Stalin being alive when those countries turned into state capitalists countries.

Eastern Europe communist? You don't even know what communism is and you are the one calling me kid?:laugh: You mean satelization right? No country in the world ever reached communism...

SIOC meant destroying the III International and the goal of spreading the revolution.


Bullshit. More trivial superficial nonsense rather than analytical observation from you. The principles and achievements of the revolution being reverted? First of all, the principles were already done away with numerous times even under Lenin in exchange for pragmatism. Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about so I'll just mention the existence of a standing army which was opposed by Lenin in "The State and Revolution", the marginalization of the Soviets, the class alliances, the imposing of the NEP, etc. The old order returns? Are you fucking shitting me here? I challenge you to show me where the Tsar and his system returned. Now. But again, you are not capable of doing so as, thanks to your ignorant superficial "analysis", think that Tsarism and the Feudal system there were nothing but "autocracy, nationalism and conservatism" whilst completely ignoring any deep and proper analysis, context, etc. of those terms you used. For example, autocracy, before the Duma the Tsar was an autocrat capable of overruling everything and deciding on anything with no legislation/consent/opposition from anyone at any time. That was not the case under Stalin or any others.

Yes it was the case after the party became dominated by one man, the Secretary General of the party,i.e, Stalin.


Nationalism? The difference between the nationalism of the old order and the nationalism of the USSR was that the former was a nationalism of reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, Monarchists, Capitalists, Feudalists, clergymen, and Tsarism whilst the latter was a nationalism of the workers, peasants, Socialists, Communists, and revolutionaries. The nationalism of the USSR was nothing more than pride in the achievement of the workers, peasants, Socialists, Communists, and revolutionaries.

No, it was the same Great Russian Chauvinism from the old Tzar order with some communist vocabulary.


Conservatism? Bullshit. The conservatism of the Tsarist system was reactionary and backwards conservatism that relied on Monarchism, religion, anti-Communism, the enslavement of women, the attempted preservation of the Feudal system, opposition to progress, and so on. The conservatism of the Soviet (or Stalinist) system was progressive and progressive conservatism that was nothing more than the attempt to ensure that the present system remained as it was in opposition to the reformists and revisionists that would seek to change it. The supporters of the conservatism of the Soviet system was colloquially referred to as the "Communist hardliners", not the "Tsarist reactionaries".

I never heard in my life this expression "progressive conservantism". This is the most stupid expression that I ever heard.

Look, when I say that the Old Tzar order returned I'm talking about the laws against homosexuals, abortion, persecution of minorities, conciliatory attitude towards the Church, etc. This is conservantism.

You need to give more importance to actions and less to words.



Seriously, either start properly analyzing everything or keep wallowing in your superficial ridiculous Anarchist nonsense where you attack systems by words and labels rather than knowing that these words and labels completely differ from system to system and depend upon context, as I have shown you previously and above.

A stupid post had to finish with a stupid conclusion. Anarchist? Really? Defending Lenin???

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Pardon? Stalin's archives show that his most annotated work was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism. Trotsky's main beef with Stalin was that he wasn't brutal enough to the peasants. Trotsky never says anything against Stalin's Terror because the Terror was his idea, he only refers to Stalinism as a "Soviet Thermidor" implying that Stalin's terror didn't go far enough and was too conservative, rather than excessive.
Terrorism and Communism was written in 1920, I believe. During the Civil War. The LOs position on collectivization was based in increasing economic pressure on the peasantry (after the economy had been stabilized by the NEP), pushing hard for increasing the pace of industrialization with a concomitant development of collective farming. The increased industrial production would provide manufactured goods that the peasants might actually want to buy, thereby reducing their incentive to hoard grain. Had this been introduce in the mid twenties, the crisis created by the peasant's withholding of grain might have been mitigated. Also, the LO program sought to split the poor and middle peasants from the Kulaks -- having collective farming be a desired thing, rather than a punishment.

In any case agricultural collectivization was carried out very poorly -- by Stalin's regime. It cost the USSR tremendously in terms of agricultural output -- especially with regard to livestock (the peasants simply slaughtered most of their livestock when faced with being driven off their farms). Included were such stupidities as having huge collective farms, with no machinery or livestock with which to cultivate.

So why is there all this confusion around peasant policy in the USSR in the twenties? In part, the Stalinists can use it to muddy the waters considerably. Stalin was allied, for much of the decade, with the current in the RCP that was most pro-peasant (led by Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov). The LO warned that continuing the NEP ad infinitum was a very dangerous plan. When the crisis hit, when the cities were threatened with famine, in spite of bumper crops for two years in a row, Stalin was compelled to adopt, in a very crude and poorly implemented fashion, some version of the LOs program. And he used this as a truncheon to bludgeon the LO. Stalin was viewed by the LO as a centrist -- with whom they might even consider some kind of bloc against the Right. Now this was before Stalin started killing everyone who had actually made the Russian Revolution.

Trotsky and most of the Bolshevik leadership was keenly aware that the large peasant majority in the USSR posed an enormous threat to the fledgling worker's state. And Trotsky certainly wrote harshly about the kulaks. But to somehow derive from that that Trotsky criticized collectivization for not being brutal enough is not correct. And to surmise that Trotsky would have behaved just the same as Stalin if he had remained in the leadership is preposterous. That is just an argument to avoid the substantive political differences between the currents.

[Theophys]

Yes it is comparable. It's about opposition within the party that we are talking about. Stalin and Lenin had two different approaches on how to deal with opposition. While Lenin allowed opposition within the party, Stalin purged and killed all the opposition to him. The democratic debate ended with Stalin.

Lenin did not allow opposition as that found during the post-Lenin period. Lenin took part in purges and so did Stalin, although Stalin took part in fatal purges after public show trials. Stalin did not kill all opposition, opposition remained but not in the form that previously existed, i.e. the detrimental power struggles. The democratic debate was inhibited under Stalin, but it still continued in a different form. Remember that it was Lenin who banned factions, it was the Troika that expelled Trotsky, and that it was Lenin and Co. who split with the Mensheviks and the RSDLP was divided as such. Not all opposition is the same and not all opposition is desirable. The opposition during Lenin's time were milder than those after Lenin's death which went uncontrolled as each of the parties attempted to struggle for power against the rest. Lenin did not allow opposition as you make it out to be, opposition existed but not in the form found after Lenin's death.


Communism is about collective leadership and collective decision-making. You can't pervert the principles of your party just because one decision displeases you. You need to have opposition and that opposition must be heard no matter what cost.

Which is what I agree with, criticism is a necessary part of any vanguard party, but such discussion and criticism became destructive and divisive after Lenin's death. The Troika expelled Trotsky, the Troika turned on each other, Stalin emerged victorious and killed off the rest. That is not by any means "collective leadership" and "collective decision-making" within the confines of a party, that was a perversion of those ideals long before Stalin rose to power. It was the degeneration of the party thanks to the formation of factions and alliances that changed that, Stalin merely rose to power and "cleansed" it in his view by doing away with these obstacles to progress. It is thus not one issue that displeased Stalin and the rest, but numerous decisions, problems, obstacles, arguments, and debates that led to the events after Lenin's death. The opposition that is to be had must never be permanent following Democratic Centralism's "freedom of discussion, unity of action". Following the "unity of action" part, the opposition must no longer be an opposition, and yet they continued to be an opposition with Trotsky's "Workers' Opposition". Again, Lenin was the uniting figure, his death paved the way for a power struggle. Stalin merely was one individual out of many. It was not by any means one decision that led to Stalin's rise of power, but numerous decisions and conflicts. The opposition that we are to have must not by any means be anything similar to what was found after Lenin's death.


What you are defending is sacrifice the whole ideology to simplify the decision-making which is pretty non-communist. That's what Stalin did and that's why Stalin can't be considered a communist.Lenin did it well by preserving those principles until the end of his life.

Stalin was by every means a Communist whether your or I like it or not. Stalin did not sacrifice anything, the party degenerated after Lenin's death, Stalin had little to do with it and was of no importance back then. Stalin did not sacrifice the whole ideology, he merely "purged" the party of what he believed to be the destruction obstacles within the party. I do not agree with him killing Communists, but I explained that I can see his reasoning as to why he did what he did. Lenin was capable of preserving it because Lenin was well-respected and was highly regarded with a very good reputation. After Lenin died, that figure was done away with, the party was left with no "head" and instead competing individuals striving for power. To compare Stalin to Lenin during that period is ridiculous. Stalin could not do what Lenin did because Stalin was faced by severe opposition which would never obviously listen to reason as is common with party power struggles. Stalin was not as well respected as Stalin and he was not much of a rallying and uniting figure as Lenin was.


If Stalin couldn't affirm himself as a leader through his own personal qualities than he just had . Your justification of Stalin actions towards opposition is pathetic. And saying that Lenin would have done the same in similar conditions is even more pathetic. Lenin didn't born as the natural leader of the Bolsheviks. All the respect that he gain was result of his own political virtues. He didn't have to kill anyone to affirm himself as the leader of the party.

That's because Lenin was able to achieve what he achieved, Stalin was not capable of doing so, not with a power struggle with other members of the party. Lenin was in a unique position to be the founder of the party and thus a de facto leader, something which no one else could replicate. My justification of Stalin's actions is not by any means "pathetic", you do not even bother to explain why beyond saying that it's "pathetic". Oh and yes certainly Lenin would have done the same if he had to face a power struggle with Kamenev, Zinoviev, Stalin, and Trotsky, but he, as I have said, would not have killed them but merely expelled them from the party in order to ensure its continued existence and prevent it from degenerating. Lenin didn't have to kill anyone because he did not face the same circumstances that Stalin and the rest faced, I do not have to keep repeating myself until you understand this simple shit.


And the ban on factions wasn't a ban on opposition btw. The opposition had the right to keep organize themselves before the Congresses and present their solutions before the members of the Congresses. After the Congress made their voting they had to respect its decisions. In that same Congress of the ban on factions the leader of the Workers Opposition was incorporated in the CC of the party. So stop trying to compare Lenin's attitude towards opposition with Stalin's one because it's damn ridiculous.

Before congresses and during congresses, not permanently. The Workers' Opposition, amongst others, existed on an almost permanent basis. The leader of the Workers' Opposition being voted into the Central Committee has little to do with anything. Give this a read and then come back here, note what Radek told Lenin and the criticisms within the party and the nature of the Workers' Opposition:

The Central Committee, according to Lenin, was to be the supreme authority of the party.[4] Leon Trotsky criticised this view, stating "our rules represent 'organisational nonconfidence' of the party toward its parts, that is, supervision over all local, district, national and other organisations ... the organisation of the party takes place of the party itself; the Central Committee takes the place of the organisation; and finally the dictator takes the place of the Central Committee."[5]
During the first years in power, under Lenin's rule, the Central Committee was the key decision-making body in both practice and theory, and decisions were made through majority votes.[6] For example, the Central Committee voted for or against signing a peace treaty with the Germans between 1917 and 1918 during World War I; the majority voted in favour of peace when Trotsky backed down in 1918.[6] The result of the vote was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.[6] During the heated debates in the Central Committee about a possible peace with the Germans, Lenin did not have a majority; both Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin had more support for their own position than Lenin.[7] Only when Lenin sought a coalition with Trotsky and others, were negotiations with the Germans voted through with a simple majority.[7] Criticism of other officials was allowed during these meetings, for instance, Karl Radek said to Lenin (criticising his position of supporting peace with the Germans), "If there were five hundred courageous men in Petrograd, we would put you in prison."[8] The decision to negotiate peace with the Germans was only reached when Lenin threatened to resign, which in turn led to a temporary coalition between Lenin's supporters and those of Trotsky and others.[8] No sanctions were invoked on the opposition in the Central Committee following the decision.[8]
The system had many faults, and opposition to Lenin and what many saw as his excessive centralisation policies came to the leadership's attention during the 8th Party Congress (March 1919) and the 9th Party Congress (March 1920).[9] At the 9th Party Congress the Democratic Centralists, an opposition faction within the party, accused Lenin and his associates, of creating a Central Committee in which a "small handful of party oligarchs ... was banning those who hold deviant views."[10] Several delegates to the Congress were quite specific in the criticism, one of them accusing Lenin and his associates of making the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a place of exile for opponents.[10] Lenin reply was evasive, he conceded that faults had been made, but noted that if such policies had in fact been carried out the criticism of him during the 9th Party Congress could not have occurred.[10] During the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) Lenin condemned the Workers Opposition, a faction within the Communist Party, for deviating from communism and accused Trotsky of factionalism.[11] Lenin did state that factionalism was allowed, but only allowed before and during Party Congresses when the different sides needed to win votes.[12] Several Central Committee members, who were members of the Workers Opposition, offered their resignation to Lenin but their resignations were not accepted, and they were instead asked to submit to party discipline.[12] The 10th Party Congress also introduced a ban on factionalism within the Communist Party; however, what Lenin considered to be 'platforms', such as the Democratic Centralists and the Workers Opposition, were allowed.[11] Factions, in Lenin's mind, were groups within the Communist Party who subverted party discipline.[11]
Despite the ban on factionalism, the Workers' Opposition continued its open agitation against the policies of the Central Committee, and before the 11th Party Congress (March 1922) the Workers' Opposition made an ill-conceived bid to win support for their position in the Comintern.[13] The Comintern, not unexpectedly, supported the position of the Central Committee.[13] During the 11th Party Congress Alexander Shliapnikov, the leader of the Workers' Opposition, claimed that certain individuals from the Central Committee had threatened him.[14] Lenin's reply was evasive, but he stated that party discipline needed to be strengthened during "a retreat" – the New Economic Policy was introduced at the 10th Party Congress.[14] The 11th Party Congress would prove to be the last congress chaired by Lenin, he suffered one stroke in May 1922, was paralysed by a second in December later that year, was removed from public life in March 1923 and died on 21 January 1924.[15]


LOL. You present a Stalinist piece of text that sates that from the Old guard of the party a handful remained alive after the purges and that's is enough to prove that Stalin didn't kill the Old bolsheviks. How ridiculous can you be?

Not ridiculous at all, it shows merely that many of the Old Bolsheviks remained. And of course it is a Stalinists piece of text, when you argue against Stalin it is Stalinists who provide the staunchest arguments otherwise. That is the same as criticizing Communism and then acting surprised when a Communist comes forward to answer your criticism. You're the ridiculous one.


I will quote a post from this forum that deals in more detail with this issue.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/old-bolsheviks-many-t175309/index.html?t=175309

Look above again.

Read the posts in that thread, specifically those by Ismail who replied quite properly. You just answered your own criticism with that link. You are attempting to imply that the Old Bolsheviks, since they are Old Bolsheviks are somehow holier than others that they somehow cannot become detrimental to the party or become corrupt and perverted. It was Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Stalin who were the main contenders for power and the main individuals responsible for division within the party after Lenin's death. They were all Old Bolsheviks and yet they were all going against the ideals of the party with their actions by the creation of permanent factions, the creation of divisions, the expulsion of Trotsky, etc. etc. Things simply could not remain that way and one of them had to emerge as the victor to put the others out. Stalin emerged as the victor and put them out by killing them, whether that is desirable or not. Those tens that were executed during the Great Purges took direct part in the division of the party and the power struggles after Lenin's death, they were not passive entities that were innocently and randomly killed by a bloodthirsty demon from hell.


A small minority? You must be referring a small minority of those who survived Stalin. Stalin killed all his opposition within the party and built a NEW party around him with people submitted to him.

No. Stalin did not build a "NEW" party as it was the same party but with different individuals. A party does not change when its constituent individuals no longer exist within the party. A parliament, for example, does not cease being a parliament and become something "NEW" after each election. Stalin did not kill all his opposition as that is an impossibility, he killed those who would have proven to be a threat to the party and ergo to him as well. Those killed included Kamenev and Zinoviev, the two who took part in the expulsion of Trotsky with Stalin. After the purges, Stalin paved the way for unhindered advancement to take place and the proper grounds that allowed them to emerge victorious after World War 2 without all the bureaucratic hassles that would have been made worse with the existence of a Workers' Opposition, a Right Opposition, numerous other factions, internal opposition, factionalism, etc. etc. The party remained the same party with the same name, ideals, constitution, policies, government, authority, etc. so no "NEW" party was created around anyone.


Again making me laugh. There was only one reason to had people in favor of Stalin: FEAR.

And before fear? Stalin was not always capable of instilling fear in others, he rose to power out of nothing. He became popular within the party before people favored him due to fear. There are reasons why Stalin rose to power and fear only came later. Even then with fear the Politburo and other organs of the state and party were fully capable of voting Stalin our of power, killing him, or whatnot had they found it necessary to do so, instead they favored him and even twice rejected his resignation.


Yes but they were all killed during the 30's. Yes he was autocratic and positioned himself above the party and the whole country. That's why he got rid of all the opposition within the party. The Secretary General became dominant within the regime.

The opposition of the party was gotten rid of because of its nature as an obstacle and it threatening the division and splitting of the party. Stalin was not by any means autocratic, he was elected into power, he offered resignation which was rejected, he could have very well been voted out of power as in the case of Khrushchev, he was no above the party but a significant element within it, etc. You claim that all of his opponents were killed off during the 30s, prove it. You asserted the positive, the burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that not a single opponent remained. Even then I would argue that such an environment allowed for the party to proceed with little to no obstacles and hassles, especially helpful during the Second World War, industrialization, and the taking of harsh and rapid measures that would have been stalled by any opposition within the party. I just do not agree with the killing, but I believe Stalin and Co. thought that if there to be purged through ordinary means then they would act against the party and state. Stalin most likely got rid of the opposition within the party in order to solve the crises created as a result of the power void after Lenin's death. One of them was going to emerge the victor and assert his position, it turned out to be Stalin. The position of General Secretary became a high position because of Stalin's new status as a de facto leader within the party and state that made people both fear and respect him.


Again wrongly comparing Stalin with Lenin. Stalin had a party totally submitted to him while Lenin always had opposition. That's why he was a dictator unlike Lenin. To give the most clear example of it of the 139 members elected to the Central Committee at the 17th Congress, 98 people were killed in the period 1936–40. Remember the Congress of the Condemned?

Stalin always had opposition until he purged the party. Lenin had opposition which was limited through various means, but that later bit him and the party in the ass after he died. We saw what happened after Lenin's death thanks to the lovely opposition you are praising here. Stalin was by no means a dictator even if he would have killed every single individual within the party and replaced them all with other individuals. He would still not have the absolute powers of a dictator and still be held accountable by the new party and the state. The 98 people that were killed were affected by the party divisions and struggles of the post-Lenin period and stood in the way of progress, that's most likely why Stalin killed them off. They had factionalized and sided with various parties that degenerated into an American-style political scenario.


If you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what autocracy means that's your problem.

Oh listen, shithead, it is not my problem if dictatorship can be used to refer to a dictatorship of a class rather than an individual and ergo an autocracy can, likewise, be used to refer to the autocracy of a class, state, or party. You need to clarify what the fuck you mean by such words before you use them, especially in such context.


Revolutionary? Nope. The revolutionary period ended when Stalin began to centralize all the power around him thus allowing the return of autocracy in Russia. This alongside with the return of the old tzar costumes.

Fucking no. The revolutionary period ended after the Civil War and the Bolsheviks' final victory over their opponents. The centralization of power by Stalin had little to do with anything. The revolution ended with the seizure and securing of power after the Civil War and nothing more. The revolution is not some metaphysical mythical entity that lasts until communism is achieved as is common with rhetorical nonsense. And you called me "fucking ignorant" when it is your who is fucking ignorant. I already explained this to you that autocracy did not return in Russia and even that "autocracy" was not by any means the same as the autocracy under the Tsar. The return of the old Tsar costumes has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Tsarist Costumes under a Communist system does not by ANY means signify the return of Tsarism, especially with the knowledge that Tsarism and the Tsarist line and system were completely eliminated.


China? Stalin ordered the Communist Party to submit to the reactionary Kuomintang. Spain? Are you fucking serious? You are the one who need to check your history. As for the rest I don't remember of Stalin being alive when those countries turned into state capitalists countries.

Did you even bother to read the fucking parentheses? I already stated that they were "fucked up" but because that was never the argument I put them in parentheses thinking you have two brain cells to rub together to be able to read what was written within them. The argument that was being made was that whether they worked or not, Stalin and Co. did in fact try to aid other revolutions in other countries all over the world despite what you allegedly and falsely though of Socialism in One Country. I do not care what they advice was and what the outcome was, I only need to show that the revolutions were aided, advised, and interacted with to prove your bullshit wrong. Oh and fucking State Capitalism again? When will you fucking understand that you do not know what you're talking about? None of those countries during Stalin's period were State Capitalist, only China today is State Capitalist. Again, I already told you to read my debate and posts on the question of State Capitalism.


Eastern Europe communist? You don't even know what communism is and you are the one calling me kid?:laugh: You mean satelization right? No country in the world ever reached communism...

Oh but you are indeed the fucking ignorant idiot. If you would even bother to carefully look at the words, you would notice that I said "Eastern Europe turned to Communism" not "turned to communism". The former refers to Communism as in the countries following the ideology of Communism and with a Communist Party, not a communist mode of production. I know very well what communism is, something which you seem unable to differentiate from Communism as the ideology. And yes I am calling you a kid for that is what you actually are. There is no such thing as "satelization" but I think you mean "satellization" in which case, what the hell are you trying to imply? Those satellite states were turned towards Communism otherwise they would have remained Capitalist/Feudal countries. I would certainly prefer that they forcibly be joined with the USSR than left opposing the USSR.


SIOC meant destroying the III International and the goal of spreading the revolution.

Oh please can your bullshit. As I have already pointed out and proven, the revolution was spread in numerous countries all over the world with the aid of the USSR and even countries were entirely turned towards Communism without the necessity of a revolution through the creation of satellite states. The Third International was destroyed, not that it was by any means effective at all, and replaced by the Comintern and then the Cominform.


Yes it was the case after the party became dominated by one man, the Secretary General of the party,i.e, Stalin.

Prove it. The party was still the party with the same constitution. The party was not dominated by one man, that would have been an impossibility as they needed majority decisions to pass any policy within the party.


No, it was the same Great Russian Chauvinism from the old Tzar order with some communist vocabulary.

Is THAT you reply? What is this shit? You entirely ignored what I had typed explaining the differences between the various forms of nationalism, specifically between the Tsarist Nationalism and the Soviet Nationalism, and you give me this shit? Russian Chauvinism, so be it! As long as that Russian Chauvinism was based on Soviet proletarian and Communist chauvinism! From the old Tsarist order? Bullshit. The Russian Chauvinism was there not as a homage or tribute to Tsarism but because the main center of the USSR was Russia or "Great Russia". Pathetic excuse of yours.


I never heard in my life this expression "progressive conservantism". This is the most stupid expression that I ever heard.

That's because you are an idiot. Progressive conservatism is a term that is used when referring to the preservation of progressive ideals in the face of aspirations for liberal reformist ideals. I already explained this previously but it seems you are not capable of reading, the progressive conservatism was observed in the Soviet Communist Parties where those who stuck to the Soviet ideals and Communism were the conservatives, those who wanted to keep things as they were, against those who wished to restore Capitalism subtly by presenting Capitalist economic reforms and market liberalization. That is what positive conservatism is, it it he preservation of progressive ideals in the face of reformist struggles for liberal reforms that moved away from Socialism and Communism. Maybe if you would bother to fucking read then you would not call it stupid and instead notice the significance of that expression as it had been observed in real-life in the case of the Soviet Union's hardliners (progressive conservatives) versus the liberal reformists.


Look, when I say that the Old Tzar order returned I'm talking about the laws against homosexuals, abortion, persecution of minorities, conciliatory attitude towards the Church, etc. This is conservantism.

Oh because only the old Tsarist order had laws against homosexuality, abortion, the persecution of minority, etc. etc. That not "conservantism [sic]", that is reaction where the old ideals are sought after. Oh and that is not by any means the conservation of progressive ideals, but is an example of negative conservatism where the restoration/conservation of negative backwards ideals takes place.


You need to give more importance to actions and less to words.

Maybe you should actually give importance to words and learn to read?


A stupid post had to finish with a stupid conclusion. Anarchist? Really? Defending Lenin???

Exactly, your stupid post and your inability to read. I did not call YOU an Anarchist, I called your "analysis" as Anarchist in its depth, conclusions, and means where you use petty empty labels as arguments rather than bothering to analyze anything. You throw around words you know nothing of such as "conservatism", "nationalism", etc. and instead of analyzing the differences as I have shown you how to between Soviet conservatism and nationalism versus Tsarist conservatism and nationalism you instead treat those labels as arguments in and of themselves. That is obviously a logical fallacy and completely false.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

As for the Stalinist claims that, "Golly gee, there were plenty of Old Bolsheviks around after the purges." To the extent that it might be true, it is just an obfuscation. All of the central leaders of the Bolsheviks during the revolution were killed by Stalin by the end of the purges (save those that died of natural causes or Trotsky who was killed by a Stalinist agent soon after). Quotes are used in the most dishonest and selective fashion to foster lies. So yes, Zinoviev and Kamenev did not play a sterling role in 1917 -- this was certainly known to Stalin when he formed an alliance with them in 1923 -- why did they need to be expelled and later shot for this. At the time of the Revolution, Stalin was probably among the most conciliatory with them on the PB. And Stalin had been in agreement to support the Provisional Government before Lenin Returned from exile. I suppose he should have later been executed for that?

And Trotsky and Lenin fought -- but the truth that Stalinists hate, is that they collaborated very closely after Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks. Lenin said, "Since he joined, there has been no better Bolshevik than comrade Trotsky." So quotes made in the heat of polemics from 1914, 1902, or even 1917 prior to April are not germane to Stalin's expulsions, exile and murder of Trotsky and the Left Opposition.

[billydan]

i don't like him i think he was way too corrupt

[Brutus]

I'm pretty sure that Trotsky envisioned the NEP so the peasants would produce food and there would be a small level of Prosperity. This was a small concession so the cities would have food, and I support him fully on the matter.

And the opportunism of Stalin is proven by the fact he went from centre, to right, to left, and all over the place. Trotsky, however, stuck to his original policies.

[Old Bolshie]

Lenin did not allow opposition as that found during the post-Lenin period. Lenin took part in purges and so did Stalin, although Stalin took part in fatal purges after public show trials. Stalin did not kill all opposition, opposition remained but not in the form that previously existed, i.e. the detrimental power struggles. The democratic debate was inhibited under Stalin, but it still continued in a different form. Remember that it was Lenin who banned factions, it was the Troika that expelled Trotsky, and that it was Lenin and Co. who split with the Mensheviks and the RSDLP was divided as such. Not all opposition is the same and not all opposition is desirable. The opposition during Lenin's time were milder than those after Lenin's death which went uncontrolled as each of the parties attempted to struggle for power against the rest. Lenin did not allow opposition as you make it out to be, opposition existed but not in the form found after Lenin's death.

This must be clearly a joke. Opposition remained but in a different form? Democratic debate continued in a different form? What different form is that? You can have democratic debate as long as you don't disagree with Stalin?

How many times I have to tell you that the ban of factions wasn't a ban on opposition since Lenin's opponents remained in the party, some were integrated in the CC and proposals of the opposition were adopted by the party namely form the Workers Opposition. It's fucking ridiculous the fact that you are trying to link Lenin with Stalin. And it was Lenin who split with the Mensheviks? What the hell this got to do with dealing with opposition? Mensheviks were social-democrats, hence not communists as it proved out to be later.

And the purge conducted on Lenin's time was directed against people who joined the party AFTER the revolution (and never involved killing), while Stalin purges involved people who were part of the party since its foundations and played key roles within the party during Lenin's term. You really can't see the difference?


it was the Troika that expelled TrotskyNow I am sure that you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. How could have been the Troika expelling Trotsky if the Troika was already over when Trotsky was expelled from the party?

Zinoniev and Kamenev had already broke with Stalin and were in fact on Trotsky's side against Stalin. Go learn your history again.


Which is what I agree with, criticism is a necessary part of any vanguard party, but such discussion and criticism became destructive and divisive after Lenin's death. The Troika expelled Trotsky, the Troika turned on each other, Stalin emerged victorious and killed off the rest. That is not by any means "collective leadership" and "collective decision-making" within the confines of a party, that was a perversion of those ideals long before Stalin rose to power. It was the degeneration of the party thanks to the formation of factions and alliances that changed that, Stalin merely rose to power and "cleansed" it in his view by doing away with these obstacles to progress. It is thus not one issue that displeased Stalin and the rest, but numerous decisions, problems, obstacles, arguments, and debates that led to the events after Lenin's death. The opposition that is to be had must never be permanent following Democratic Centralism's "freedom of discussion, unity of action". Following the "unity of action" part, the opposition must no longer be an opposition, and yet they continued to be an opposition with Trotsky's "Workers' Opposition". Again, Lenin was the uniting figure, his death paved the way for a power struggle. Stalin merely was one individual out of many. It was not by any means one decision that led to Stalin's rise of power, but numerous decisions and conflicts. The opposition that we are to have must not by any means be anything similar to what was found after Lenin's death. You say that Stalin reacted to opposition the way he did because of the opposition which emerged after Lenin's death but there is one major fault here. When the Great Purge was carried out that opposition was already disbanded. Trotsky had been exiled for almost ten years and the others who remained had already been humiliated and submitted to Stalin.

The opposition that led Stalin to conduct the Great Purge was the one who wanted almost unanimously Kirov as the leader of the party during the Congress of the Condemn. Your justification of Stalin behavior towards opposition is flawed anyway but even considering it has that one major fault.




Stalin was by every means a Communist whether your or I like it or not. Stalin did not sacrifice anything, the party degenerated after Lenin's death, Stalin had little to do with it and was of no importance back then. Stalin did not sacrifice the whole ideology, he merely "purged" the party of what he believed to be the destruction obstacles within the party. I do not agree with him killing Communists, but I explained that I can see his reasoning as to why he did what he did. Lenin was capable of preserving it because Lenin was well-respected and was highly regarded with a very good reputation. After Lenin died, that figure was done away with, the party was left with no "head" and instead competing individuals striving for power. To compare Stalin to Lenin during that period is ridiculous. Stalin could not do what Lenin did because Stalin was faced by severe opposition which would never obviously listen to reason as is common with party power struggles. Stalin was not as well respected as Stalin and he was not much of a rallying and uniting figure as Lenin was. As I already stated numbers of times (but you seem to have a hard time to understand) if Stalin couldn't not be that unifying figure he just had to step away and respect the decision of the majority which he didn't. No one is above the party or the principles which guided it. Lenin didn't emerge as some divine leader for the party. He became the leader through his own virtues as politician. Call it charisma or whatever you want. One thing is being elected a leader by the majority, other thing is imposing himself as a leader OVER the majority due to his powerful position within the party. Can't you see the difference here too?




That's because Lenin was able to achieve what he achieved, Stalin was not capable of doing so, not with a power struggle with other members of the party. Lenin was in a unique position to be the founder of the party and thus a de facto leader, something which no one else could replicate. My justification of Stalin's actions is not by any means "pathetic", you do not even bother to explain why beyond saying that it's "pathetic". Oh and yes certainly Lenin would have done the same if he had to face a power struggle with Kamenev, Zinoviev, Stalin, and Trotsky, but he, as I have said, would not have killed them but merely expelled them from the party in order to ensure its continued existence and prevent it from degenerating. Lenin didn't have to kill anyone because he did not face the same circumstances that Stalin and the rest faced, I do not have to keep repeating myself until you understand this simple shit.Lenin was the founder of the party along with other people. He didn't found the party alone.

It is pathetic because Kamenev, Zinoniev and Trotsky were already no threat to Stalin when he killed them. And it is even more pathetic when you say that Lenin would have done the same without any grounding.

Again, no one must pervert the principles of the party just because you think that you should be the leader instead of others. No one is above the party. If you don't have the majority with you back the fuck off.



Before congresses and during congresses, not permanently. The Workers' Opposition, amongst others, existed on an almost permanent basis. The leader of the Workers' Opposition being voted into the Central Committee has little to do with anything. Give this a read and then come back here, note what Radek told Lenin and the criticisms within the party and the nature of the Workers' Opposition:

The Central Committee, according to Lenin, was to be the supreme authority of the party.[4] Leon Trotsky criticised this view, stating "our rules represent 'organisational nonconfidence' of the party toward its parts, that is, supervision over all local, district, national and other organisations ... the organisation of the party takes place of the party itself; the Central Committee takes the place of the organisation; and finally the dictator takes the place of the Central Committee."[5]
During the first years in power, under Lenin's rule, the Central Committee was the key decision-making body in both practice and theory, and decisions were made through majority votes.[6] For example, the Central Committee voted for or against signing a peace treaty with the Germans between 1917 and 1918 during World War I; the majority voted in favour of peace when Trotsky backed down in 1918.[6] The result of the vote was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.[6] During the heated debates in the Central Committee about a possible peace with the Germans, Lenin did not have a majority; both Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin had more support for their own position than Lenin.[7] Only when Lenin sought a coalition with Trotsky and others, were negotiations with the Germans voted through with a simple majority.[7] Criticism of other officials was allowed during these meetings, for instance, Karl Radek said to Lenin (criticising his position of supporting peace with the Germans), "If there were five hundred courageous men in Petrograd, we would put you in prison."[8] The decision to negotiate peace with the Germans was only reached when Lenin threatened to resign, which in turn led to a temporary coalition between Lenin's supporters and those of Trotsky and others.[8] No sanctions were invoked on the opposition in the Central Committee following the decision.[8]
The system had many faults, and opposition to Lenin and what many saw as his excessive centralisation policies came to the leadership's attention during the 8th Party Congress (March 1919) and the 9th Party Congress (March 1920).[9] At the 9th Party Congress the Democratic Centralists, an opposition faction within the party, accused Lenin and his associates, of creating a Central Committee in which a "small handful of party oligarchs ... was banning those who hold deviant views."[10] Several delegates to the Congress were quite specific in the criticism, one of them accusing Lenin and his associates of making the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a place of exile for opponents.[10] Lenin reply was evasive, he conceded that faults had been made, but noted that if such policies had in fact been carried out the criticism of him during the 9th Party Congress could not have occurred.[10] During the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) Lenin condemned the Workers Opposition, a faction within the Communist Party, for deviating from communism and accused Trotsky of factionalism.[11] Lenin did state that factionalism was allowed, but only allowed before and during Party Congresses when the different sides needed to win votes.[12] Several Central Committee members, who were members of the Workers Opposition, offered their resignation to Lenin but their resignations were not accepted, and they were instead asked to submit to party discipline.[12] The 10th Party Congress also introduced a ban on factionalism within the Communist Party; however, what Lenin considered to be 'platforms', such as the Democratic Centralists and the Workers Opposition, were allowed.[11] Factions, in Lenin's mind, were groups within the Communist Party who subverted party discipline.[11]
Despite the ban on factionalism, the Workers' Opposition continued its open agitation against the policies of the Central Committee, and before the 11th Party Congress (March 1922) the Workers' Opposition made an ill-conceived bid to win support for their position in the Comintern.[13] The Comintern, not unexpectedly, supported the position of the Central Committee.[13] During the 11th Party Congress Alexander Shliapnikov, the leader of the Workers' Opposition, claimed that certain individuals from the Central Committee had threatened him.[14] Lenin's reply was evasive, but he stated that party discipline needed to be strengthened during "a retreat" – the New Economic Policy was introduced at the 10th Party Congress.[14] The 11th Party Congress would prove to be the last congress chaired by Lenin, he suffered one stroke in May 1922, was paralysed by a second in December later that year, was removed from public life in March 1923 and died on 21 January 1924.[15]The Workers Opposition existing on a permanent basis only gives me even more reason on how Lenin allowed opposition within the party. I don't know what was your purpose for showing this text but you certainly didn't mean it. And integrating the leader of opposition within the CC is very important alongside the adoption of opposition proposals.




Read the posts in that thread, specifically those by Ismail who replied quite properly. You just answered your own criticism with that link. You are attempting to imply that the Old Bolsheviks, since they are Old Bolsheviks are somehow holier than others that they somehow cannot become detrimental to the party or become corrupt and perverted.So from "Stalin didn't kill so many Old Bolsheviks" you are now at "the Old Bolsheviks were corrupt and perverted". This shows how your all argumentation is flawed. So people who were in high positions within the party during Lenin's leadership and were part of it since its foundation suddenly became anti-communists? And why? Because they didn't agree with Stalin.


It was Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Stalin who were the main contenders for power and the main individuals responsible for division within the party after Lenin's death. They were all Old Bolsheviks and yet they were all going against the ideals of the party with their actions by the creation of permanent factions, the creation of divisions, the expulsion of Trotsky, etc. etc. Things simply could not remain that way and one of them had to emerge as the victor to put the others out. Stalin emerged as the victor and put them out by killing them, whether that is desirable or not. Those tens that were executed during the Great Purges took direct part in the division of the party and the power struggles after Lenin's death, they were not passive entities that were innocently and randomly killed by a bloodthirsty demon from hell.No. Stalin went against the ideals of the party by denying divisions and expelling Trotsky. Creation of divisions is part of any Communist Party. Lenin had it and so Stalin needed to have if he was really a communist.



No. Stalin did not build a "NEW" party as it was the same party but with different individuals. A party does not change when its constituent individuals no longer exist within the party. A parliament, for example, does not cease being a parliament and become something "NEW" after each election. Stalin did not kill all his opposition as that is an impossibility, he killed those who would have proven to be a threat to the party and ergo to him as well. Those killed included Kamenev and Zinoviev, the two who took part in the expulsion of Trotsky with Stalin. After the purges, Stalin paved the way for unhindered advancement to take place and the proper grounds that allowed them to emerge victorious after World War 2 without all the bureaucratic hassles that would have been made worse with the existence of a Workers' Opposition, a Right Opposition, numerous other factions, internal opposition, factionalism, etc. etc. The party remained the same party with the same name, ideals, constitution, policies, government, authority, etc. so no "NEW" party was created around anyone. I see that you keep bringing this up proving that you know nothing about we are talking about.

Comparing a party with a parliament which those members belong to different parties is damn absurd.

Those people were committed to the party since its foundation. Stalin purged those who disagreed with him and brought new people around a different ideal: devotion to Stalin. Leninist principles were completely destroyed so Stalin could affirm himself as a leader as you pointed out. It was a new party with new people completely devoted to Stalin.




And before fear? Stalin was not always capable of instilling fear in others, he rose to power out of nothing. He became popular within the party before people favored him due to fear. There are reasons why Stalin rose to power and fear only came later. Even then with fear the Politburo and other organs of the state and party were fully capable of voting Stalin our of power, killing him, or whatnot had they found it necessary to do so, instead they favored him and even twice rejected his resignation. Here again you show that you don't know a damn thing of the Bolshevik history. Stalin offered his resignation from the Secretary-General post which was by no means a leader of the party post. It was a merely administrative post that began to accumulate immense power when Stalin began to expel those who disagree with him. It was through his position as Secretary General that he imposed himself as leader, not through his popularity. In 1934 the overwhelming majority of the party wanted Kirov as the leader and Stalin killed them. So much for the popularity.


The opposition of the party was gotten rid of because of its nature as an obstacle and it threatening the division and splitting of the party. Stalin was not by any means autocratic, he was elected into power, he offered resignation which was rejected, he could have very well been voted out of power as in the case of Khrushchev, he was no above the party but a significant element within it, etc. You claim that all of his opponents were killed off during the 30s, prove it. You asserted the positive, the burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that not a single opponent remained. Even then I would argue that such an environment allowed for the party to proceed with little to no obstacles and hassles, especially helpful during the Second World War, industrialization, and the taking of harsh and rapid measures that would have been stalled by any opposition within the party. I just do not agree with the killing, but I believe Stalin and Co. thought that if there to be purged through ordinary means then they would act against the party and state. Stalin most likely got rid of the opposition within the party in order to solve the crises created as a result of the power void after Lenin's death. One of them was going to emerge the victor and assert his position, it turned out to be Stalin. The position of General Secretary became a high position because of Stalin's new status as a de facto leader within the party and state that made people both fear and respect him. Tell me what Stalin opposition remained in the party after the Great Purge?





Stalin always had opposition until he purged the party. Lenin had opposition which was limited through various means, but that later bit him and the party in the ass after he died. We saw what happened after Lenin's death thanks to the lovely opposition you are praising here. Stalin was by no means a dictator even if he would have killed every single individual within the party and replaced them all with other individuals. He would still not have the absolute powers of a dictator and still be held accountable by the new party and the state. The 98 people that were killed were affected by the party divisions and struggles of the post-Lenin period and stood in the way of progress, that's most likely why Stalin killed them off. They had factionalized and sided with various parties that degenerated into an American-style political scenario.Yes, that's the point. The factions always existed as you correctly mentioned during Lenin's time and the party never degenerated. What you say is just a poor-pissing excuse of Stalin actions.

When you have the party totally submitted to you it's very easy to be accountable to it. You perhaps don't know this but every dictator has a party or government, you know? I don't know the existence of a dictator who rules without a party or a government. Fucking ignorant.


Oh listen, shithead, it is not my problem if dictatorship can be used to refer to a dictatorship of a class rather than an individual and ergo an autocracy can, likewise, be used to refer to the autocracy of a class, state, or party. You need to clarify what the fuck you mean by such words before you use them, especially in such context.There is no autocracy of a class, state or party because autocracy implies one person, your ignorant. Only someone who is really a shithead can think that autocracy can be used as dictatorship.



Fucking no. The revolutionary period ended after the Civil War and the Bolsheviks' final victory over their opponents. The centralization of power by Stalin had little to do with anything. The revolution ended with the seizure and securing of power after the Civil War and nothing more. The revolution is not some metaphysical mythical entity that lasts until communism is achieved as is common with rhetorical nonsense. And you called me "fucking ignorant" when it is your who is fucking ignorant. I already explained this to you that autocracy did not return in Russia and even that "autocracy" was not by any means the same as the autocracy under the Tsar. The return of the old Tsar costumes has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Tsarist Costumes under a Communist system does not by ANY means signify the return of Tsarism, especially with the knowledge that Tsarism and the Tsarist line and system were completely eliminated. So, punishing homosexuals or abortion and persecuting minorities are one thing when it was under the Tzarist regime but it was another thing when it was under a "communist" system? LOL. This is why I called you fucking ignorant.

The revolutionary period lasts until the revolutionary gains and achievements are reverted. That began with Stalin. Autocracy, nationalism and conservantism returned to Russia.




Did you even bother to read the fucking parentheses? I already stated that they were "fucked up" but because that was never the argument I put them in parentheses thinking you have two brain cells to rub together to be able to read what was written within them. The argument that was being made was that whether they worked or not, Stalin and Co. did in fact try to aid other revolutions in other countries all over the world despite what you allegedly and falsely though of Socialism in One Country. I do not care what they advice was and what the outcome was, I only need to show that the revolutions were aided, advised, and interacted with to prove your bullshit wrong.USSR supported those countries which turned into state capitalism (the majority AFTER the revolution and not DURING) because of its geo-political interests, you idiot. When a country going through a struggle didn't suit in those interests USSR didn't support it as it was the case of Greece in the post-WW II.



Oh and fucking State Capitalism again? When will you fucking understand that you do not know what you're talking about? None of those countries during Stalin's period were State Capitalist, only China today is State Capitalist. Again, I already told you to read my debate and posts on the question of State Capitalism. I'm not going to read your posts out of this thread. If you want to refute my argument about state capitalism do it here.




Oh but you are indeed the fucking ignorant idiot. If you would even bother to carefully look at the words, you would notice that I said "Eastern Europe turned to Communism" not "turned to communism". The former refers to Communism as in the countries following the ideology of Communism and with a Communist Party, not a communist mode of production. I know very well what communism is, something which you seem unable to differentiate from Communism as the ideology. And yes I am calling you a kid for that is what you actually are. There is no such thing as "satelization" but I think you mean "satellization" in which case, what the hell are you trying to imply? Those satellite states were turned towards Communism otherwise they would have remained Capitalist/Feudal countries. I would certainly prefer that they forcibly be joined with the USSR than left opposing the USSR. I couldn't stop laughing at this. Communism with upper case means one thing. Communism with lower case means another. Dude just stop embarrassing yourself.

Yes, I know you prefer them to be joined forcibly with USSR since you are a Stalinist. But they remained Capitalist countries as they were before.




Oh please can your bullshit. As I have already pointed out and proven, the revolution was spread in numerous countries all over the world with the aid of the USSR and even countries were entirely turned towards Communism without the necessity of a revolution through the creation of satellite states. The Third International was destroyed, not that it was by any means effective at all, and replaced by the Comintern and then the Cominform. LOL. The Comintern was the III International. How you do not want to be call ignorant when you keep saying that you know this very well and then you give such a childish error. There is nothing wrong about not knowing these things (after all we are on the learning section!) but your slandering and arrogance leaves no other choice.

And just to remember, it was you who started with the slandering in our discussion. I will stop with the slandering but if you keep pushing it I'll have to take other measures.




Prove it. The party was still the party with the same constitution. The party was not dominated by one man, that would have been an impossibility as they needed majority decisions to pass any policy within the party. I don't have to prove it. You said it yourself "The opposition of the party was gotten rid of because of its nature as an obstacle and it threatening the division and splitting of the party". A party without opposition and submitted to one man is a party dominated by one man, you know?


Is THAT you reply? What is this shit? You entirely ignored what I had typed explaining the differences between the various forms of nationalism, specifically between the Tsarist Nationalism and the Soviet Nationalism, and you give me this shit? Russian Chauvinism, so be it! As long as that Russian Chauvinism was based on Soviet proletarian and Communist chauvinism! From the old Tsarist order? Bullshit. The Russian Chauvinism was there not as a homage or tribute to Tsarism but because the main center of the USSR was Russia or "Great Russia". Pathetic excuse of yours.No, it was a tribute to Stalin and Stalinism. The cult of personality around Stalin was higher than it ever was with any Tzar to be perfectly honest.

From repression of minorities to russification of territories, all of this was recovered and even taken it to the extreme by Stalin.



That's because you are an idiot. Progressive conservatism is a term that is used when referring to the preservation of progressive ideals in the face of aspirations for liberal reformist ideals. I already explained this previously but it seems you are not capable of reading, the progressive conservatism was observed in the Soviet Communist Parties where those who stuck to the Soviet ideals and Communism were the conservatives, those who wanted to keep things as they were, against those who wished to restore Capitalism subtly by presenting Capitalist economic reforms and market liberalization. That is what positive conservatism is, it it he preservation of progressive ideals in the face of reformist struggles for liberal reforms that moved away from Socialism and Communism. Maybe if you would bother to fucking read then you would not call it stupid and instead notice the significance of that expression as it had been observed in real-life in the case of the Soviet Union's hardliners (progressive conservatives) versus the liberal reformists.Dude, I was talking about conservative values and morals like repressing homosexuality or abortion, not about wanting to restore capitalism. Your idiotic interpretation (again) of conservantism is what confused you.



Oh because only the old Tsarist order had laws against homosexuality, abortion, the persecution of minority, etc. etc. That not "conservantism [sic]", that is reaction where the old ideals are sought after. Oh and that is not by any means the conservation of progressive ideals, but is an example of negative conservatism where the restoration/conservation of negative backwards ideals takes place. It's reactionary then? LOL. It leads to the same conclusion. The revolutionary course was reverted.


Exactly, your stupid post and your inability to read. I did not call YOU an Anarchist, I called your "analysis" as Anarchist in its depth, conclusions, and means where you use petty empty labels as arguments rather than bothering to analyze anything. You throw around words you know nothing of such as "conservatism", "nationalism", etc. and instead of analyzing the differences as I have shown you how to between Soviet conservatism and nationalism versus Tsarist conservatism and nationalism you instead treat those labels as arguments in and of themselves. That is obviously a logical fallacy and completely false.And which is the difference between punishing homosexuals under a Tzarist law and punishing them under a "socialist" one? It is wrong to punish homosexuals under Tzarism but it is right if we punish them under a socialist regime?

It is wrong to oppress minorities under a Tzarist regime but if we do it under a socialist one that is no problem?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Exactly. Nationalism is anti-Marxist, period. It was absolutely an anathema to the Bolsheviks until Stalin ushered in the Socialism in One Country line. There is no "good" nationalism among communists. It has been a plague on the workers' movement since its inception. And Stalin and his followers bear more a little bit of responsibility for this.

Was nationalism different under Stalin than it was under Alexander? Sure. There was plenty to defend in the USSR even after Stalin was murdering all the conscious revolutionaries in the country -- but not the nationalism, nor the brutality.

[Theophys]

This must be clearly a joke. Opposition remained but in a different form? Democratic debate continued in a different form? What different form is that? You can have democratic debate as long as you don't disagree with Stalin?
It's not a joke. The opposition remained but no the severity, extent, or even the form that existed between Lenin's death and the Great Purge. Democratic debate continued under a different form, one that was more constructive than the verbal bashing found after Lenin's death and before the Great Purge, the factionalism of that period, and so on.


How many times I have to tell you that the ban of factions wasn't a ban on opposition since Lenin's opponents remained in the party, some were integrated in the CC and proposals of the opposition were adopted by the party namely form the Workers Opposition. It's fucking ridiculous the fact that you are trying to link Lenin with Stalin. And it was Lenin who split with the Mensheviks? What the hell this got to do with dealing with opposition? Mensheviks were social-democrats, hence not communists as it proved out to be later.

You CLEARLY are unable to read. Here's what I said:
"Lenin did not allow opposition as you make it out to be, opposition existed but not in the form found after Lenin's death."

You seem to constantly think that the deadly opposition between Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, and Trotsky was in any way, shape, or form similar to that found during Lenin's time. That is of course false and wrong as I have explained time and time again. The ban on factions I never claimed to be a ban on opposition, but I claimed that if the opposition during Lenin's period were in any way similar to the opposition found during the period before the Great Purge then it would have most certainly led to the purging (kicking) of various party members such as the Troika and Trotsky. The Workers' Opposition under Lenin was by no means as organized, as permanent, and as colluding as that before the expulsion of Trotsky. Trotsky was kicked out of the party not by Stalin alone or otherwise and not because Stalin was a dictator, but because of his factionalist actions and the consent of the majority of the party. And it's fucking ridiculous that you seem to think of Stalin as a dictator and Lenin as a saint whilst entirely ignoring the different conditions under each. The split from the Mensheviks has everything to do with opposition. The split signifies that Lenin disagreed with the opposition and severed relations with them when they had irreconcilable differences.

The same position was found after Lenin's death that led to the Great Purge, but this time it led to deaths whilst preserving the party. The Communist Party could never be split up as it was in power and would have divided the country, but the RSDLP was not and could easily be split upon disagreement. This led to the severe actions of purging the party rather than splitting the party. The differences within the parties has little to do with labels and much to do with the type of opposition and differences. The differences between the Mensheviks being Social-Democrats and the Bolsheviks ALSO being Social-Democrats (they both belonged to the RSDLP) had little to do with it as much as it had to do with the Bolsheviks vehemently disagreeing with the Mensheviks with no chance of reconciliation. The same happened in the case of the post-Lenin party. In fact, during Lenin's time the party buried differences and was still manageable due to the presence of Lenin.


And the purge conducted on Lenin's time was directed against people who joined the party AFTER the revolution (and never involved killing), while Stalin purges involved people who were part of the party since its foundations and played key roles within the party during Lenin's term. You really can't see the difference?

I already stated that Lenin's purges did not involve killing. Lenin's purges, also, were not solely exclusive to those who joined the winning side post hoc but those numerous members were questioned based on class, allegiance, contributions, and beliefs. I can see the difference because I ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE! But, are you in any way, shape, or form attempting to state that those that had been with the party from its foundations and who played key rules within the party during Lenin's term are not capable of change? Then do tell me about Stalin not changing, Trotsky not changing, and so on. I'll be waiting.


Now I am sure that you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. How could have been the Troika expelling Trotsky if the Troika was already over when Trotsky was expelled from the party?

Zinoniev and Kamenev had already broke with Stalin and were in fact on Trotsky's side against Stalin. Go learn your history again.
Actually, you have no clue how to comprehend. The Troika, with its formation, actions, and consequences led and paved the way to Trotsky's expulsion. Trotsky would not have been expelled had the Troika not formed and plotted against him.


You say that Stalin reacted to opposition the way he did because of the opposition which emerged after Lenin's death but there is one major fault here. When the Great Purge was carried out that opposition was already disbanded. Trotsky had been exiled for almost ten years and the others who remained had already been humiliated and submitted to Stalin.

The opposition that led Stalin to conduct the Great Purge was the one who wanted almost unanimously Kirov as the leader of the party during the Congress of the Condemn. Your justification of Stalin behavior towards opposition is flawed anyway but even considering it has that one major fault.
You really have the inability to read and comprehend. Firstly, you claim that "that opposition" was disbanded and yet seem to forget that the opposition remained. You show this later on by speaking of "the opposition that led Stalin to conduct the Great Purges", that opposition included Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, et al. which were later on purged. Kirov received a large amount of votes with only 3 negative votes whilst Stalin received a hundred negative votes, that shows the opposition quiet clearly. In fact even before that there was the issue of the Rykov and Bukharin opposition that was defeated but remained with the continued existence and participation of Bukharin and Co.


As I already stated numbers of times (but you seem to have a hard time to understand) if Stalin couldn't not be that unifying figure he just had to step away and respect the decision of the majority which he didn't. No one is above the party or the principles which guided it. Lenin didn't emerge as some divine leader for the party. He became the leader through his own virtues as politician. Call it charisma or whatever you want. One thing is being elected a leader by the majority, other thing is imposing himself as a leader OVER the majority due to his powerful position within the party. Can't you see the difference here too?

He didn't because no one did. Zinoviev wanted to the be that figure, Trotsky wanted to be that figure, Kamenev wanted to be that figure, Stalin wanted to be that figure, and many others wanted to be that figure. If one of them stepped down, the others would have continued fighting over it until one and only one emerged the victor. In fact, this is exactly what happened. No one is above the party and this is exactly why Stalin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, Bukharin, and Co. used the party and tried to collude and gain support from the others. Lenin actually emerged as the divine leader of the party because of his "own virtues as a politician" and this arose from him purely being a "founding father" and "leader of the revolution" and its chief figurehead and representative during the revolution and within the party. Exactly, and this is why Stalin could not "impose" anything, he needed to be elected or gain support to become in a higher position, and that is what he did. He did not come from outside the party with absolutely no party support and decided to become a leader.


Lenin was the founder of the party along with other people. He didn't found the party alone.
To claim that the others were in any means significant would be quite absurd, that is why you didn't. He didn't found the party alone but he was the one who main figure behind the founding of the party and its main and primary founder. The rest, if anything, were merely collaborators and "co-founders" that merely agreed with Lenin and sided with him. They are as much founders as the American revolutions were founders of America compared to the American Founder Fathers.


It is pathetic because Kamenev, Zinoniev and Trotsky were already no threat to Stalin when he killed them. And it is even more pathetic when you say that Lenin would have done the same without any grounding.
They had already been a threat, Trotsky from exile, Kamenev and Zinoviev from within the party acting in opposition. In fact, "After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin, Stalin invented a detailed scheme to implicate opposition leaders in the murder, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev.[48]" That explains enough. Stalin still considered them threats and they were still in opposition, most likely a large factor in the 100 negative votes versus the 3 negative votes of Kirov's. Lenin would not have killed them, as I have said, but would have purged them for factionalism outside of the accepted conditions (before and during Congresses). They all vied for power and divided and conflicted with each other based on any difference just for the sake of argument in order to undermine the other and they to take power.


Again, no one must pervert the principles of the party just because you think that you should be the leader instead of others. No one is above the party. If you don't have the majority with you back the fuck off.
That's why they should have all been purged, including Stalin, before things got out of hand as they did.


The Workers Opposition existing on a permanent basis only gives me even more reason on how Lenin allowed opposition within the party. I don't know what was your purpose for showing this text but you certainly didn't mean it. And integrating the leader of opposition within the CC is very important alongside the adoption of opposition proposals.
No, the Workers' Opposition only existed on a permanent basis AFTER Lenin's death, not before. The laeder of the opposition under Lenin was not by any means comparable to oppositions after Lenin's death, I do not have to keep repeating this until you understand. The opposition under Lenin could compromise and agree, but those after Lenin's could not as their interests were contradictory and only allowed for one victor.


So from "Stalin didn't kill so many Old Bolsheviks" you are now at "the Old Bolsheviks were corrupt and perverted". This shows how your all argumentation is flawed. So people who were in high positions within the party during Lenin's leadership and were part of it since its foundation suddenly became anti-communists? And why? Because they didn't agree with Stalin.
Where the fuck did I say that the Old Bolsheviks were corrupt and perverted? The Old Bolsheviks still existed in the thousands, the Old Bolsheviks were not those included only in the party. The only thing flawed here is your reasoning and reading comprehension. They can very well change even if they were under Lenin's leadership, in fact look at Stalin and Trotsky. They need not at all have become anti-Communists but could have very well changed their ideals. Look at Trotsky from "Terrorism and Communism" then look at Trotsky in "The Revolution Betrayed". Why? Not because they didn't agree with Stalin because Stalin also changed but because they actually as well changed and may have changed.


No. Stalin went against the ideals of the party by denying divisions and expelling Trotsky. Creation of divisions is part of any Communist Party. Lenin had it and so Stalin needed to have if he was really a communist.
Divisions were NEVER allowd. Factionalism was only permitted directly before and during Congresses. Trotsky was not expelled by Stalin alone. The creation of divisions is not a "part of any Communist Party", what ridiculous shit this is. Divisions are not allowed, but factionalism before and during Congresses as in the case of the USSR were allowed. The thing after Lenin's death was that the factions did not end after the Congresses.


Comparing a party with a parliament which those members belong to different parties is damn absurd.
Not really, especially since the "parties" of the parliament became the "divisions" and "permanent factions" of the party.


Those people were committed to the party since its foundation. Stalin purged those who disagreed with him and brought new people around a different ideal: devotion to Stalin. Leninist principles were completely destroyed so Stalin could affirm himself as a leader as you pointed out. It was a new party with new people completely devoted to Stalin.
Bullshit. Those people were committed to the party since it foundation, but we could not by any means prove that they were still committed to the party, especially after what we've seen after Lenin's death and the formation of the Troika, divisions, and permanent factions. Devotion to Stalin does not change the party, as I have time and time explained. Leninist principles were not completely destroyed, instead the were preserved, but Stalin purged through killing rather than just booting. It was the same party, the Communist Party, with the same ideals, but with supporters devoted to Stalin instead of Lenin. Even with the opposition during Lenin's time, the party members were quite devoted to Lenin. Does that mean that directly after Lenin's death the party died and it became something new? Not at all.


Here again you show that you don't know a damn thing of the Bolshevik history. Stalin offered his resignation from the Secretary-General post which was by no means a leader of the party post. It was a merely administrative post that began to accumulate immense power when Stalin began to expel those who disagree with him. It was through his position as Secretary General that he imposed himself as leader, not through his popularity. In 1934 the overwhelming majority of the party wanted Kirov as the leader and Stalin killed them. So much for the popularity.
Did I claim that Stalin offered resignation from being a leadership position? No, I stated that Stalin offered to resign twice. His post was considered nothing, but apparently it didn't stay so.


Tell me what Stalin opposition remained in the party after the Great Purge?
Here are the statistics from the 18th Congress directly after the Great Purge:

"The composition of delegates to the congress was in terms of kind of work: from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35.

In terms of education there were 418 delegates with higher education (26.5 percent), 78 with incomplete higher education (5 percent), 352 with secondary education (22.5 percent), and 721 with incomplete secondary education and primary education, (46 percent).

In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917, 17 percent joined between 1917 and 1920, 37.6 percent joined between 1920 and 1929, and 43 percent joined between 1929 and 1939. The order of business was summary reports from the Central Committee of the CPSU (Bolshevik), J. V. Stalin; the Central Auditing Com-mission, M. F. Vladimirskii, and the delegation of the CPSU(B) to IKKI (Executive Committee of the Communist International; D. Z Manuil’skii); the Third Five-Year Plan for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR, V. M. Molotov; Changes in the Rules of the CPSU(B), A. A. Zhdanov; Elections to the Commission to Change the Program of the CPSU(B); and Elections to the Central Organs of the Party."

You cannot by any means imply that no opposition from all those numbers were not there, but I cannot find any names in the spam of "Dictator Stalin killed everyone in the Great Purge". I am quite sure that if we were to be there or even have direct records of the events and party after the Great Purge then we'd see the opposition for ourselve. In fact if there were no opposition after the Great Purge then the anti-Stalinism under Khruschev would not have taken place after the Secret Speech.

And this was agreed upon:

"The congress adopted new Party rules reflecting changes in the class structure of Soviet society. Uniform conditions for admittance and for the candidate stage of Party membership (one year) were set for everyone admitted to the CPSU(B), with the exception of people who had come from other par-ties. The division into categories according to membership in social groups was abolished. The rules were enlarged by a point on the rights of Party members. A system of closed (secret) voting in elections to Party organs was established. The rules abolished mass purges. The rights of primary Party organizations were expanded, and their responsibility for implementing the decisions of the Party was increased. The Party organizations of productive enterprises, including sovkhozes, kolkhozes, and machine and tractor stations, were granted the right of control over the activity of the administration. To strengthen Party leadership of the economy, the Central Committee of the Party could create political divisions and detach Party organizers to decisive sectors of socialist construction. The rules reflected the growing role of the Party in the leadership of social organizations. The section “The Party and Komsomol” was included in the rules for the first time. The congress devoted much attention to the issue of the Marxist-Leninist training of cadres and to the ideological work of Party organizations. The congress confirmed the third five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR."

Source: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Eighteenth+Congress+of+the+CPSU+Bolshevik


Yes, that's the point. The factions always existed as you correctly mentioned during Lenin's time and the party never degenerated. What you say is just a poor-pissing excuse of Stalin actions.
The factions during Lenin's time at first existed unhindered before they became a problem at which point Lenin and Co. determined that factions must only exist before and during the Congresses. The divisions and the factions that form after Lenin's death were a betrayal of this and led to the irreconcilable differences and oppositions within the party. These led to the problems that led to the power struggles, the expulsions, the readmittances, the exiles, and eventually the killings.


When you have the party totally submitted to you it's very easy to be accountable to it. You perhaps don't know this but every dictator has a party or government, you know? I don't know the existence of a dictator who rules without a party or a government. Fucking ignorant.
The party was not submitted to Stalin. The party was not even solely the government as I have shown above. A dictator with a party and government acting independent of him is no longer a dictator. Popular claims of dictatorship mostly end up beign bullshit loaded words to demonize something just as in the case of idiots calling Lenin, Stalin, Tito, etc. dictators. A dictator rules without a party or a government by having him put forth decisions and the party and government executing them. That was not by any means the case with Stalin who was still part of the party and the government, not a dictator acting independently of the.


There is no autocracy of a class, state or party because autocracy implies one person, your ignorant. Only someone who is really a shithead can think that autocracy can be used as dictatorship.
And dictatorship implies one person, ergo you claim that there is no such thing as a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" even though Marx and Engels and Co. called it a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Pro. Oh and it's "you're ignorant" not "your ignorant. An autocracy can very well be used as a dictatorship if you speak of the autocracy of entities and the dictatorship of entities. In fact, if Stalin were an autocracy as you so ignorantly claim then Stalin would not have had a government, the congresses, the party, or the state but merely needed himself and only himself. This is what an autocracy is:

"An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'état or mass insurrection).[1]"

Stalin was still subject to the party, the state, the government, the congresses, and democracy within the party. If those elements chose to take Stalin out of power, what happened to Khrushchev would have happened to Stalin himself. Fear is not a factor at all as that is the condition and circumstance that such measures are undertaken. Stalin did not have supreme power, he was subject to external legal restraints, and was subject to regularized mechanisms of popular control. The thing is that these elements did not attempt to take him out of power, but those who did had previously lost the power struggle BEFORE the Great Purge. Stalin could have very well been taken out of power and sent down the ranks or even executed if those elements chose, but they did not. No matter how much they fear him they would have done so if they desired.


So, punishing homosexuals or abortion and persecuting minorities are one thing when it was under the Tzarist regime but it was another thing when it was under a "communist" system? LOL. This is why I called you fucking ignorant.
No. As you very well know I never claimed that is the case with those issues, but I only claimed that is the case the with general accusation that you made. I never spoke of homosexuals, abortion, nor the persecution of minorities if you remember correctly. Instead of trying to find cop-out, try to actually address my arguments. It was by every means a Communist system, not a communist systems. Some of us do differentiate those two for a reason as I have already explained with the former referring to the ideology held and the latter referring to the mode of production.


The revolutionary period lasts until the revolutionary gains and achievements are reverted. That began with Stalin. Autocracy, nationalism and conservantism returned to Russia.
Lol? So a revolution is permanent until the entire world becomes Socialist then Communist and even then the revolution is not completed? Can your bullshit. A revolutionary ends with the securing of power despite the rhetoric anyone claims. I already explained to, but you seem unable to read, that there was no autocracy. Nationalism was completely different from that under Tsarism as this was the nationalism of a Socialist country, as I have already describe. It was no longer bourgeois nationalism, but proletarian nationalism, i.e. a "progressive" nation (as Marx and Engels described nations moving through the historical evolution) that must be defended at all costs against bourgeois aggression, just as Marx and Engels defended and called the German and Magyars as progressive vs the reactionary Tsarists, we are to defend any historical progressive regimes that aid the class struggle and move in the interests of Communism and the proletariat. As for conservatism, I already explained this to you, but again you seem unable to read, that the conservation of Communsit ideals versus the restoration of Capitalism or the move towards liberal reforms is Communist conservatism, also known as hardlining.

Start reading:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm
http://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0885en.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/01/arndt.htm


USSR supported those countries which turned into state capitalism (the majority AFTER the revolution and not DURING) because of its geo-political interests, you idiot. When a country going through a struggle didn't suit in those interests USSR didn't support it as it was the case of Greece in the post-WW II.
The geo-political interests which Marx and Engels would have supported just as they supported the geo-political interests of the Germans and Magyars against the Tsarist Russians when it came to the question of the Slavs and pan-Slavism, yes. The USSR was the most progressive country in terms of its historical process. It was the highest so far the world has every achieved in terms of historical development being the first Socialist and proletarian country in the world. It is on that basis that the USSR must carry with it the other countries just as Marx and Engels called for the Slavs to assimilate with the Germans and Magyars, not the Turks and Tsarists. Greece was already being supported until the fall out between Yugoslavia and the USSR. The interests of the USSR were the interests of the Communists and the proletariat, whether you believe it or not. The USSR did in fact abolish classes, did away with the bourgeoisie, glorified and empowered the proletariat, and created a proletariat state as opposed to a bourgeois state. This is by every means a reason why the interests of the USSR must be acted upon and defended just as Marx and Engels claimed the interests of the Germans and Magyars should include the assimilation of the Slavs in order to "pick them up" and move them up the historical progression. The USSR, by taking any other country into its fold would essentially be progressing those countries and sending them up the scale of historical development.


I'm not going to read your posts out of this thread. If you want to refute my argument about state capitalism do it here.
Too bad because I'm juggling 5 huge debates on 5 different threads. Oh well:

"Do you even KNOW what State Capitalism and a dictatorship are? State Capitalism pertains a private sector, private ownership of the means of production, corporations for private profit, competing markets, production for private profit and interests, etc.

From another post of mine:
"Oh please stop spouting nonsense you know little abut. The Soviet Union was NOT by ANY means a class society as I have already explained. It is based upon the extraction of surplus value not for private interests but for the interests of those that had their surplus value extracted for them. You need to continue and stop using bullshit superficial slogan throwing, context is everything. A bureaucratic elite? Oh boohoo, they must be evil. No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bureaucratic elite as long as they function according to Socialist and Communist ideals and Democratic Centralism exists. Generalized commodity production? I'd like to see you propose an alternative for a Socialist economy. Go ahead, I'll be waiting, just try to stay on Earth whilst you're daydreaming. Wage-labor will always be the norm as long as money exists, Capitalism exists, and humanity exists. The only instance where wage-labor is no longer necessary if we reach superabundance, and that's never going to happen.

State managed capital is not by any means State Capitalism. State Capitalism would necessitate the existence of "Capitalism" in the first place which is defined by private property, the existence of the bourgeoisie, the existence of financial markets, the existence of competing markets, AND the existence of commodity production for PRIVATE PROFIT, the existence of wage-labor for PRIVATE profit, etc. State Capitalism, when used on the USSR, is nothing more than a "bad word" to use in an attempt to distance one's self from that specific system for ideological reasons. That is nothing short of a cop-out. Whether you will understand it or not, the USSR was by every means Socialist, albeit "State Socialist" or more specifically Soviet Socialist.

All of your "analysis" of wage-labor, classes, commodity production, and bureaucracy in the USSR are nothing but brief nonsense that is only a superficial and ignorant analysis. You need to know the "why", "where", "how", and "when" for them, you need to know the proper context, you need to know the justifications, you need to properly analyze them, you need to stop throwing around labels and instead properly analyze that shit.""


I couldn't stop laughing at this. Communism with upper case means one thing. Communism with lower case means another. Dude just stop embarrassing yourself.
Actually, yes it does. There's a reason for the differentiation which you do not seem to know of and that is one where one is used to refer to the ideology which it is then capitalized while the other is used to refer to the system. That is how I use the two terms and if you would even bother to read my previous posts you would find that distinction. This distinction is crucial to use and explain to individuals who are not well-versed in Communism, such as yourself, who think that when people say the USSR was a Communist country that they are claiming that the USSR had a communist mode of production. Nevertheless, was THAT seriously your ENTIRE reply to my argument? How lovely of you.


Yes, I know you prefer them to be joined forcibly with USSR since you are a Stalinist. But they remained Capitalist countries as they were before.

I am no Stalinist, but if you wish to use empty labels then so be. I prefer them to be joined forcibly with the USSR just as Marx and Engels wanted the Slavs to join and assimilate with the Germans and Magyars.


LOL. The Comintern was the III International. How you do not want to be call ignorant when you keep saying that you know this very well and then you give such a childish error. There is nothing wrong about not knowing these things (after all we are on the learning section!) but your slandering and arrogance leaves no other choice.

My bad with that, I was already debating in 5 others threads (see my post history) in quite a lengthy manner and must have gotten confused. Nevertheless, you know very well what I mean and the point remains unchanged. The point was that the USSR, despite the Socialism in One Country which you think to be isolationist, took part in the support of numerous revolutions and did in fact utilize and make home for the Third International. When the Third International was dissolved, it was replaced by the Cominform. In fact, the Third International was dissolved with endorsements from the member organizations/nations. After the dissolution of the Cominform AFTER Stalin's death, there remained coordination and contact between Communist parties all over the world.

"While the Communist parties of the world no longer had a formal international organization, they continued to maintain close relations with each other through a series of international forums. In the period directly after dissolution of Comintern, periodical meetings of Communist parties were held in Moscow. Moreover World Marxist Review, a joint periodical of the Communist parties, played an important role in coordinating the communist movement up to the break-up of the Socialist Bloc in 1989-1991."


And just to remember, it was you who started with the slandering in our discussion. I will stop with the slandering but if you keep pushing it I'll have to take other measures.

I did not calling you an "idiot" nor "fucking ignorant". You are the one slandering.


I don't have to prove it. You said it yourself "The opposition of the party was gotten rid of because of its nature as an obstacle and it threatening the division and splitting of the party". A party without opposition and submitted to one man is a party dominated by one man, you know?

No. You will need to prove it. I was referring to the opposition after Lenin's death, not the lack of existence of an opposition after the Great Purge. Opposition remained, but "the opposition" (context is everything) was gotten rid of with the Great Purge. The party was never submitted to one man, again you assert the positive, again the burden of proof is on you, and again you must prove it. You claim the party was also without opposition, go ahead and prove it as you requested that I prove otherwise.


No, it was a tribute to Stalin and Stalinism. The cult of personality around Stalin was higher than it ever was with any Tzar to be perfectly honest.

And Stalin, as Lenin, Marx, and Engels were considered the figureheads of Communism. The tributes to them is a tribute to Communism. When people put up avatars of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin what is that if not a tribute to them and ergo a tribute to what they represent, i.e. Communism? The cult of personality existed for Lenin, Marx and Engels as well.


From repression of minorities to russification of territories, all of this was recovered and even taken it to the extreme by Stalin.
And what's the issue here? Again Marx and Engels on the question of pan-Slavism.


Dude, I was talking about conservative values and morals like repressing homosexuality or abortion, not about wanting to restore capitalism. Your idiotic interpretation (again) of conservantism is what confused you.

Actually, it is not an idiotic interpretation but a valid interpretation. In fact, it is you who did the "idiotic interpretation" by thinking that conservatism refers to the conservatism of the current American political scene. Conservatism is RELATIVE to the ideals held in a society AT ANY GIVEN TIME. In the case of the USSR, it would be conservative to CONSERVE THE CURRENT IDEALS and reactionary to go BACK TO TSARIST IDEALS. It is thus YOU who took part in the "idiotic interpretation (again)", not me. As for the point, repressing homosexuality and abortion are undesirable issues and measures, but I do not at all see where Marx or Engels supported such actions nor opposed them. These are reactionary values, not conservative values.


It's reactionary then? LOL. It leads to the same conclusion. The revolutionary course was reverted.

Yes it was. Same conclusion but it is you who had the "idiotic interpretation (again)", not me. The revolutionary course was not and could never be reverted by repressing homosexuals or abortion because the revolution never was about nor did it base itself on homosexuals or abortion.


And which is the difference between punishing homosexuals under a Tzarist law and punishing them under a "socialist" one? It is wrong to punish homosexuals under Tzarism but it is right if we punish them under a socialist regime?
There is no difference. I'd look for the reasons and justifications, but I don't have the time, need to reply to the others.


It is wrong to oppress minorities under a Tzarist regime but if we do it under a socialist one that is no problem?

Yes, absolutely. Minorities differ and the views and reasons under which they were oppressed differs from Tsarism to Socialism. For example, the minority would be oppressed under Tsarism if that minority were to be considered Communist, Socialist, or anti-Tsarist while under Socialism to be reactionary, pro-White, and anti-Communist.

[evermilion]

I love how prioritizing gains made within certain political borders over antagonizing more powerful states is what passes for "anathema" to Marxism on these boards. I mean the "nationalism" being discussed here is little more than operating a state. People forget that the Soviet Union was pretty damn international for its time. Although one state, it was made up of several nations. This is considering the Soviet Union as the sum breaking down of barriers.

And Comrade Theophys, you're exactly the type to get called a troll on these boards. That means you're doing something right, and I really find it gratifying to see anti-Stalin poseurs put in their place with crazy amounts of research.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

I already stated that Lenin's purges did not involve killing.

...

Zinoviev wanted to the be that figure, Trotsky wanted to be that figure, Kamenev wanted to be that figure, Stalin wanted to be that figure, and many others wanted to be that figure.
...

That's why they should have all been purged, including Stalin, before things got out of hand as they did.

...

The party was not submitted to Stalin. The party was not even solely the government as I have shown above. A dictator with a party and government acting independent of him is no longer a dictator.



At the same time you're claiming that the purges were the result of the struggle over becoming the next Lenin figure and not a result of Stalin's control. That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. If Stalin, as you said, should have been purged then how was he able to not only avoid being purged, but also purge all of his opponents? Control doesn't necessarily have to involve fear, a body of willing loyalists is even better. I don't know the history very well, but your argument doesn't seem quite right.

Also, I'm curious as to whether you believe those who were purged should have been executed as they were?

[Old Bolshie]

It's not a joke. The opposition remained but no the severity, extent, or even the form that existed between Lenin's death and the Great Purge. Democratic debate continued under a different form, one that was more constructive than the verbal bashing found after Lenin's death and before the Great Purge, the factionalism of that period, and so on.

As I said the different form was everyone agreeing with Stalin. All the people who opposed him were either sent to Gulag or killed. Hitler, Mussolini or Franco also had opposition but it was a "constructive" one.



You CLEARLY are unable to read. Here's what I said:
"Lenin did not allow opposition as you make it out to be, opposition existed but not in the form found after Lenin's death."

You seem to constantly think that the deadly opposition between Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, and Trotsky was in any way, shape, or form similar to that found during Lenin's time. That is of course false and wrong as I have explained time and time again. The ban on factions I never claimed to be a ban on opposition, but I claimed that if the opposition during Lenin's period were in any way similar to the opposition found during the period before the Great Purge then it would have most certainly led to the purging (kicking) of various party members such as the Troika and Trotsky. The Workers' Opposition under Lenin was by no means as organized, as permanent, and as colluding as that before the expulsion of Trotsky. Trotsky was kicked out of the party not by Stalin alone or otherwise and not because Stalin was a dictator, but because of his factionalist actions and the consent of the majority of the party. And it's fucking ridiculous that you seem to think of Stalin as a dictator and Lenin as a saint whilst entirely ignoring the different conditions under each. The split from the Mensheviks has everything to do with opposition. The split signifies that Lenin disagreed with the opposition and severed relations with them when they had irreconcilable differences.

The same position was found after Lenin's death that led to the Great Purge, but this time it led to deaths whilst preserving the party. The Communist Party could never be split up as it was in power and would have divided the country, but the RSDLP was not and could easily be split upon disagreement. This led to the severe actions of purging the party rather than splitting the party. The differences within the parties has little to do with labels and much to do with the type of opposition and differences. The differences between the Mensheviks being Social-Democrats and the Bolsheviks ALSO being Social-Democrats (they both belonged to the RSDLP) had little to do with it as much as it had to do with the Bolsheviks vehemently disagreeing with the Mensheviks with no chance of reconciliation. The same happened in the case of the post-Lenin party. In fact, during Lenin's time the party buried differences and was still manageable due to the presence of Lenin. Now the Bolsheviks were social-democrats because they belonged to a party which was called Social-Democrat. You probably also believe that Hitler was socialist because his party had "Socialism" on his name.

The difference between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was the difference between social-democrats and communists. Do you think communists and social-democrats should be in the same party?

Yes, Stalin was a dictator who cleaned all his opposition unlike Lenin who had opposition, listen it and even cooperated with it.




I already stated that Lenin's purges did not involve killing. Lenin's purges, also, were not solely exclusive to those who joined the winning side post hoc but those numerous members were questioned based on class, allegiance, contributions, and beliefs. I can see the difference because I ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE! But, are you in any way, shape, or form attempting to state that those that had been with the party from its foundations and who played key rules within the party during Lenin's term are not capable of change? Then do tell me about Stalin not changing, Trotsky not changing, and so on. I'll be waiting.Changing from communists to anti-communists and Nazi spies? No, I don't believe they are capable of changing that much.



Actually, you have no clue how to comprehend. The Troika, with its formation, actions, and consequences led and paved the way to Trotsky's expulsion. Trotsky would not have been expelled had the Troika not formed and plotted against him. Now they didn't expelled Trotsky, they paved the way. They certainly paved the way for Stalin's ascension when they gave earlier support to Stalin against Trotsky but that by no means make Zinoniev or Kamenev responsible for Trotsky expulsion from the party since they were fooled by Stalin as it were many Bolsheviks who believed and supported him initial and got killed after.



You really have the inability to read and comprehend. Firstly, you claim that "that opposition" was disbanded and yet seem to forget that the opposition remained. You show this later on by speaking of "the opposition that led Stalin to conduct the Great Purges", that opposition included Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, et al. which were later on purged. Kirov received a large amount of votes with only 3 negative votes whilst Stalin received a hundred negative votes, that shows the opposition quiet clearly. In fact even before that there was the issue of the Rykov and Bukharin opposition that was defeated but remained with the continued existence and participation of Bukharin and Co. When I say that opposition was disbanded I was talking about the opposition that you kept referring after Lenin's death: Zinoniev, Kamenev, Trotsky.

Every time I talked about Stalin getting rid of the opposition I was including the 30's with the Great Purge as it's obvious. It was with the Great Purge that Stalin killed his opposition.



He didn't because no one did. Zinoviev wanted to the be that figure, Trotsky wanted to be that figure, Kamenev wanted to be that figure, Stalin wanted to be that figure, and many others wanted to be that figure. If one of them stepped down, the others would have continued fighting over it until one and only one emerged the victor. In fact, this is exactly what happened. No one is above the party and this is exactly why Stalin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, Bukharin, and Co. used the party and tried to collude and gain support from the others. Lenin actually emerged as the divine leader of the party because of his "own virtues as a politician" and this arose from him purely being a "founding father" and "leader of the revolution" and its chief figurehead and representative during the revolution and within the party. Exactly, and this is why Stalin could not "impose" anything, he needed to be elected or gain support to become in a higher position, and that is what he did. He did not come from outside the party with absolutely no party support and decided to become a leader. No, he wasn't no divine leader or "founding father". That typical Stalinist language is clearly unmarxist and I never heard before anyone claiming that Lenin was a divine leader or a "founding father". He had more prestige than others which made of him the leader of the Bolsheviks but that was due his work and not by imposing himself as a leader over the will of the party unlike Stalin.

You continue to claim that everyone wanted to be the leader of the party and you completely forget the fact that when Stalin launched the Great Purge he was already the leader of the party. So your argument is empty. And as you correctly stated above the majority of the party wanted Kyrov as the leader and not Stalin.

And the only one who stepped over the party principles to achieve its aims was Stalin, not the others you mentioned.


To claim that the others were in any means significant would be quite absurd, that is why you didn't. He didn't found the party alone but he was the one who main figure behind the founding of the party and its main and primary founder. The rest, if anything, were merely collaborators and "co-founders" that merely agreed with Lenin and sided with him. They are as much founders as the American revolutions were founders of America compared to the American Founder Fathers.As I said there isn't no "founding father" of the Bolsheviks. That's clearly a Stalinist vocabulary which didn't exist prior to Stalin. He led the dissent with the Mensheviks. People weren't afraid of confronting him unlike what happened with Stalin. Not even in the most decisive moments. He was never above the others and always respected the decisions which were made against him as it was the case of the first voting of the Brest Litovsk Treaty.



They had already been a threat, Trotsky from exile, Kamenev and Zinoviev from within the party acting in opposition. In fact, "After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin, Stalin invented a detailed scheme to implicate opposition leaders in the murder, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev.[48]" That explains enough. Stalin still considered them threats and they were still in opposition, most likely a large factor in the 100 negative votes versus the 3 negative votes of Kirov's. Lenin would not have killed them, as I have said, but would have purged them for factionalism outside of the accepted conditions (before and during Congresses). They all vied for power and divided and conflicted with each other based on any difference just for the sake of argument in order to undermine the other and they to take power.Did Lenin expelled Shliapnikov for keeping the Workers Opposition permanent? No. He even integrated him in the CC. So no, Lenin wouldn't have them expelled from the party.

So if they represented threats in Stalin's perverted mind that means they were really threats? LOL. Zinoniev and Kamenev both wrote a public letter "acknowledging their mistakes and were readmitted to the Communist Party". This fact just by itself is repugnant and absolutely anti-marxist. Besides this they didn't return to their previous high positions but were positioned in mid-level bureaucracy posts.

And claiming that they had influence on the opposition of the Congress of the Condemn is damn absurd since Kyrov was one of the most close associates of Stalin and one of the most enthusiastic Stalin supporters.
And they were even accused of being the conspirators behind Kyrov assassination!!!


That's why they should have all been purged, including Stalin, before things got out of hand as they did.The only people who should have been purged was the ones who believed to be above the party, i.e, Stalin.



No, the Workers' Opposition only existed on a permanent basis AFTER Lenin's death, not before. The laeder of the opposition under Lenin was not by any means comparable to oppositions after Lenin's death, I do not have to keep repeating this until you understand. The opposition under Lenin could compromise and agree, but those after Lenin's could not as their interests were contradictory and only allowed for one victor.Nope, your text says otherwise:


Despite the ban on factionalism, the Workers' Opposition continued its open agitation against the policies of the Central Committee,

Where the fuck did I say that the Old Bolsheviks were corrupt and perverted? The Old Bolsheviks still existed in the thousands, the Old Bolsheviks were not those included only in the party. The only thing flawed here is your reasoning and reading comprehension. They can very well change even if they were under Lenin's leadership, in fact look at Stalin and Trotsky. They need not at all have become anti-Communists but could have very well changed their ideals. Look at Trotsky from "Terrorism and Communism" then look at Trotsky in "The Revolution Betrayed". Why? Not because they didn't agree with Stalin because Stalin also changed but because they actually as well changed and may have changed.You are already very confused. Changed their ideals? Are you saying that thousands of members suddenly changed their ideals because they disagree with Stalin? Including people who were committed to the party since the foundation of it? You have to understand that is damn hard to comprehend this. Those people remained committed to communism, simply rejected Stalinism.




Divisions were NEVER allowd. Factionalism was only permitted directly before and during Congresses. Trotsky was not expelled by Stalin alone. The creation of divisions is not a "part of any Communist Party", what ridiculous shit this is. Divisions are not allowed, but factionalism before and during Congresses as in the case of the USSR were allowed. The thing after Lenin's death was that the factions did not end after the Congresses.Unless you are a Stalinist (which is your case) political divisions or opposition must exist within the communist party. It's part of any democratic centralist organization as the Bolshevik of the party was. A party without democratic debate is anything but a communist one.

Lenin always respected divisions and different opinions. Your text back this. You just need to look above.



Not really, especially since the "parties" of the parliament became the "divisions" and "permanent factions" of the party.Different parties have different ideologies. What was the different ideology of Kamenev, Zinoniev, Trotsky and Stalin???



Bullshit. Those people were committed to the party since it foundation, but we could not by any means prove that they were still committed to the party, especially after what we've seen after Lenin's death and the formation of the Troika, divisions, and permanent factions. Devotion to Stalin does not change the party, as I have time and time explained. Leninist principles were not completely destroyed, instead the were preserved, but Stalin purged through killing rather than just booting. It was the same party, the Communist Party, with the same ideals, but with supporters devoted to Stalin instead of Lenin. Even with the opposition during Lenin's time, the party members were quite devoted to Lenin. Does that mean that directly after Lenin's death the party died and it became something new? Not at all.The party devoted to Lenin? That's why Lenin had a hard time and a narrowed approval of the Brest-Litvosk Treaty? Really? You know that in some voting of the CC Lenin's option was rejected by all the other members as it was the case of the Zimmerwald Conference?

No the party wasn't devoted to Lenin and he always faced opposition from the party. People spoke against him openly. You have no clue about what you are talking about.



Did I claim that Stalin offered resignation from being a leadership position? No, I stated that Stalin offered to resign twice. His post was considered nothing, but apparently it didn't stay so.



Here are the statistics from the 18th Congress directly after the Great Purge:

"The composition of delegates to the congress was in terms of kind of work: from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35.

In terms of education there were 418 delegates with higher education (26.5 percent), 78 with incomplete higher education (5 percent), 352 with secondary education (22.5 percent), and 721 with incomplete secondary education and primary education, (46 percent).

In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917, 17 percent joined between 1917 and 1920, 37.6 percent joined between 1920 and 1929, and 43 percent joined between 1929 and 1939. The order of business was summary reports from the Central Committee of the CPSU (Bolshevik), J. V. Stalin; the Central Auditing Com-mission, M. F. Vladimirskii, and the delegation of the CPSU(B) to IKKI (Executive Committee of the Communist International; D. Z Manuil’skii); the Third Five-Year Plan for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR, V. M. Molotov; Changes in the Rules of the CPSU(B), A. A. Zhdanov; Elections to the Commission to Change the Program of the CPSU(B); and Elections to the Central Organs of the Party."

You cannot by any means imply that no opposition from all those numbers were not there, but I cannot find any names in the spam of "Dictator Stalin killed everyone in the Great Purge". I am quite sure that if we were to be there or even have direct records of the events and party after the Great Purge then we'd see the opposition for ourselve. In fact if there were no opposition after the Great Purge then the anti-Stalinism under Khruschev would not have taken place after the Secret Speech.Firstly, your text says nothing about opposition. Secondly, your own statistics back my argument in a overwhelming manner.


In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917...43 percent joined between 1929 and 1939I don't know if you really read the texts which you are putting here since it's not the first time this happens. You are facilitating my job here.


And this was agreed upon:

"The congress adopted new Party rules reflecting changes in the class structure of Soviet society. Uniform conditions for admittance and for the candidate stage of Party membership (one year) were set for everyone admitted to the CPSU(B), with the exception of people who had come from other par-ties. The division into categories according to membership in social groups was abolished. The rules were enlarged by a point on the rights of Party members. A system of closed (secret) voting in elections to Party organs was established. The rules abolished mass purges. The rights of primary Party organizations were expanded, and their responsibility for implementing the decisions of the Party was increased. The Party organizations of productive enterprises, including sovkhozes, kolkhozes, and machine and tractor stations, were granted the right of control over the activity of the administration. To strengthen Party leadership of the economy, the Central Committee of the Party could create political divisions and detach Party organizers to decisive sectors of socialist construction. The rules reflected the growing role of the Party in the leadership of social organizations. The section “The Party and Komsomol” was included in the rules for the first time. The congress devoted much attention to the issue of the Marxist-Leninist training of cadres and to the ideological work of Party organizations. The congress confirmed the third five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR."

Source: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Eighteenth+Congress+of+the+CPSU+Bolshevik Again, are you kidding with me??? Mass purges were abolished AFTER the Great Purge? You even highlight it. Seriously, I don't know if you are being serious here but just for the case you are being serious after the Great Purge where all the opposition was either purged or killed what was left to purge?





The factions during Lenin's time at first existed unhindered before they became a problem at which point Lenin and Co. determined that factions must only exist before and during the Congresses. The divisions and the factions that form after Lenin's death were a betrayal of this and led to the irreconcilable differences and oppositions within the party. These led to the problems that led to the power struggles, the expulsions, the readmittances, the exiles, and eventually the killings.The existence of factions when under Lenin's leadership are fine but when under Stalin leadership are a betrayal? Get serious. Permanent factions always existed with Lenin and besides the Workers Opposition you have also the Democratic Centralists.


The party was not submitted to Stalin. The party was not even solely the government as I have shown above. A dictator with a party and government acting independent of him is no longer a dictator. Popular claims of dictatorship mostly end up beign bullshit loaded words to demonize something just as in the case of idiots calling Lenin, Stalin, Tito, etc. dictators. A dictator rules without a party or a government by having him put forth decisions and the party and government executing them. That was not by any means the case with Stalin who was still part of the party and the government, not a dictator acting independently of the. Are you seriously trying to say that the Communist Party and the Soviet Government were independent from Stalin??? Now I really believe you are starting to trolling here. This is the most absurd claim I've heard so far from you and you already did it big ones. This not even makes any reasoning.

And yes, it was the case of Stalin from the moment he killed his opposition and centralized all the power around him.



And dictatorship implies one person, ergo you claim that there is no such thing as a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" even though Marx and Engels and Co. called it a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. Pro. Oh and it's "you're ignorant" not "your ignorant. An autocracy can very well be used as a dictatorship if you speak of the autocracy of entities and the dictatorship of entities. In fact, if Stalin were an autocracy as you so ignorantly claim then Stalin would not have had a government, the congresses, the party, or the state but merely needed himself and only himself. I actually wanted to say "you ignorant" and I forget to clean the r.

For someone who is so concerned with my English you don't have too much to say about it. Just look at what you ended your comment above:


not a dictator acting independently of the.Where I ever stated that there is no such thing as "Dictatorship of the proletariat"?:confused:

Autocracy of entities??? Look at the definition you just provided below.


In fact, if Stalin were an autocracy as you so ignorantly claim then Stalin would not have had a government, the congresses, the party, or the state but merely needed himself and only himselfYes, because Hitler, Mussolini and all the other dictators didn't have parties, government or state. I don't remember of one modern dictator ruling without a party or a state. And you even claimed that I was the one making an ignorant claim.


This is what an autocracy is:

"An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'état or mass insurrection).[1]"

Stalin was still subject to the party, the state, the government, the congresses, and democracy within the party. If those elements chose to take Stalin out of power, what happened to Khrushchev would have happened to Stalin himself. Fear is not a factor at all as that is the condition and circumstance that such measures are undertaken. Stalin did not have supreme power, he was subject to external legal restraints, and was subject to regularized mechanisms of popular control. The thing is that these elements did not attempt to take him out of power, but those who did had previously lost the power struggle BEFORE the Great Purge. Stalin could have very well been taken out of power and sent down the ranks or even executed if those elements chose, but they did not. No matter how much they fear him they would have done so if they desired. Stalin was subjected to a party, state, government, etc submitted to him. That's why we can talk about autocracy.

As far as your comparison with Kruschev it made me laugh and I will even leave for Kruschev to answer you:

"I'm old and tired. Let them cope by themselves. I've done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution. I won't put up a fight"





No. As you very well know I never claimed that is the case with those issues, but I only claimed that is the case the with general accusation that you made. I never spoke of homosexuals, abortion, nor the persecution of minorities if you remember correctly. Instead of trying to find cop-out, try to actually address my arguments. It was by every means a Communist system, not a communist systems. Some of us do differentiate those two for a reason as I have already explained with the former referring to the ideology held and the latter referring to the mode of production.Sorry but I never heard that one before so you have to excuse me.

Punishing homosexuals or abortion and persecuting minorities are important aspects of chauvinism and conservantism, don't you think? Or you call it revolutionary?





Lol? So a revolution is permanent until the entire world becomes Socialist then Communist and even then the revolution is not completed? Can your bullshit. A revolutionary ends with the securing of power despite the rhetoric anyone claims. I already explained to, but you seem unable to read, that there was no autocracy. Nationalism was completely different from that under Tsarism as this was the nationalism of a Socialist country, as I have already describe. It was no longer bourgeois nationalism, but proletarian nationalism, i.e. a "progressive" nation (as Marx and Engels described nations moving through the historical evolution) that must be defended at all costs against bourgeois aggression, just as Marx and Engels defended and called the German and Magyars as progressive vs the reactionary Tsarists, we are to defend any historical progressive regimes that aid the class struggle and move in the interests of Communism and the proletariat. As for conservatism, I already explained this to you, but again you seem unable to read, that the conservation of Communsit ideals versus the restoration of Capitalism or the move towards liberal reforms is Communist conservatism, also known as hardlining.

Start reading:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm
http://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0885en.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/01/arndt.htm


The geo-political interests which Marx and Engels would have supported just as they supported the geo-political interests of the Germans and Magyars against the Tsarist Russians when it came to the question of the Slavs and pan-Slavism, yes. The USSR was the most progressive country in terms of its historical process. It was the highest so far the world has every achieved in terms of historical development being the first Socialist and proletarian country in the world. It is on that basis that the USSR must carry with it the other countries just as Marx and Engels called for the Slavs to assimilate with the Germans and Magyars, not the Turks and Tsarists. Greece was already being supported until the fall out between Yugoslavia and the USSR. The interests of the USSR were the interests of the Communists and the proletariat, whether you believe it or not. The USSR did in fact abolish classes, did away with the bourgeoisie, glorified and empowered the proletariat, and created a proletariat state as opposed to a bourgeois state. This is by every means a reason why the interests of the USSR must be acted upon and defended just as Marx and Engels claimed the interests of the Germans and Magyars should include the assimilation of the Slavs in order to "pick them up" and move them up the historical progression. The USSR, by taking any other country into its fold would essentially be progressing those countries and sending them up the scale of historical development.

Firstly, show me where Engels claimed that Slavs should be assimilated.

Secondly, what the fuck this has to do with nationalism? Is Engels defending German or Hungarian nationalism?

Thirdly, USSR was not more progressive than any other country in the world.

Nationalism in USSR was by no means different from the Tzarist one, only in vocabulary. Minorities were still repressed and the Russification from Tzarist times returned.


Greece was already being supported until the fall out between Yugoslavia and the USSR

Lie.



oo bad because I'm juggling 5 huge debates on 5 different threads. Oh well:

"Do you even KNOW what State Capitalism and a dictatorship are? State Capitalism pertains a private sector, private ownership of the means of production, corporations for private profit, competing markets, production for private profit and interests, etc.

From another post of mine:
"Oh please stop spouting nonsense you know little abut. The Soviet Union was NOT by ANY means a class society as I have already explained. It is based upon the extraction of surplus value not for private interests but for the interests of those that had their surplus value extracted for them. You need to continue and stop using bullshit superficial slogan throwing, context is everything. A bureaucratic elite? Oh boohoo, they must be evil. No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bureaucratic elite as long as they function according to Socialist and Communist ideals and Democratic Centralism exists. Generalized commodity production? I'd like to see you propose an alternative for a Socialist economy. Go ahead, I'll be waiting, just try to stay on Earth whilst you're daydreaming. Wage-labor will always be the norm as long as money exists, Capitalism exists, and humanity exists. The only instance where wage-labor is no longer necessary if we reach superabundance, and that's never going to happen.

State managed capital is not by any means State Capitalism. State Capitalism would necessitate the existence of "Capitalism" in the first place which is defined by private property, the existence of the bourgeoisie, the existence of financial markets, the existence of competing markets, AND the existence of commodity production for PRIVATE PROFIT, the existence of wage-labor for PRIVATE profit, etc. State Capitalism, when used on the USSR, is nothing more than a "bad word" to use in an attempt to distance one's self from that specific system for ideological reasons. That is nothing short of a cop-out. Whether you will understand it or not, the USSR was by every means Socialist, albeit "State Socialist" or more specifically Soviet Socialist.

All of your "analysis" of wage-labor, classes, commodity production, and bureaucracy in the USSR are nothing but brief nonsense that is only a superficial and ignorant analysis. You need to know the "why", "where", "how", and "when" for them, you need to know the proper context, you need to know the justifications, you need to properly analyze them, you need to stop throwing around labels and instead properly analyze that shit.""From what I see you are doing what you have done it here: calling ignorant everything you don't agree upon without giving any valid argument. This was the slandering that led me to slander in my previous post. If you don't agree with some opinion you don't have to call it "ignorant" or "stupid".

USSR was in fact a state capitalist system but there is nothing wrong in calling it so since it was Engels who claimed it as the last phase of capitalism before it dies out. It's perfectly normal that USSR developed into a State Capitalist nation since every Dictatorship of the Proletariat will always be it before the revolution spreads to enough countries build socialism.



Actually, yes it does. There's a reason for the differentiation which you do not seem to know of and that is one where one is used to refer to the ideology which it is then capitalized while the other is used to refer to the system. That is how I use the two terms and if you would even bother to read my previous posts you would find that distinction. This distinction is crucial to use and explain to individuals who are not well-versed in Communism, such as yourself, who think that when people say the USSR was a Communist country that they are claiming that the USSR had a communist mode of production. Nevertheless, was THAT seriously your ENTIRE reply to my argument? How lovely of you. You are the one who need to give a good look at the Learning Section to understand why there is no such thing as "communist country".

And I never heard that one before as I previously stated. Communism means the same as communism.




I am no Stalinist, but if you wish to use empty labels then so be. I prefer them to be joined forcibly with the USSR just as Marx and Engels wanted the Slavs to join and assimilate with the Germans and Magyars. That's a distorted view from someone who is clearly not communist and the comparison is ridiculous.


My bad with that, I was already debating in 5 others threads (see my post history) in quite a lengthy manner and must have gotten confused. Nevertheless, you know very well what I mean and the point remains unchanged. The point was that the USSR, despite the Socialism in One Country which you think to be isolationist, took part in the support of numerous revolutions and did in fact utilize and make home for the Third International. When the Third International was dissolved, it was replaced by the Cominform. In fact, the Third International was dissolved with endorsements from the member organizations/nations. After the dissolution of the Cominform AFTER Stalin's death, there remained coordination and contact between Communist parties all over the world.

"While the Communist parties of the world no longer had a formal international organization, they continued to maintain close relations with each other through a series of international forums. In the period directly after dissolution of Comintern, periodical meetings of Communist parties were held in Moscow. Moreover World Marxist Review, a joint periodical of the Communist parties, played an important role in coordinating the communist movement up to the break-up of the Socialist Bloc in 1989-1991."It's not my problem that you are debating in 5 different debates. Do you wanna compare the III International Congresses with periodical meetings???

The issue here is that Stalin dismantled the III International. Period.



No. You will need to prove it. I was referring to the opposition after Lenin's death, not the lack of existence of an opposition after the Great Purge. Opposition remained, but "the opposition" (context is everything) was gotten rid of with the Great Purge. The party was never submitted to one man, again you assert the positive, again the burden of proof is on you, and again you must prove it. You claim the party was also without opposition, go ahead and prove it as you requested that I prove otherwise.Opposition remained but the opposition was gotten rid? WTF??? And you were even saying that I have problems of comprehension? How you want anyone to comprehend this shit? What opposition remained?

The Great Purge is my proof. Everyone who disagreed with Stalin was either purged or killed. Keep the Congress of the Condemn in mind.






And Stalin, as Lenin, Marx, and Engels were considered the figureheads of Communism. The tributes to them is a tribute to Communism. When people put up avatars of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin what is that if not a tribute to them and ergo a tribute to what they represent, i.e. Communism? The cult of personality existed for Lenin, Marx and Engels as well. No it is not a tribute to communism since the fact itself is non-communist. The cult of personality was fostered by Stalin's leadership around Lenin, Marx and Engels but not Lenin, Marx or Engels had anything to do it just like Lenin didn't have fault of being revered in North Korea.



And what's the issue here? Again Marx and Engels on the question of pan-Slavism. The issue here is that you are clearly nationalist. This forum is not for nationalists, whether it's red or brown. You have plenty other forums to expose those views.





Actually, it is not an idiotic interpretation but a valid interpretation. In fact, it is you who did the "idiotic interpretation" by thinking that conservatism refers to the conservatism of the current American political scene. Conservatism is RELATIVE to the ideals held in a society AT ANY GIVEN TIME. In the case of the USSR, it would be conservative to CONSERVE THE CURRENT IDEALS and reactionary to go BACK TO TSARIST IDEALS. It is thus YOU who took part in the "idiotic interpretation (again)", not me. As for the point, repressing homosexuality and abortion are undesirable issues and measures, but I do not at all see where Marx or Engels supported such actions nor opposed them. These are reactionary values, not conservative values. OK, Stalin was not conservative but instead a reactionary which is even worst than being conservative. You just keep burying yourself.




Yes it was. Same conclusion but it is you who had the "idiotic interpretation (again)", not me. The revolutionary course was not and could never be reverted by repressing homosexuals or abortion because the revolution never was about nor did it base itself on homosexuals or abortion. You know what reactionary means don't you? You are just admitting yourself that Stalin was reactionary.

Revolution was about liberation of oppressed people. So you can include homosexuals there.



There is no difference. I'd look for the reasons and justifications, but I don't have the time, need to reply to the others. I'll wait anxiously.


Yes, absolutely. Minorities differ and the views and reasons under which they were oppressed differs from Tsarism to Socialism. For example, the minority would be oppressed under Tsarism if that minority were to be considered Communist, Socialist, or anti-Tsarist while under Socialism to be reactionary, pro-White, and anti-Communist.When I talk about minorities I am referring to ethnic and religious people, not ideologies. I thought this was clear when I spoke of minorities.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Stalin, at least in the beginning, like all of the other bolshevicks have nothing but good intentions. Hell, up until his rise to power he was considered a moderate in the Party.

He was considered a moderate, but in hindsight it's obvious he appeared as such only because he was an opportunist.


But as Lenin himself predicted in his testament, Stalin just couldn't handle the amount of power he was given. Once he had hit, it basically drove him a little nutty. The guy was already rather paranoid, and once he became the top dawg in the Party, he basically knew that others would want him dead. The terror of his possible assassination made his behavior more and more abnormal. The results was that the blood of innocents was shed in order to sate his paranoia.

I'm not sure about Stalin's mental health, but honestly, this is pretty tendentious.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

OB, Thanks for answering that Stalinist tool. I do not have the patience to respond to the drivel. I do beg to differ about the nature of the Soviet State. I take the Trotskyist view that it was a deformed workers' state. Even with Stalin in power it had to be defended against imperialism.

Comrade Theophys' notion that any kind of opposition to Stalin was tolerated is just plain silly. By the late 30s, a party member risked execution for not agreeing fulsomely enough with papa joe. The only organized opposition, the only opposition that actually gave voice to its opposition was external to the USSR -- The LO/FI.

There are Stalinists on this forum like Omsk and Ismail that support the Stalinist purges -- I don't know why they are reamining silent here.

[Lucretia]

OB, Thanks for answering that Stalinist tool. I do not have the patience to respond to the drivel. I do beg to differ about the nature of the Soviet State. I take the Trotskyist view that it was a deformed workers' state. Even with Stalin in power it had to be defended against imperialism.

For the sake of clarity, I will note that the words "deformed workers' state" never crossed Trotsky's lips ... or desk. A minor slip-up on your part, I'm sure, but he contended that the USSR was a degenerated workers' state.

[Theophys]

Sorry it's taking me a few hours to reply, too many huge debates as you can see here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/eliminating-scarcity-luxury-p2620963/index.html#post2620963


As I said the different form was everyone agreeing with Stalin. All the people who opposed him were either sent to Gulag or killed. Hitler, Mussolini or Franco also had opposition but it was a "constructive" one.
What about Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco? They all had opposition in one form or another, it is impossible for anyone two individuals to completely agree with each other without any single instance or form of opposition.


Now the Bolsheviks were social-democrats because they belonged to a party which was called Social-Democrat. You probably also believe that Hitler was socialist because his party had "Socialism" on his name.
Hitler explained himself that the "Socialism" in National Socialism had nothing to do with Marxist Socialism, unless you want to prove that the "Social-Democrat" in the "Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party" had nothing to do with then and only then would you have a point.


The difference between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was the difference between social-democrats and communists. Do you think communists and social-democrats should be in the same party?
Actually, buddy, after the split the Bolsheviks retained the "Social-Democrat" label calling themselves "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolshevik)". They only changed their label to Communist AFTER the October Revolution. The differences between the two was not as severe as the differences between a Social-Democrat and a Communist as both of them called themselves and were Social-Democrats. The Mensheviks believed a direct proletarian revolution was too early in Russia, the Bolsheviks claimed otherwise. The Mensheviks sided with the liberals while the Bolsheviks sided with the peasantry. So much for that.

Oh and let's not forget this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/nov/07.htm

If you think those are reasons enough for a split and division then so is support for the NEP and opposition against it, support for collectivization and opposition against it, and so on which were far worse opposition grounds than those faced between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.


Yes, Stalin was a dictator who cleaned all his opposition unlike Lenin who had opposition, listen it and even cooperated with it.
FIrst of all prove that Stalin was a dictator. You keep making this baseless claim. Go ahead and show that he had absolute power. As for Lenin, yes indeed, listened and cooperated such as splitting from the Mensheviks, refusing to cooperate with the Mensheviks, Cadets, etc. later on, etc. The party during Lenin's time barely had much opposition and when there were they were easily solved. The same cannot be said of the post-Lenin period where the opposition could only be solved by the victor of one of the power struggles above the others or the expulsion of all them.


Changing from communists to anti-communists and Nazi spies? No, I don't believe they are capable of changing that much.
They were not by any means anti-Communists nor Nazi spies, that's bullshit Stalinists spew. They could have very well changed from supporting X policy to Y, opposing factionalism to supporting factionalism, supporting policies then opposing them, or even becoming pains in the ass that could not and would not reconcile with constant attempts at undermining the other rather than advancing and progressing the party. Even Stalin himself was guilty of this. The only justification of Stalin I made was that I can see his point and reasoning for doing what he did for if he did not then the others would have.


Now they didn't expelled Trotsky, they paved the way. They certainly paved the way for Stalin's ascension when they gave earlier support to Stalin against Trotsky but that by no means make Zinoniev or Kamenev responsible for Trotsky expulsion from the party since they were fooled by Stalin as it were many Bolsheviks who believed and supported him initial and got killed after.
They did also pave the way for Stalin's ascension, I never denied this. Trotsky was expelled with Zinoviev but Zinoviev was later readmitted. Kamenev and Zinoviev, et al. later started another constant of power but this time against Stalin. Stalin apparently won.


When I say that opposition was disbanded I was talking about the opposition that you kept referring after Lenin's death: Zinoniev, Kamenev, Trotsky.
Yes, "the" opposition, not "opposition". The "the" refers to a specific form of opposition being referred to. If you take a look back you would see that that is the case and I did not edit it out, you can see that in your posts and the quotations.


Every time I talked about Stalin getting rid of the opposition I was including the 30's with the Great Purge as it's obvious. It was with the Great Purge that Stalin killed his opposition.
You mean the 20's? There was a purge before the Great Purge that did not involve the killing of the opposition. Nevertheless, every time you included "the" to "opposition" I took it as you speaking of that specific opposition not general opposition.


No, he wasn't no divine leader or "founding father". That typical Stalinist language is clearly unmarxist and I never heard before anyone claiming that Lenin was a divine leader or a "founding father". He had more prestige than others which made of him the leader of the Bolsheviks but that was due his work and not by imposing himself as a leader over the will of the party unlike Stalin.
Oh please can your bullshit. I do not care if my language is "unmarxist" or "Stalinist" as if that's an argument in and of itself. Deal with it. Lenin was glorified. The reactions after his death clearly show how highly he was considered. Lenin was the founding father, he was the head of the Bolsheviks and their main founder (If not the only one, the others follow suite), he called for and went with the October Revolution after the Bolsheviks settled without such a means, and he garnered a huge cult of personality, especially after his death. Read this on the issue here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/lenin-legend.htm

Lenin had more prestige than others, exactly, and that was due to his work which led him to being imposed as a leader within the party. The same applied to Stalin, albeit Stalin made it easier by killing off the opposition and thus streamlining things, creating less conflicts, and creating less irreconcilable differences. Lenin had no reason to do so at all and had most of his policies passed with little opposition, especially after Lenin threatened to resign in order to get his way with the party.


You continue to claim that everyone wanted to be the leader of the party and you completely forget the fact that when Stalin launched the Great Purge he was already the leader of the party. So your argument is empty. And as you correctly stated above the majority of the party wanted Kyrov as the leader and not Stalin.
If Stalin was already the leader of the party when he launched the Great Purge then he would have had no reason to launch the Great Purge in the first place. That's ridiculous. And ask yourself "why" exactly did they want Kirov? It wasn't because Kirov was better than Stalin or more experienced, but it was because of the power struggles and the opposition colluding against Stalin. It was an opposition for the sake opposition, as revenge for the conflicts and divides of the past between Stalin and the rest.


And the only one who stepped over the party principles to achieve its aims was Stalin, not the others you mentioned.
That's because Stalin actually reached a point where he was able to do so or even ballsy enough to do so whilst the others did not. In fact, we cannot by any means know if the others would have done the same, less, or more and on that very basis you cannot claim that they would not have done the same but that there was every reason and possibility to do the same. They were already expelling others, colluding with and against other, trying to wrestle power from the others, etc. but Stalin was the one who acted first and decisively.


As I said there isn't no "founding father" of the Bolsheviks. That's clearly a Stalinist vocabulary which didn't exist prior to Stalin. He led the dissent with the Mensheviks. People weren't afraid of confronting him unlike what happened with Stalin. Not even in the most decisive moments. He was never above the others and always respected the decisions which were made against him as it was the case of the first voting of the Brest Litovsk Treaty.
Lenin was by every means the founding father of the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution just as much as the American Founding Fathers were so and just as much as Marx was the father of Communism. That is not a Stalinist vocabulary because it's not even used by Stalinists, kiddo. You claiming, furthermore, that something is "Stalinist" does not make it so nor does it mean that it is bad as you seem to think. Nice try though. He led the dissent, ergo was a founding father. People weren't afraid of confronting Stalin at first nor was Stalin afraid of confrontation, then look what happened. Actually he was above the others and threatened to resign in order to get what he wanted, he called for the NEP amongst other policies which would have normally not been approved had Lenin not been behind them as we saw from its rapid repeal after 1929 or so. Lenin never respected the decisions which were made against him, in fact he publicly humiliated Trotsky and others during one conference and bashed them. He called the opposition various names ranging from philistines to opportunists. In the case of the first voting of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty he threatened to resign if he did not get what he wanted, this changed the second vote and changed the allegiances in his favor.


Did Lenin expelled Shliapnikov for keeping the Workers Opposition permanent? No. He even integrated him in the CC. So no, Lenin wouldn't have them expelled from the party.
If Lenin were able to integrate him to the CC then who's the "dictator" here? Good job. Nevertheless, are you kidding me? Here you go:

"Members of the former Workers' Opposition continued to advocate their views during the period of the New Economic Policy but increasingly became politically marginalized. Shlyapnikov and his supporters conducted discussions with Gavril Myasnikov's Workers' Group, but unlike Myasnikov, were determined not to leave the ranks of the Communist Party. Some members of the Workers' Opposition, including Shlyapnikov and Kollontai, signed the "Letter of the Twenty-Two" [1] to the Comintern in 1922, protesting Russian Communist Party leaders' suppression of dissent within the Party. Shlyapnikov, Kollontai, and Sergei Medvedev narrowly escaped expulsion from the Russian Communist Party at the Party's Eleventh Congress in 1922. Kollontai subsequently became an important diplomat and Shlyapnikov turned to writing his memoirs."

Keep destroying yourself, it only get easier with each post.


So if they represented threats in Stalin's perverted mind that means they were really threats? LOL. Zinoniev and Kamenev both wrote a public letter "acknowledging their mistakes and were readmitted to the Communist Party". This fact just by itself is repugnant and absolutely anti-marxist. Besides this they didn't return to their previous high positions but were positioned in mid-level bureaucracy posts.
You based your claim on a false assertion that Stalin's mind is perverted. You cannot by any means prove that someone's mind is by any means perverted as that "perversion" is completely subjective. What you deem to be perverted others would contest your claim. So yes, if they represented threats to Stalin then there were really threats to Stalin and Co. Wait, what is "repugnant and absolutely anti-marxist"? Again with this bullshit about anti-Marxism, I'm completely sure you do not know what Marxism is for you to claim every single damned thing to be anti-Marxist, hell I'd bet you barely know anything about Marxism ranging from the LTV to their historical and economic theories. YOU do not decide what is Marxist and what is not. What do you mean by "this fact"? That they had to publicly apologize before being readmitted to the party? What the fuck is so absurd with this? Numerous individuals were purged from the party even under Lenin, is an ability to readmit them to the party after the apologize something "anti-Marxist" that you cannot even fathom? Of course they cannot return to their same position after being expelled! When one commits a mistake or error and is expelled, you cannot by any means expect everyone to forgive and forget and act as if nothing happened! What ridiculous fucking bullshit coming from you. "Anti-Marxist" he says, laughable.


And claiming that they had influence on the opposition of the Congress of the Condemn is damn absurd since Kyrov was one of the most close associates of Stalin and one of the most enthusiastic Stalin supporters.
And they were even accused of being the conspirators behind Kyrov assassination!!!
Oh, oh! So apparently the 3 votes against Kirov were Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin/Trotsky!? Are you fucking kidding me?! They had a large influence on the decision to vote against Stalin, not against Kirov for anyone is better than Stalin in their opinion even if he were one of his close associates and his supporter. In fact, it is EXACTLY because Kirov was one of Stalin's most close associates and one of his most enthusiastic supporters that this proves my point! Their position was not the issue as Kirov sided with Stalin, the opposition was against Stalin for PERSONAL REASONS, that is EXACTLY why they did not vote for HIM but voted for KIROV who was, as YOU admitted, "one of the most close associates of Stalin and one of the most enthusiastic Stalin supporters!" You just dug yourself a hole and blew your entire argument. Good job yet again. :laugh:

As for the assassination, that very well expands upon my claim, it could have very well been the opposition that killed Kirov in an attempt to blame Stalin. So yes, this is something that is very reasonable just as it is reasonable to blame Stalin for the assassination. And no, voting for Kirov does not make them innocent as Kirov was a, as you claim, staunch supporter of Stalin and would have merely been a puppet in Stalin's hands. To eliminate Stalin they could have very well killed Kirov and blamed Stalin for being "power mad" over losing the vote.


The only people who should have been purged was the ones who believed to be above the party, i.e, Stalin.
Again, no one was against the party as per your asinine nonsense that someone was.


Nope, your text says otherwise:
And yet look at what I had already quoted above and again here:

"Members of the former Workers' Opposition continued to advocate their views during the period of the New Economic Policy but increasingly became politically marginalized. Shlyapnikov and his supporters conducted discussions with Gavril Myasnikov's Workers' Group, but unlike Myasnikov, were determined not to leave the ranks of the Communist Party. Some members of the Workers' Opposition, including Shlyapnikov and Kollontai, signed the "Letter of the Twenty-Two" [1] to the Comintern in 1922, protesting Russian Communist Party leaders' suppression of dissent within the Party. Shlyapnikov, Kollontai, and Sergei Medvedev narrowly escaped expulsion from the Russian Communist Party at the Party's Eleventh Congress in 1922. Kollontai subsequently became an important diplomat and Shlyapnikov turned to writing his memoirs."

And from Lenin's own writing, "LETTER TO BOLSHEVIK PARTY MEMBERS":

" Let Mr. Zinoviev and Mr. Kamenev found their own party with the dozens of perplexed people or with candidates for election to the Constituent Assembly. The workers will not join such a party, for its first slogan will be:

"Members of the Central Committee who are defeated at a meeting of the Central Committee on the question of a decisive fight are permitted to resort to the non-Party press for the purpose of attacking the unpublished decisions of the Party."

Let them build themselves such a party; our workers' Bolshevik Party will only gain from it.

When all the documents are published, the strike-breaking act of Zinoviev and Kamenev will stand out even more glaringly. Meanwhile, let the workers consider the following question:

'Let us assume that the Executive Committee of an all-Russia trade union had decided, after a month of deliberation and by a majority of over 80 per cent, that preparations must be made for a strike, but that for the time being neither the date nor any other details should be divulged. Let us assume that, after the decision had been taken, two members, under the false pretext of a "dissenting opinion", not only began to write to local groups urging a reconsideration of the decision, but also permitted their letters to be communicated to non-Party newspapers. Let us assume, finally, that they themselves attacked the decision in non-Party papers, although it had not yet been published, and began to vilify the strike in front of the capitalists.
'We ask, would the workers hesitate to expel such blacklegs from their midst?'

* *
*
As to the situation with regard to an insurrection now, when October 20 is so close at hand, I cannot judge from afar to what exact extent the cause has been damaged by the strike breaking statement in the non-Party press. There is no doubt that very great practical damage has been done. In order to remedy the situation, it is necessary first of all to restore unity in the Bolshevik front by expelling the blacklegs."

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LPM17.html

Truly you need to learn your history, kiddo.



You are already very confused. Changed their ideals? Are you saying that thousands of members suddenly changed their ideals because they disagree with Stalin? Including people who were committed to the party since the foundation of it? You have to understand that is damn hard to comprehend this. Those people remained committed to communism, simply rejected Stalinism.
Yes. To prevent Stalin from rising to power, and due to the power struggles, minor issues took precedent over the larger picture. Just as Stalin, Trotsky, and co. changed, just as Zinoviev and Kamenev changed, thousands of other members easily affected by these larger figures are capable of changing their ideals. Stalin was also committed to the party since the foundation of it and look what happened. What the hell is your point because you are not making any. Do you think that only Stalinism existed? What about Trotsky's followers? Zinoviev's? Kamenev's? Bukharin's? Radek's? The more you talk the more you dig yourself more holes. Nice.


Unless you are a Stalinist (which is your case) political divisions or opposition must exist within the communist party. It's part of any democratic centralist organization as the Bolshevik of the party was. A party without democratic debate is anything but a communist one.
I am not a Stalinist but I have no problem being called one by someone who resorts to empty blank labels that mean nothing other than insults by his standards. I also believe that temporary opposition, NOT political divisions, must exist within the Communist Party. The case after Lenin's death was not by any means temporary nor is it by any means an acceptable form of opposition. A party can have and should have democratic debate but it must not by any means degenerate into what it did after Lenin's death. That is what led to Stalin's actions, not anything else.


Lenin always respected divisions and different opinions. Your text back this. You just need to look above.
Actually my text shows otherwise, as seen above.


Different parties have different ideologies. What was the different ideology of Kamenev, Zinoniev, Trotsky and Stalin???
It was not a different ideology but different beliefs within that ideology as well as reached to its maximum point of conflict with a struggle of power.



The party devoted to Lenin? That's why Lenin had a hard time and a narrowed approval of the Brest-Litvosk Treaty? Really? You know that in some voting of the CC Lenin's option was rejected by all the other members as it was the case of the Zimmerwald Conference?
Yes, as soon as Lenin threatened to resign Trotsky and Co. stepped down. The Zimmerwald Conference? Are you kidding me? Do you even know what the Zimmerwald Conference was? The Zimmerwald Conference was NOT a Bolshevik conference but a conference that included MULTIPLE representatives from MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PARTIES. And he's the one to have called me the ignorant on history and such affairs? Laughable, simply laughable. You actually tried to show that the Bolshevik Party was not devoted to Lenin by bringing up the Zimmerwald Conference that was not a Bolshevik conference from 1915? Oh my, this keeps getting easier and better by the sentence.


No the party wasn't devoted to Lenin and he always faced opposition from the party. People spoke against him openly. You have no clue about what you are talking about.
Name the opposition, you seem to be able to name only one which I already mentioned and then name the Zimmerwald Conference thinking it was a Bolshevik conference! And yet you claim I am the one with no clue about what I'm talking about?


Firstly, your text says nothing about opposition.
Actually it shows the amount of individiuals, representatives, and delegates taking part in the decision-making, it would be virtually impossible for all of them, especially those assigned by the Soviets, to be Stalinists or assigned by Stalin. That is the point of the text. There is enough reason to believe that opposition existed without taking look at the specific party meetings as I do not have access to them.


Secondly, your own statistics back my argument in a overwhelming manner. I don't know if you really read the texts which you are putting here since it's not the first time this happens. You are facilitating my job here.
Actually the statistics do not back up your claim. This shows the statistics of the delegates have only 2.4% been from before 1917 until 1939. That's TWENTY-TWO YEARS, do you honestly expect the same delegates to be alive or even in the same position as delegates after 22 years? You really are quite ignorant. I read the texts, it seems that you are unable to read them yourself nor even analyze them. You are actually facilitating my job, as we have seen, not the other way around.


Again, are you kidding with me??? Mass purges were abolished AFTER the Great Purge? You even highlight it. Seriously, I don't know if you are being serious here but just for the case you are being serious after the Great Purge where all the opposition was either purged or killed what was left to purge?
You read it yourself. No more purges after the Great Purge. You're mad that it took place AFTER the Great Purge? Too bad, but it looks like all the delegates really thought that such an action must never be repeated again. See the opposition to Stalin here? Good. What was left to purge was the fact that every new member entering the party could be purged for one reason or another, the party would not be purged for long after the fact, it's a process that usually needed to take place every few months or years as is the case under Lenin and the others. They only wanted those dedicated enough and following the "Communist ideal" to join the party, not any opportunists or otherwise.


The existence of factions when under Lenin's leadership are fine but when under Stalin leadership are a betrayal? Get serious. Permanent factions always existed with Lenin and besides the Workers Opposition you have also the Democratic Centralists.
When under Stalin being a betrayal? No, never said this. I said that the factions under Lenin were completely different from those after Lenin's death due to the simple fact that there was a massive rift, numerous power struggles, permanent divisions within the party that destroyed the unity, and permanent factions that were only done away with after the Great Purge if I remember correctly. No, YOU get serious. Permanent factions did not always exist under Lenin as I have already shown.


Are you seriously trying to say that the Communist Party and the Soviet Government were independent from Stalin???
Yes.


Now I really believe you are starting to trolling here. This is the most absurd claim I've heard so far from you and you already did it big ones. This not even makes any reasoning.
You do not decide who is trolling just as you do not decide who is an "anti-Marxist". If I had wanted to troll, I would have kept calling Stalin a dictator and closed my ears to everything, just like you're doing. This is not at all an absurd claim. And yes this does actually "makes any reasoning" due to the simply fact that Stalin is not capable of controlling each and every single individual and new party member out of thousands. If that were the case then de-Stalinization would not have taken place.


And yes, it was the case of Stalin from the moment he killed his opposition and centralized all the power around him.
It is impossible to centralize power around Stalin within the party as you claim it to be. If the party and state did not wish it then it would not have taken place and he's be taken out as easily as the purges took place and as easily as Khrushchev was taken down.


Where I ever stated that there is no such thing as "Dictatorship of the proletariat"?:confused:
From the moment that you said an autocracy only applies to individual people. If autocracy only applies to individual people rather than individual entities then the same applies for a dictatorship.


Autocracy of entities??? Look at the definition you just provided below.
What about it? Look at the definition of dictatorship.

dic·ta·tor·ship [dik-tey-ter-ship, dik-tey-] Show IPA
noun
1.a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2.absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3.the office or position held by a dictator.

I rest my case. Next.


Yes, because Hitler, Mussolini and all the other dictators didn't have parties, government or state. I don't remember of one modern dictator ruling without a party or a state. And you even claimed that I was the one making an ignorant claim.
Has it ever occurred to you that they're as much dictators as Lenin and Stalin were dictators? The thing is that the Western media just loves using the term "dictators" and "totalitarian" without knowing what they mean purely for political reasons as an insult, much like your usage of the terms "Stalinist", "anti-Marxist", and so on.


Stalin was subjected to a party, state, government, etc submitted to him. That's why we can talk about autocracy.
Not really. Prove that there were. It is logically impossible for the party, the state, the government, and the Soviets to be submitted to Stalin, especially after the fact that de-Stalinization took place after Stalin's death.


As far as your comparison with Kruschev it made me laugh and I will even leave for Kruschev to answer you:

"I'm old and tired. Let them cope by themselves. I've done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution. I won't put up a fight"
Maybe, just maybe it's because Khrushchev was unable to do anything because his position was not a position of a dictator even though he was elected, much like Stalin? If Khrushchev were able to put up a fight, he would have done so. Khrushchev, also, is not an unbiased source, his opinions are his alone. Oh and "Khrushchev Lied" by Grover Furr, whether you like it or not. Go read it.


Sorry but I never heard that one before so you have to excuse me.
Members even on Revleft use that distinctions, even ckaihatsu from when I was debating with him earlier today he said, " the capital-C "Communist" countries"


Punishing homosexuals or abortion and persecuting minorities are important aspects of chauvinism and conservantism, don't you think? Or you call it revolutionary?
Not by any means revolutionary nor conservative, but actually reactionary on the scale of human rights. But human rights? Since when did the USSR -actually- care about human rights?



Firstly, show me where Engels claimed that Slavs should be assimilated.
You really need to start reading:

"Thus ended for the present, and most likely for ever, the attempts of the Slavonians of Germany to recover an independent national existence. Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished, and who in consequence had been obliged, for almost a thousand years, to follow in the wake of a mightier nation, their conqueror, the same as the Welsh in England, the Basques in Spain, the Bas-Bretons in France, and at a more recent period the Spanish and French Creoles in those portions of North America occupied of late by the Anglo-American race —these dying nationalities, the Bohemians, Carinthians, Dalmatians, etc., had tried to profit by the universal confusion of 1848, in order to restore their political status quo of A. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the Poles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself. Certainly this is no very flattering prospect for the national ambition of the Panslavistic dreamers who succeeded in agitating a portion of the Bohemian and South Slavonian people; but can they expect that history would retrograde a thousand years in order to please a few phthisical bodies of men, who in every part of the territory they occupy are interspersed with and surrounded by Germans, who from time almost immemorial have had for all purposes of civilization no other language but the German, and who lack the very first conditions of national existence, numbers and compactness of territory?”"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch14.htm

Just read the rest of the links I posted, they're interesting.


Secondly, what the fuck this has to do with nationalism? Is Engels defending German or Hungarian nationalism?
Yes, German and Magyar nationalism. Read the texts.


Thirdly, USSR was not more progressive than any other country in the world.
In terms of the historical process (Primitive Communism => ... => Feudalism => Capitalism => Socialism => Communism), it actually was.


Nationalism in USSR was by no means different from the Tzarist one, only in vocabulary. Minorities were still repressed and the Russification from Tzarist times returned.
Actually it was. I already explained this. I also told you that I do not care about the minorities are they're relative.


Lie.
Sigh, what should I call you?

"Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE thus had to choose between its loyalty to the USSR and its relations with its closest ally. After some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Nikolaos Zachariadis, chose to follow the USSR, not like the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British."

and

"KKE soon reversed its former political position, as relations between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies deteriorated. With the onset of the Cold War, Communist parties everywhere moved to more militant positions. This change of political attitude, and the choice to escalate the crisis, derived primarily from the conclusion that regime subversion, which had not been successful in December 1944, could now be achieved. The KKE leadership decided in February 1946, "after weighing domestic factors, and the Balkan and international situation", to go forward with "organization of a new armed struggle against the Monarcho-Fascist regime." The KKE boycotted the March 1946 elections, which were won by the monarchist United Nationalist Party (Inomeni Parataxis Ethnikofronon), the main member of which was Konstantinos Tsaldaris' People's Party. In September, a referendum favored the retention of the monarchy, though the KKE disputed the results, and King George returned to Athens."


From what I see you are doing what you have done it here: calling ignorant everything you don't agree upon without giving any valid argument. This was the slandering that led me to slander in my previous post. If you don't agree with some opinion you don't have to call it "ignorant" or "stupid".
Actually if you notice I'm the one backing up my claims while you're the one giving me one-liners and calling names such as "Stalinist", "anti-Marxist", and so on. If you don't agree with some opinion you don't have to call it "Stalinist" or "anti-Marxist".


USSR was in fact a state capitalist system but there is nothing wrong in calling it so since it was Engels who claimed it as the last phase of capitalism before it dies out. It's perfectly normal that USSR developed into a State Capitalist nation since every Dictatorship of the Proletariat will always be it before the revolution spreads to enough countries build socialism.
The USSR was State Capitalist during the initial period after the Revolution as Lenin himself claimed, specifically under the NEP. After that it was no longer State Capitalist and turned towards Socialism after the collectivization, whether you like it or not.


You are the one who need to give a good look at the Learning Section to understand why there is no such thing as "communist country".
Capital "C" Communist. Do I have to repeat myself? I know very well the difference between a Communist country as in the case of the USSR, China, etc. and a communist mode of production. Context is everything. I already explained the difference between the capital and lower case "C". I am not the only one who uses such a distinction, it's not my problem if you are ignorant on this distinction. That is is your fault. Even the damned Wikipedia articles make such a distinction as they use "Communist" when referring to "Communist countries" and "Communists" and "communism" when referring to the mode of production.


And I never heard that one before as I previously stated. Communism means the same as communism.
No. See above.


That's a distorted view from someone who is clearly not communist and the comparison is ridiculous.
"Clearly not communist", lol nice one. The comparison is not by ANY means ridiculous and I CHALLENGE YOU to prove otherwise. Marx and Engels wanted the Slavs to be assimilated by the Germans and Magyars because the latter were high on the historical progression scale and thus "progressive" and "revolutionary" (not sure on the second term).


It's not my problem that you are debating in 5 different debates. Do you wanna compare the III International Congresses with periodical meetings???

The issue here is that Stalin dismantled the III International. Period.
You get the point, kiddo. Stalin had to dismantle the Third International due to the risky situation and consequences after the World War. The USSR had a lot to gain at the cost of losing the Third International, specifically on the question of the divisions between the Allies of the liberated territories.

The USSR needed the support of the Allies and the only way to do it was through the dissolution of the Third International which was approved by the member nations and organizations. Period.


Opposition remained but the opposition was gotten rid? WTF??? And you were even saying that I have problems of comprehension? How you want anyone to comprehend this shit? What opposition remained?
I already clarified this to you, kiddo, yes you have a problem of comprehension and yes opposition remained but the opposition, i.e. those before the Great Purge, did not. The opposition that existed amongst thousands upon thousands of members in the state, party, soviets, government, etc. that cannot by any means all not oppose Stalin and the fact of the deStalinization.


The Great Purge is my proof. Everyone who disagreed with Stalin was either purged or killed. Keep the Congress of the Condemn in mind.
Prove it. It is impossible to kill everyone who disagreed with Stalin. If that had taken place then no opposition would have existed in the state, government, party, or the soviets and thus no de-Stalinization would have ever occurred as no opposition would have even existed in the first place for it to even occur.


No it is not a tribute to communism since the fact itself is non-communist. The cult of personality was fostered by Stalin's leadership around Lenin, Marx and Engels but not Lenin, Marx or Engels had anything to do it just like Lenin didn't have fault of being revered in North Korea.
Are you kidding me? So, right, if I put up an avatar of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin then it is a sign of non-Communism, of the user being not a Communists, and that it does not by any means signify that the user is a Communist but actually non-Communist? You're got to be shitting me here. And you said I'm the one trolling? Of course Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not call for the cult of personality just as Stalin himself spoke out against the cult of personality around him.

"The degree to which Stalin himself relished the cult surrounding him is debatable. Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public. In the 1930s, he made several speeches that diminished the importance of individual leaders and disparaged the cult forming around him, claiming that such a cult was un-Bolshevik; instead, he emphasized the importance of broader social forces. Stalin claimed that the only reason Lenin could acceptably be adored as a leader was because Lenin understood these social forces, and therefore knew how to most effectively channel the desires of the Soviet people. Stalin's public actions seemed to support his professed disdain of the cult: Stalin often edited reports of Kremlin receptions, cutting applause and praise aimed at him and adding applause for other Soviet leaders.[15] Additionally, in 1936, Stalin passed a ban on renaming places after him.[16]
Privately, Stalin claimed that he had tried to stop the pervasive level of frenzied devotion, but that everyone assumed he was acting out of false modesty. He admitted that he understood the cult of personality was a necessary evil among the simpler section of the Soviet population, who were used to worshipping a tsar, but feared that for the intelligentsia, this attention on the individual would take the focus away from Party ideas.[17] Artyom Sergeev, Stalin’s adopted son, recalled a fight between Stalin and his biological son Vasily. After Stalin found out that Vasily had used his famous last name to escape punishment for one of his drunken debauches, Stalin screamed at him. “‘But I’m a Stalin too,’ retorted Vasily. ‘No, you’re not,’ said Stalin. ‘You’re not Stalin and I’m not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, not even me!’” To some degree, Stalin accepted the Soviet people's dedication to him as an embodiment of the Party, but he discouraged all interest in his private and family life, and divulged only limited personal information.[16] The Finnish communist Arvo Tuominen reports a sarcastic toast proposed by Stalin at a New Year Party in 1935 in which he said, "Comrades! I want to propose a toast to our patriarch, life and sun, liberator of nations, architect of socialism [he rattled off all the appellations applied to him in those days] – Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, and I hope this is the first and last speech made to that genius this evening."[18]"

As you can see, we find several things here. Note the "Like Lenin" where Lenin already had a cult of personality and that was due to his influence as founder and main theoretician of the party and its leading figure. Then we have Stalin opposing the cult of personality, passing a ban on the renaming of places after him, calling this cult of personality "un-Bolshevik", removing applause for him and adding them to others in the reports, spoke of Stalin being someone else other than him as a figure above him in private life, made fun of himself in a toast, etc. etc. Oh and a nice thing we find here "applause for other Soviet leaders". So much for that dictatorship of yours.


The issue here is that you are clearly nationalist. This forum is not for nationalists, whether it's red or brown. You have plenty other forums to expose those views.
Seriously, stop the accusations and learn to fucking read. If I were a part of a proletarian and Socialist/Communist country then I would be a nationalist in the revolutionary sense, yes, but I am no bourgeois nationalist. I would take pride in the achievement of the proletariat and the Socialists/Communists. The problem here is that Marx and Engels themselves took pride in bourgeois nations, glorifying Germany above all else, especially the Turks and Slavs. Might want to get them off the forums if they ever were here too.


OK, Stalin was not conservative but instead a reactionary which is even worst than being conservative. You just keep burying yourself.
And did I ever claim that Stalin was perfect? Stalin was a reactionary on the question of abortion and homosexuality, yes. I cannot bury myself in a hole if I admitted this, corrected you, showed your claim (on conservatism) to be wrong, tell you the true and proper label, and then tell you that I do not support such actions. Nice try though.


You know what reactionary means don't you? You are just admitting yourself that Stalin was reactionary.
I know very well what a reactionary means, but apparently you didn't know what that meant until I explained that to you. Nice try yet again. I am not admitting, I am stating, that Stalin held reactionary beliefs when it came to abortion and homosexuality. In other cases he was not a reactionary and ergo you cannot by any means claim that Stalin was thus a reactionary because of holding one or two (for instance) reactionary beliefs. A person is reactionary in the MARXIST sense if he opposes the social revolution, if he opposes Socialism, if he opposes Communism, etc. due to acting against the historical imperative and progress. This can very well be seen on the question of Germany vs Tsarist Russia. A person is reactionary in terms of liberal bourgeois human rights and their progress when one opposes aspects of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and so on. We Communists and Socialists do not support human rights, civil rights, nor civil liberties as Trotsky explained in "Terrorism and Communism". We do not hold the "sacredness of human life" as an ideal. Human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, etc. include homosexual rights, abortion rights, right to life, etc. ergo according to you if we break one or multiple ones then we are reactionaries. In that sense, we are all reactionaries, every Communist and Socialist that approved of revolution, war, violence, suppression and repression of the bourgeoisie, censorship, etc. Your logic is just so excellent. Destroyed. Next.


Revolution was about liberation of oppressed people. So you can include homosexuals there.
Not really. Are homosexuals proletarians or, more generally, are homosexuals an oppressed CLASS? No, ergo the revolution is not about them, but Communists and Socialists do in many cases support homosexual rights and other liberal causes, and I do not mean liberal in a negative light for I support homosexual rights.


I'll wait anxiously.
Off of Wikipedia:
In 1933, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison. The precise reason for the new law is still in some dispute.
Some historians have suggested that Joseph Stalin's enactment of the anti-gay law was, like his prohibition on abortion, an attempt to increase the Russian birthrate and build a better relationship with the socially conservative Eastern Orthodox Church. Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism, and that Article 121 may have a simple political tool to use against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexual orientation, and to solidify Russian opposition to Nazi Germany, who had broken its treaty with Russia.[11]
More recently, a third possible reason for the anti-gay law has emerged from declassified Soviet documents and transcripts. Beyond expressed fears of a vast "counterrevolutionary" or fascist homosexual conspiracy, there were several high profile arrests of Russian men accused of being pederasts.[12] In 1933, 130 men "were accused of being 'pederasts' – adult males who have sex with boys. Since no records of men having sex with boys at that time are available, it is possible this term was used broadly and crudely to label homosexuality."[12] Whatever the precise reason, homosexuality remained a serious criminal offense until it was repealed in 1993.[12]
The Soviet government itself said very little publicly about the change in the law, and few people seemed to be aware that it existed. In 1934, the British Communist Harry Whyte wrote a long letter to Stalin condemning the law, and its prejudicial motivations. He laid out a Marxist position against the oppression of homosexuals, as a social minority, and compared homophobia to racism, xenophobia and sexism.[13] While the letter was not formally replied to, Soviet cultural writer Maxim Gorky authored an article, published in both Pravda and Izvestia titled "Proletarian Humanism", that seemed to reject Whyte's arguments point by point. He rejected the notion that homosexuals were a social minority, and argued that the Soviet Union needed to combat them in order to protect the youth and battle fascism.[14]
A few years later, 1936, Justice Commissar Nikolai Krylenko publicly stated that the anti-gay criminal law was correctly aimed at the decadent and effete old ruling classes, thus further linking homosexuality to a right-wing conspiracy, i.e. tsarist aristocracy and German fascists.[12]


When I talk about minorities I am referring to ethnic and religious people, not ideologies. I thought this was clear when I spoke of minorities.
Fuck the religious minorities. As for the ethnic minorities they were suppressed based on their cultures, beliefs, and ideologies as I have already explained. The Cossacks, if I remember correctly, were pro-White.


OB, Thanks for answering that Stalinist tool. I do not have the patience to respond to the drivel. I do beg to differ about the nature of the Soviet State. I take the Trotskyist view that it was a deformed workers' state. Even with Stalin in power it had to be defended against imperialism.
You mean degenerated workers' state? Prefer this label over State Capitalist as it is what it is.


At the same time you're claiming that the purges were the result of the struggle over becoming the next Lenin figure and not a result of Stalin's control. That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. If Stalin, as you said, should have been purged then how was he able to not only avoid being purged, but also purge all of his opponents? Control doesn't necessarily have to involve fear, a body of willing loyalists is even better. I don't know the history very well, but your argument doesn't seem quite right.
The result of the power struggles was Stalin's control which resulted in the Great Purges. That way. Stalin had no power before the power struggles.

Stalin should have been purged, but who was to do so? If Lenin were there, he would have done it on the basis of factionalism, power struggle, etc. just as he called for the expulsion of Zinoviev and Kamenev, see my reply above. To be purged, you needed an external figure to do so, the party being divided into several lines of support was not capable of doing so. He was able to purge the opponents because he had enough proper support to do so, he did not go ahead and grab them all and shoot them himself. A body of willing loyalists existed for each figure, not just Stalin.

Stalin won the party's loyalty and in doing so he won the loyalty before the Great Purge thus also proving Old Boshie's assertions as false.


Also, I'm curious as to whether you believe those who were purged should have been executed as they were?
They shouldn't have been executed.

[Old Bolshie]

Sorry it's taking me a few hours to reply, too many huge debates as you can see here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/eliminating-scarcity-luxury-p2620963/index.html#post2620963

You don't need to justify yourself. You answer if you want and whenever you want. It's not really my concern if you are debating elsewhere.




What about Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco? They all had opposition in one form or another, it is impossible for anyone two individuals to completely agree with each other without any single instance or form of opposition.

What about them? They were all dictators like Stalin with the opposition eliminated.



Hitler explained himself that the "Socialism" in National Socialism had nothing to do with Marxist Socialism, unless you want to prove that the "Social-Democrat" in the "Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party" had nothing to do with then and only then would you have a point.

Since it was before the split between Social-Democrats and Communists and the end of the II International yes, Social-Democrat had a different meaning at the time.


Actually, buddy, after the split the Bolsheviks retained the "Social-Democrat" label calling themselves "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolshevik)". They only changed their label to Communist AFTER the October Revolution. The differences between the two was not as severe as the differences between a Social-Democrat and a Communist as both of them called themselves and were Social-Democrats. The Mensheviks believed a direct proletarian revolution was too early in Russia, the Bolsheviks claimed otherwise. The Mensheviks sided with the liberals while the Bolsheviks sided with the peasantry. So much for that.

Oh and let's not forget this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/nov/07.htm

Since it was BEFORE the split between Social-Democrats and Communists and the end of the II International yes, Social-Democrat had a different meaning at the time. Only after the betrayal of the SPD during the I World War Social Democrat acquired the meaning that has today. I thought you would know this but I was mistaken again.




If you think those are reasons enough for a split and division then so is support for the NEP and opposition against it, support for collectivization and opposition against it, and so on which were far worse opposition grounds than those faced between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.

Did NEP or Collectivization implied a ideological break from Marxism? Don't think so.



FIrst of all prove that Stalin was a dictator. You keep making this baseless claim. Go ahead and show that he had absolute power. As for Lenin, yes indeed, listened and cooperated such as splitting from the Mensheviks, refusing to cooperate with the Mensheviks, Cadets, etc. later on, etc. The party during Lenin's time barely had much opposition and when there were they were easily solved. The same cannot be said of the post-Lenin period where the opposition could only be solved by the victor of one of the power struggles above the others or the expulsion of all them.

You wanted Lenin cooperating with forces which supported the Whites during the Civil War? LOL. I was referring to opposition within the party not outside. But even outside I can present you the example of the Left SR's who joined the Bolsheviks before they attempted to overthrown them by force with backing from Western Powers.

As far as Stalin being a dictator, you said yourself that Stalin centralized the power around him and killed his opposition. So I don't need to prove you something that you say yourself.



They were not by any means anti-Communists nor Nazi spies, that's bullshit Stalinists spew. They could have very well changed from supporting X policy to Y, opposing factionalism to supporting factionalism, supporting policies then opposing them, or even becoming pains in the ass that could not and would not reconcile with constant attempts at undermining the other rather than advancing and progressing the party. Even Stalin himself was guilty of this. The only justification of Stalin I made was that I can see his point and reasoning for doing what he did for if he did not then the others would have.

So if they didn't change their ideology why they had to be purged and killed? This is the main issue.

And others would have done the same? Trotsky actually could have used the Red Army against Stalin in a earlier stage of the struggle against Stalin but he didn't.



They did also pave the way for Stalin's ascension, I never denied this. Trotsky was expelled with Zinoviev but Zinoviev was later readmitted. Kamenev and Zinoviev, et al. later started another constant of power but this time against Stalin. Stalin apparently won.

No, you said that Zinoniev and Kamenev expelled Trotsky together with Stalin.




Yes, "the" opposition, not "opposition". The "the" refers to a specific form of opposition being referred to. If you take a look back you would see that that is the case and I did not edit it out, you can see that in your posts and the quotations.

You mean the 20's? There was a purge before the Great Purge that did not involve the killing of the opposition. Nevertheless, every time you included "the" to "opposition" I took it as you speaking of that specific opposition not general opposition.

I mean the all time of Stalin's leadership which includes the late 20's and the 30's. When I refer to opposition without specifying I am referring to general opposition. If I want to specify I do it with the proper names.



Oh please can your bullshit. I do not care if my language is "unmarxist" or "Stalinist" as if that's an argument in and of itself. Deal with it. Lenin was glorified. The reactions after his death clearly show how highly he was considered. Lenin was the founding father, he was the head of the Bolsheviks and their main founder (If not the only one, the others follow suite), he called for and went with the October Revolution after the Bolsheviks settled without such a means, and he garnered a huge cult of personality, especially after his death. Read this on the issue here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/lenin-legend.htm

Lenin's glorification was part of Stalin's policy. Lenin never promoted that shit. The responsibility of his cult of personality which emerged after his death cannot by any means be attributed to him. Stalin was the main orchestrator behind it.


Lenin had more prestige than others, exactly, and that was due to his work which led him to being imposed as a leader within the party. The same applied to Stalin, albeit Stalin made it easier by killing off the opposition and thus streamlining things, creating less conflicts, and creating less irreconcilable differences. Lenin had no reason to do so at all and had most of his policies passed with little opposition, especially after Lenin threatened to resign in order to get his way with the party.

Is this a joke? Because killing off the opposition was just a detail, right? I mean, if Trotsky had not been exiled or if the members of the Congress of the Condemn who voted almost unanimously for Kirov as the leader had not been purged and killed Stalin would have continued to be an uncontested leader, correct?

Lenin did not impose himself as the leader of the party. Stalin did impose himself as the leader of the party. You see the difference?



If Stalin was already the leader of the party when he launched the Great Purge then he would have had no reason to launch the Great Purge in the first place. That's ridiculous. And ask yourself "why" exactly did they want Kirov? It wasn't because Kirov was better than Stalin or more experienced, but it was because of the power struggles and the opposition colluding against Stalin. It was an opposition for the sake opposition, as revenge for the conflicts and divides of the past between Stalin and the rest.

Dude, the Great Purge began in 1936 when Stalin was already the leader of the party a long time ago. I am not exactly sure if you know the dates because you apparently don't. Otherwise you wouldn't say that bullshit.

They wanted Kyrov simply because they saw the true nature of Stalin's character and policies and tried to remove him. But it was too late for them and the majority paid with their lives.



That's because Stalin actually reached a point where he was able to do so or even ballsy enough to do so whilst the others did not. In fact, we cannot by any means know if the others would have done the same, less, or more and on that very basis you cannot claim that they would not have done the same but that there was every reason and possibility to do the same. They were already expelling others, colluding with and against other, trying to wrestle power from the others, etc. but Stalin was the one who acted first and decisively.

I already mentioned Trotsky's opportunity to use the Red Army above but in any case it is no argument at all saying that others would have done the same if they had the chance. Stalin was the one who showed earlier his perverse character and even Lenin recognized it. Read his passage about Stalin in his political testament if you want.



Lenin was by every means the founding father of the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution just as much as the American Founding Fathers were so and just as much as Marx was the father of Communism. That is not a Stalinist vocabulary because it's not even used by Stalinists, kiddo. You claiming, furthermore, that something is "Stalinist" does not make it so nor does it mean that it is bad as you seem to think. Nice try though. He led the dissent, ergo was a founding father. People weren't afraid of confronting Stalin at first nor was Stalin afraid of confrontation, then look what happened. Actually he was above the others and threatened to resign in order to get what he wanted, he called for the NEP amongst other policies which would have normally not been approved had Lenin not been behind them as we saw from its rapid repeal after 1929 or so. Lenin never respected the decisions which were made against him, in fact he publicly humiliated Trotsky and others during one conference and bashed them. He called the opposition various names ranging from philistines to opportunists. In the case of the first voting of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty he threatened to resign if he did not get what he wanted, this changed the second vote and changed the allegiances in his favor.

Lenin was a member of the CC pretty much like everybody else. He didn't had more power attributed to him than others. If he was able to convince others through his charisma and prestige that his own personal merit. It is not like he imposed himself against the party or expelled everyone who disagreed with him.

Lenin respected the decisions made against him in the CC. He didn't changed the voting resulting or expelled the people which voted against him. That is respecting the decision.

What is the problem with threatening to resign? I don't see the issue here. He had every right to do it and if people democratically changed their vote because of that I don't see any problem with that or perversion of rules here.


If Lenin were able to integrate him to the CC then who's the "dictator" here? Good job.

It was you who said that Lenin was also a dictator.
You already don't know where you're at.

5 debates, hein? Too much confusion already.



Nevertheless, are you kidding me? Here you go:

"Members of the former Workers' Opposition continued to advocate their views during the period of the New Economic Policy but increasingly became politically marginalized. Shlyapnikov and his supporters conducted discussions with Gavril Myasnikov's Workers' Group, but unlike Myasnikov, were determined not to leave the ranks of the Communist Party. Some members of the Workers' Opposition, including Shlyapnikov and Kollontai, signed the "Letter of the Twenty-Two" [1] to the Comintern in 1922, protesting Russian Communist Party leaders' suppression of dissent within the Party. Shlyapnikov, Kollontai, and Sergei Medvedev narrowly escaped expulsion from the Russian Communist Party at the Party's Eleventh Congress in 1922. Kollontai subsequently became an important diplomat and Shlyapnikov turned to writing his memoirs."

Keep destroying yourself, it only get easier with each post.

LOL, now narrowly escaping expulsion is the same as expulsion? Not only they remained in the party, as they continued to voice opnely their criticism towards Lenin and Shlyapnikov even continued to be a Central Committee member.

And most important of all is that they were almost expelled by the Congress that was by no means controlled by Lenin.





You based your claim on a false assertion that Stalin's mind is perverted. You cannot by any means prove that someone's mind is by any means perverted as that "perversion" is completely subjective. What you deem to be perverted others would contest your claim. So yes, if they represented threats to Stalin then there were really threats to Stalin and Co.

This basically resumes the shit that your entire argument really is. If Stalin perceived them as a threats then they were really a threat. What kind of argument is that? Oh wait, only now I remembered with whom I am debating...


Wait, what is "repugnant and absolutely anti-marxist"? Again with this bullshit about anti-Marxism, I'm completely sure you do not know what Marxism is for you to claim every single damned thing to be anti-Marxist, hell I'd bet you barely know anything about Marxism ranging from the LTV to their historical and economic theories. YOU do not decide what is Marxist and what is not. What do you mean by "this fact"? That they had to publicly apologize before being readmitted to the party? What the fuck is so absurd with this? Numerous individuals were purged from the party even under Lenin, is an ability to readmit them to the party after the apologize something "anti-Marxist" that you cannot even fathom? Of course they cannot return to their same position after being expelled! When one commits a mistake or error and is expelled, you cannot by any means expect everyone to forgive and forget and act as if nothing happened! What ridiculous fucking bullshit coming from you. "Anti-Marxist" he says, laughable.

Tell me what party member was expelled and forced by Lenin to write a letter acknowledging its mistakes before being readmitted in the party?



Oh, oh! So apparently the 3 votes against Kirov were Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin/Trotsky!? Are you fucking kidding me?!

Where in the world I ever said that? Your mind is totally fucked up. Too much computer leads to this.


They had a large influence on the decision to vote against Stalin, not against Kirov for anyone is better than Stalin in their opinion even if he were one of his close associates and his supporter. In fact, it is EXACTLY because Kirov was one of Stalin's most close associates and one of his most enthusiastic supporters that this proves my point! Their position was not the issue as Kirov sided with Stalin, the opposition was against Stalin for PERSONAL REASONS, that is EXACTLY why they did not vote for HIM but voted for KIROV who was, as YOU admitted, "one of the most close associates of Stalin and one of the most enthusiastic Stalin supporters!" You just dug yourself a hole and blew your entire argument. Good job yet again. :laugh:

Your childish argument really amuses me. I'm not kidding. OF COURSE the vote was against Stalin for every reason. Call it personal or whatever you want. They were seeing how Stalin was killing democracy within the party and build a dictatorship around him and tried to stop him before it was too late. Unfortunately for them it was too late.


As for the assassination, that very well expands upon my claim, it could have very well been the opposition that killed Kirov in an attempt to blame Stalin. So yes, this is something that is very reasonable just as it is reasonable to blame Stalin for the assassination. And no, voting for Kirov does not make them innocent as Kirov was a, as you claim, staunch supporter of Stalin and would have merely been a puppet in Stalin's hands. To eliminate Stalin they could have very well killed Kirov and blamed Stalin for being "power mad" over losing the vote.

LOL. If they wanted to blame on Stalin they would have it done, don't you think? Actually it was precisely the opposite that happened.



Again, no one was against the party as per your asinine nonsense that someone was.

Stalin was. And was successful.



And yet look at what I had already quoted above and again here:

"Members of the former Workers' Opposition continued to advocate their views during the period of the New Economic Policy but increasingly became politically marginalized. Shlyapnikov and his supporters conducted discussions with Gavril Myasnikov's Workers' Group, but unlike Myasnikov, were determined not to leave the ranks of the Communist Party. Some members of the Workers' Opposition, including Shlyapnikov and Kollontai, signed the "Letter of the Twenty-Two" [1] to the Comintern in 1922, protesting Russian Communist Party leaders' suppression of dissent within the Party. Shlyapnikov, Kollontai, and Sergei Medvedev narrowly escaped expulsion from the Russian Communist Party at the Party's Eleventh Congress in 1922. Kollontai subsequently became an important diplomat and Shlyapnikov turned to writing his memoirs."

And from Lenin's own writing, "LETTER TO BOLSHEVIK PARTY MEMBERS":

" Let Mr. Zinoviev and Mr. Kamenev found their own party with the dozens of perplexed people or with candidates for election to the Constituent Assembly. The workers will not join such a party, for its first slogan will be:

"Members of the Central Committee who are defeated at a meeting of the Central Committee on the question of a decisive fight are permitted to resort to the non-Party press for the purpose of attacking the unpublished decisions of the Party."

Let them build themselves such a party; our workers' Bolshevik Party will only gain from it.

When all the documents are published, the strike-breaking act of Zinoviev and Kamenev will stand out even more glaringly. Meanwhile, let the workers consider the following question:

'Let us assume that the Executive Committee of an all-Russia trade union had decided, after a month of deliberation and by a majority of over 80 per cent, that preparations must be made for a strike, but that for the time being neither the date nor any other details should be divulged. Let us assume that, after the decision had been taken, two members, under the false pretext of a "dissenting opinion", not only began to write to local groups urging a reconsideration of the decision, but also permitted their letters to be communicated to non-Party newspapers. Let us assume, finally, that they themselves attacked the decision in non-Party papers, although it had not yet been published, and began to vilify the strike in front of the capitalists.
'We ask, would the workers hesitate to expel such blacklegs from their midst?'

* *
*
As to the situation with regard to an insurrection now, when October 20 is so close at hand, I cannot judge from afar to what exact extent the cause has been damaged by the strike breaking statement in the non-Party press. There is no doubt that very great practical damage has been done. In order to remedy the situation, it is necessary first of all to restore unity in the Bolshevik front by expelling the blacklegs."

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LPM17.html

Truly you need to learn your history, kiddo.

No, you are the one needing to learn it, weirdo. Were Zinoniev, Kamenev or Shlyapnikov expelled from the party? NO. On the contrary, Zinoniev and Kamenev continued to be high figures within the party and all of the three continued to be part of the CC.

ZINONIEV AND KAMENEV WERE EVEN ELECTED FOR THE POLITBURO.




Yes. To prevent Stalin from rising to power, and due to the power struggles, minor issues took precedent over the larger picture. Just as Stalin, Trotsky, and co. changed, just as Zinoviev and Kamenev changed, thousands of other members easily affected by these larger figures are capable of changing their ideals. Stalin was also committed to the party since the foundation of it and look what happened. What the hell is your point because you are not making any. Do you think that only Stalinism existed? What about Trotsky's followers? Zinoviev's? Kamenev's? Bukharin's? Radek's? The more you talk the more you dig yourself more holes. Nice.

I've never heard about a tendency called Zinonievism or Kamenevism. Perhaps someone who distinguishes communism from communism should be aware of it but I really don't.

And think that all of Stalin's opponents changed their communist ideals is really stupid.



I am not a Stalinist but I have no problem being called one by someone who resorts to empty blank labels that mean nothing other than insults by his standards. I also believe that temporary opposition, NOT political divisions, must exist within the Communist Party. The case after Lenin's death was not by any means temporary nor is it by any means an acceptable form of opposition. A party can have and should have democratic debate but it must not by any means degenerate into what it did after Lenin's death. That is what led to Stalin's actions, not anything else.

What led to Stalin's actions was his desire of centralizing power around him as you stated in your first post in this thread.

Permanent or temporary opposition should never be eliminated as it was the case of Lenin's leadership.



Actually my text shows otherwise, as seen above.

I was referring to your other text. Don't get confused.



It was not a different ideology but different beliefs within that ideology as well as reached to its maximum point of conflict with a struggle of power.

So it wasn't the same as different parties in a parliament.



Yes, as soon as Lenin threatened to resign Trotsky and Co. stepped down. The Zimmerwald Conference? Are you kidding me? Do you even know what the Zimmerwald Conference was? The Zimmerwald Conference was NOT a Bolshevik conference but a conference that included MULTIPLE representatives from MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PARTIES. And he's the one to have called me the ignorant on history and such affairs? Laughable, simply laughable. You actually tried to show that the Bolshevik Party was not devoted to Lenin by bringing up the Zimmerwald Conference that was not a Bolshevik conference from 1915? Oh my, this keeps getting easier and better by the sentence.

And what about Lenin threatening to resign? What is the perversion here? Did he expelled or forced those who disagreed with him to step sown? Threatening to resign isn't the same as imposing. If they changed their vote it was because they wanted. Lenin didn't force them to step down. They did it on their own will. See the difference?

As far as the Zimmerwald Conference goes what is the problem of not being a Bolshevik conference? Not seeing your point here.



Name the opposition, you seem to be able to name only one which I already mentioned and then name the Zimmerwald Conference thinking it was a Bolshevik conference! And yet you claim I am the one with no clue about what I'm talking about?

Where I ever stated that the Zimmerwald Conference was Bolshevik???:confused:

The party was voting whether the Bolsheviks should attend the Zimmerwald Conference or not and Lenin was the only who no since he wanted to break with Zimmerwald.

You better explain what you meant with your observation about not being Bolshevik again.



Actually it shows the amount of individiuals, representatives, and delegates taking part in the decision-making, it would be virtually impossible for all of them, especially those assigned by the Soviets, to be Stalinists or assigned by Stalin. That is the point of the text. There is enough reason to believe that opposition existed without taking look at the specific party meetings as I do not have access to them.

Your ignorance now is really shocking me. You know that the party controlled the Soviets, don't you?

It would be "virtually impossible"? LOL

The Nazi German Party had 8,5 million members. According to your logic we should say that would be "virtually impossible" the non-existence of opposition to Hitler.



Actually the statistics do not back up your claim. This shows the statistics of the delegates have only 2.4% been from before 1917 until 1939. That's TWENTY-TWO YEARS, do you honestly expect the same delegates to be alive or even in the same position as delegates after 22 years? You really are quite ignorant. I read the texts, it seems that you are unable to read them yourself nor even analyze them. You are actually facilitating my job, as we have seen, not the other way around.

I laughed hard now. Your text says:
"In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917"

It doesn't say that they were delegates prior to 1917 but just that they were members of the party. And you said now: "That's TWENTY-TWO YEARS, do you honestly expect the same delegates to be alive or even in the same position as delegates after 22 years?"

The funniest part of this was that you called me ignorant after it. AHAHA.

Dude just stop. You are making fun of yourself.



You read it yourself. No more purges after the Great Purge. You're mad that it took place AFTER the Great Purge? Too bad, but it looks like all the delegates really thought that such an action must never be repeated again. See the opposition to Stalin here? Good. What was left to purge was the fact that every new member entering the party could be purged for one reason or another, the party would not be purged for long after the fact, it's a process that usually needed to take place every few months or years as is the case under Lenin and the others. They only wanted those dedicated enough and following the "Communist ideal" to join the party, not any opportunists or otherwise.

Opposition to Stalin here? LOL. It's obvious that it was something bearing Stalin's signature.

That law would be valuable BEFORE the Great Purge, not AFTER!



When under Stalin being a betrayal? No, never said this. I said that the factions under Lenin were completely different from those after Lenin's death due to the simple fact that there was a massive rift, numerous power struggles, permanent divisions within the party that destroyed the unity, and permanent factions that were only done away with after the Great Purge if I remember correctly. No, YOU get serious. Permanent factions did not always exist under Lenin as I have already shown.

There were permanent factions with Lenin. Take the Democratic Centralists just to not resort to the same example.



Yes.

Is laughable and it shows how little you know about what we are talking about.



You do not decide who is trolling just as you do not decide who is an "anti-Marxist". If I had wanted to troll, I would have kept calling Stalin a dictator and closed my ears to everything, just like you're doing. This is not at all an absurd claim. And yes this does actually "makes any reasoning" due to the simply fact that Stalin is not capable of controlling each and every single individual and new party member out of thousands. If that were the case then de-Stalinization would not have taken place.

I get it. I am a troll because I have a different opinion from you pretty much like people were anti-communist because they disagreed with Stalin. You have all the qualities of a truly Stalinist. In some cases people call Stalinist as an empty label but in your case is perfectly properly.



It is impossible to centralize power around Stalin within the party as you claim it to be. If the party and state did not wish it then it would not have taken place and he's be taken out as easily as the purges took place and as easily as Khrushchev was taken down.

You were the first to claim that Stalin centralized power around him.



From the moment that you said an autocracy only applies to individual people. If autocracy only applies to individual people rather than individual entities then the same applies for a dictatorship.

Do you ever write anything with sense? I asked you where I claimed that there is no such thing as Dictatorship of the proletariat?



What about it? Look at the definition of dictatorship.

dic·ta·tor·ship [dik-tey-ter-ship, dik-tey-] Show IPA
noun
1.a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2.absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3.the office or position held by a dictator.

I rest my case. Next.

No, you need to look at your definition of autocracy. That's the issue here.



Has it ever occurred to you that they're as much dictators as Lenin and Stalin were dictators? The thing is that the Western media just loves using the term "dictators" and "totalitarian" without knowing what they mean purely for political reasons as an insult, much like your usage of the terms "Stalinist", "anti-Marxist", and so on.

Now you are defending Hitler and Mussolini? This is getting better. The difference between Lenin and the rest is that Lenin had opposition and didn't kill it.



Not really. Prove that there were. It is logically impossible for the party, the state, the government, and the Soviets to be submitted to Stalin, especially after the fact that de-Stalinization took place after Stalin's death.

Using your logic there was never any modern dictator since it would be logically impossible to have it.


Maybe, just maybe it's because Khrushchev was unable to do anything because his position was not a position of a dictator even though he was elected, much like Stalin? If Khrushchev were able to put up a fight, he would have done so. Khrushchev, also, is not an unbiased source, his opinions are his alone. Oh and "Khrushchev Lied" by Grover Furr, whether you like it or not. Go read it.

Did you read what he said? I'm gonna quote it again: " Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution. I won't put up a fight."

He clearly states that his position was different from Stalin. And you claim that it was the same? Stop making fool of yourself.



Members even on Revleft use that distinctions, even ckaihatsu from when I was debating with him earlier today he said, " the capital-C "Communist" countries"

I don't know if he using the same logic as yourself as I need to check it before.



Not by any means revolutionary nor conservative, but actually reactionary on the scale of human rights. But human rights? Since when did the USSR -actually- care about human rights?

There is no such thing as "reactionary on the scale of human rights". WTF is this? Is reactionary or it isn't.




You really need to start reading:

"Thus ended for the present, and most likely for ever, the attempts of the Slavonians of Germany to recover an independent national existence. Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished, and who in consequence had been obliged, for almost a thousand years, to follow in the wake of a mightier nation, their conqueror, the same as the Welsh in England, the Basques in Spain, the Bas-Bretons in France, and at a more recent period the Spanish and French Creoles in those portions of North America occupied of late by the Anglo-American race —these dying nationalities, the Bohemians, Carinthians, Dalmatians, etc., had tried to profit by the universal confusion of 1848, in order to restore their political status quo of A. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the Poles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself. Certainly this is no very flattering prospect for the national ambition of the Panslavistic dreamers who succeeded in agitating a portion of the Bohemian and South Slavonian people; but can they expect that history would retrograde a thousand years in order to please a few phthisical bodies of men, who in every part of the territory they occupy are interspersed with and surrounded by Germans, who from time almost immemorial have had for all purposes of civilization no other language but the German, and who lack the very first conditions of national existence, numbers and compactness of territory?”"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch14.htm

Just read the rest of the links I posted, they're interesting.

I don't see here Engels defending the assimilation of Slavs but just making a historical analysis.

Again, show me where he defended that Slavs should be assimilated.



Yes, German and Magyar nationalism. Read the texts.

I don't see any defense of nationalism but rather a historical analysis.



In terms of the historical process (Primitive Communism => ... => Feudalism => Capitalism => Socialism => Communism), it actually was.

Since USSR was capitalist I really don't see why it was more progressive than any other country.



Actually it was. I already explained this. I also told you that I do not care about the minorities are they're relative.

You don't care about it? They are relative??? And you are still here?



Sigh, what should I call you?

"Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter from the years of Nazi occupation. The KKE thus had to choose between its loyalty to the USSR and its relations with its closest ally. After some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Nikolaos Zachariadis, chose to follow the USSR, not like the YSR that had already started to negotiate with the British."

and

"KKE soon reversed its former political position, as relations between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies deteriorated. With the onset of the Cold War, Communist parties everywhere moved to more militant positions. This change of political attitude, and the choice to escalate the crisis, derived primarily from the conclusion that regime subversion, which had not been successful in December 1944, could now be achieved. The KKE leadership decided in February 1946, "after weighing domestic factors, and the Balkan and international situation", to go forward with "organization of a new armed struggle against the Monarcho-Fascist regime." The KKE boycotted the March 1946 elections, which were won by the monarchist United Nationalist Party (Inomeni Parataxis Ethnikofronon), the main member of which was Konstantinos Tsaldaris' People's Party. In September, a referendum favored the retention of the monarchy, though the KKE disputed the results, and King George returned to Athens."

You said that USSR supported Greece. There is nothing in your quote that backs your claim.



Actually if you notice I'm the one backing up my claims while you're the one giving me one-liners and calling names such as "Stalinist", "anti-Marxist", and so on. If you don't agree with some opinion you don't have to call it "Stalinist" or "anti-Marxist".

Why? Stalinist is offensive to you?



The USSR was State Capitalist during the initial period after the Revolution as Lenin himself claimed, specifically under the NEP. After that it was no longer State Capitalist and turned towards Socialism after the collectivization, whether you like it or not.

It was still capitalist after collectivization.



Capital "C" Communist. Do I have to repeat myself? I know very well the difference between a Communist country as in the case of the USSR, China, etc. and a communist mode of production. Context is everything. I already explained the difference between the capital and lower case "C". I am not the only one who uses such a distinction, it's not my problem if you are ignorant on this distinction. That is is your fault. Even the damned Wikipedia articles make such a distinction as they use "Communist" when referring to "Communist countries" and "Communists" and "communism" when referring to the mode of production.

No. See above.

When I or any other Marxist talk about communism is referring to the mode of production. The only people who call "communist countries" are ignorant bourgeois people like yourself.



"Clearly not communist", lol nice one. The comparison is not by ANY means ridiculous and I CHALLENGE YOU to prove otherwise. Marx and Engels wanted the Slavs to be assimilated by the Germans and Magyars because the latter were high on the historical progression scale and thus "progressive" and "revolutionary" (not sure on the second term).

You failed to show where Marx and Engels defend the assimilation of Slavs.

Besides this, comparing a context of the mid-XIX Century with mid-XX Century is ridiculous.



You get the point, kiddo. Stalin had to dismantle the Third International due to the risky situation and consequences after the World War. The USSR had a lot to gain at the cost of losing the Third International, specifically on the question of the divisions between the Allies of the liberated territories.

The USSR needed the support of the Allies and the only way to do it was through the dissolution of the Third International which was approved by the member nations and organizations. Period.

Yep. That is why USSR was not revolutionary anymore and no different from any other country.



I already clarified this to you, kiddo, yes you have a problem of comprehension and yes opposition remained but the opposition, i.e. those before the Great Purge, did not. The opposition that existed amongst thousands upon thousands of members in the state, party, soviets, government, etc. that cannot by any means all not oppose Stalin and the fact of the deStalinization.

If you want to specify one opposition you identify it by its name.

And claiming that opposition existed among THOUSANDS of members is even more ridiculous.



Prove it. It is impossible to kill everyone who disagreed with Stalin. If that had taken place then no opposition would have existed in the state, government, party, or the soviets and thus no de-Stalinization would have ever occurred as no opposition would have even existed in the first place for it to even occur.

LOL. Did Kruschev opposed Stalin when he was alive and the leader of USSR? He opposed Stalin once he was DEAD AND BURIED and after their supporters had been defeated by him!



Are you kidding me? So, right, if I put up an avatar of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin then it is a sign of non-Communism, of the user being not a Communists, and that it does not by any means signify that the user is a Communist but actually non-Communist? You're got to be shitting me here. And you said I'm the one trolling? Of course Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not call for the cult of personality just as Stalin himself spoke out against the cult of personality around him.

"The degree to which Stalin himself relished the cult surrounding him is debatable. Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public. In the 1930s, he made several speeches that diminished the importance of individual leaders and disparaged the cult forming around him, claiming that such a cult was un-Bolshevik; instead, he emphasized the importance of broader social forces. Stalin claimed that the only reason Lenin could acceptably be adored as a leader was because Lenin understood these social forces, and therefore knew how to most effectively channel the desires of the Soviet people. Stalin's public actions seemed to support his professed disdain of the cult: Stalin often edited reports of Kremlin receptions, cutting applause and praise aimed at him and adding applause for other Soviet leaders.[15] Additionally, in 1936, Stalin passed a ban on renaming places after him.[16]
Privately, Stalin claimed that he had tried to stop the pervasive level of frenzied devotion, but that everyone assumed he was acting out of false modesty. He admitted that he understood the cult of personality was a necessary evil among the simpler section of the Soviet population, who were used to worshipping a tsar, but feared that for the intelligentsia, this attention on the individual would take the focus away from Party ideas.[17] Artyom Sergeev, Stalin’s adopted son, recalled a fight between Stalin and his biological son Vasily. After Stalin found out that Vasily had used his famous last name to escape punishment for one of his drunken debauches, Stalin screamed at him. “‘But I’m a Stalin too,’ retorted Vasily. ‘No, you’re not,’ said Stalin. ‘You’re not Stalin and I’m not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, not even me!’” To some degree, Stalin accepted the Soviet people's dedication to him as an embodiment of the Party, but he discouraged all interest in his private and family life, and divulged only limited personal information.[16] The Finnish communist Arvo Tuominen reports a sarcastic toast proposed by Stalin at a New Year Party in 1935 in which he said, "Comrades! I want to propose a toast to our patriarch, life and sun, liberator of nations, architect of socialism [he rattled off all the appellations applied to him in those days] – Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, and I hope this is the first and last speech made to that genius this evening."[18]"

As you can see, we find several things here. Note the "Like Lenin" where Lenin already had a cult of personality and that was due to his influence as founder and main theoretician of the party and its leading figure. Then we have Stalin opposing the cult of personality, passing a ban on the renaming of places after him, calling this cult of personality "un-Bolshevik", removing applause for him and adding them to others in the reports, spoke of Stalin being someone else other than him as a figure above him in private life, made fun of himself in a toast, etc. etc. Oh and a nice thing we find here "applause for other Soviet leaders". So much for that dictatorship of yours.

Don't you fucking read your texts??? It says " Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public". Where it says that Lenin had a cult of personality like Stalin here???





Seriously, stop the accusations and learn to fucking read. If I were a part of a proletarian and Socialist/Communist country then I would be a nationalist in the revolutionary sense, yes, but I am no bourgeois nationalist. I would take pride in the achievement of the proletariat and the Socialists/Communists. The problem here is that Marx and Engels themselves took pride in bourgeois nations, glorifying Germany above all else, especially the Turks and Slavs. Might want to get them off the forums if they ever were here too.

LOL. Marx took pride in bourgeois nations and glorified Germany??? What a joke. Show me where they did this.



And did I ever claim that Stalin was perfect? Stalin was a reactionary on the question of abortion and homosexuality, yes. I cannot bury myself in a hole if I admitted this, corrected you, showed your claim (on conservatism) to be wrong, tell you the true and proper label, and then tell you that I do not support such actions. Nice try though.


I know very well what a reactionary means, but apparently you didn't know what that meant until I explained that to you. Nice try yet again. I am not admitting, I am stating, that Stalin held reactionary beliefs when it came to abortion and homosexuality. In other cases he was not a reactionary and ergo you cannot by any means claim that Stalin was thus a reactionary because of holding one or two (for instance) reactionary beliefs. A person is reactionary in the MARXIST sense if he opposes the social revolution, if he opposes Socialism, if he opposes Communism, etc. due to acting against the historical imperative and progress. This can very well be seen on the question of Germany vs Tsarist Russia. A person is reactionary in terms of liberal bourgeois human rights and their progress when one opposes aspects of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and so on. We Communists and Socialists do not support human rights, civil rights, nor civil liberties as Trotsky explained in "Terrorism and Communism". We do not hold the "sacredness of human life" as an ideal. Human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, etc. include homosexual rights, abortion rights, right to life, etc. ergo according to you if we break one or multiple ones then we are reactionaries. In that sense, we are all reactionaries, every Communist and Socialist that approved of revolution, war, violence, suppression and repression of the bourgeoisie, censorship, etc. Your logic is just so excellent. Destroyed. Next.

There is no such thing as reactionary of civic or human rights. You are either a reactionary or not. And there is no such thing as being reactionary and revolutionary at the same time. That is bullshit. Using this logic you can consider jucheists or Strasserists revolutionaries because they defend the nationalization of the means of production.



Not really. Are homosexuals proletarians or, more generally, are homosexuals an oppressed CLASS? No, ergo the revolution is not about them, but Communists and Socialists do in many cases support homosexual rights and other liberal causes, and I do not mean liberal in a negative light for I support homosexual rights.

Since when I called them class? I said oppressed people. And yes, you had proletarians homosexuals for sure. Revolution is also about them.



Off of Wikipedia:
In 1933, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison. The precise reason for the new law is still in some dispute.
Some historians have suggested that Joseph Stalin's enactment of the anti-gay law was, like his prohibition on abortion, an attempt to increase the Russian birthrate and build a better relationship with the socially conservative Eastern Orthodox Church. Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism, and that Article 121 may have a simple political tool to use against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexual orientation, and to solidify Russian opposition to Nazi Germany, who had broken its treaty with Russia.[11]
More recently, a third possible reason for the anti-gay law has emerged from declassified Soviet documents and transcripts. Beyond expressed fears of a vast "counterrevolutionary" or fascist homosexual conspiracy, there were several high profile arrests of Russian men accused of being pederasts.[12] In 1933, 130 men "were accused of being 'pederasts' – adult males who have sex with boys. Since no records of men having sex with boys at that time are available, it is possible this term was used broadly and crudely to label homosexuality."[12] Whatever the precise reason, homosexuality remained a serious criminal offense until it was repealed in 1993.[12]
The Soviet government itself said very little publicly about the change in the law, and few people seemed to be aware that it existed. In 1934, the British Communist Harry Whyte wrote a long letter to Stalin condemning the law, and its prejudicial motivations. He laid out a Marxist position against the oppression of homosexuals, as a social minority, and compared homophobia to racism, xenophobia and sexism.[13] While the letter was not formally replied to, Soviet cultural writer Maxim Gorky authored an article, published in both Pravda and Izvestia titled "Proletarian Humanism", that seemed to reject Whyte's arguments point by point. He rejected the notion that homosexuals were a social minority, and argued that the Soviet Union needed to combat them in order to protect the youth and battle fascism.[14]
A few years later, 1936, Justice Commissar Nikolai Krylenko publicly stated that the anti-gay criminal law was correctly aimed at the decadent and effete old ruling classes, thus further linking homosexuality to a right-wing conspiracy, i.e. tsarist aristocracy and German fascists.[12]

That isn't a justification of Stalin's behavior towards homosexuals.




Fuck the religious minorities. As for the ethnic minorities they were suppressed based on their cultures, beliefs, and ideologies as I have already explained. The Cossacks, if I remember correctly, were pro-White.


Fuck the religious minorities??? This clearly shows that you are on the wrong forum.

[Dropdead]

That isn't a justification of Stalin's behavior towards homosexuals.

Just think about the time they were living in.. Almost everyone was homophobic during that time, for example : Castro.
And also, one of Stalins closest cabinet members was gay, and Stalin didn't care.

[Old Bolshie]

Just think about the time they were living in..
Almost everyone was homophobic during that time, for example : Castro.

The Tzarist anti-homosexual law was abolished in 1917...

I don't see how Castro being homophobic justifies Stalin's anti-homosexual policy.


And also, one of Stalins closest cabinet members was gay, and Stalin didn't care.

Stalin being personally homophobic or not is not important. Important was his anti-homosexual law because it was the law that sent homosexuals to labor camps and not Stalin's personal beliefs.

[Theophys]

You don't need to justify yourself. You answer if you want and whenever you want. It's not really my concern if you are debating elsewhere.
Right.


What about them? They were all dictators like Stalin with the opposition eliminated.
No. Prove it.



Since it was before the split between Social-Democrats and Communists and the end of the II International yes, Social-Democrat had a different meaning at the time.
Social-Democrats were still Social-Democrats, they merely have differing views depending on the sides, just as in the case of Communism having its own divisions and differing views. Social-Democrats were just an umbrella term just as Communism is.



Since it was BEFORE the split between Social-Democrats and Communists and the end of the II International yes, Social-Democrat had a different meaning at the time. Only after the betrayal of the SPD during the I World War Social Democrat acquired the meaning that has today. I thought you would know this but I was mistaken again.

Actually, no, you're still wrong Are you even trying to state that Social-Democrats were different because they didn't split yet? Then Communists after Lenin's death were different because they didn't "split" yet and in your opinion when the grounds for such a split arose after Stalin's death then the Stalinists, Zinovievists, Trotskyists, etc. should have split and thus you just related what Stalin did with the opposition to what Lenin did with the opposition, although less violently. Good job. The Social-Democrats WERE Social-Democrats despite the differences just as the Communists WERE Communists despite the differences after Lenin's death. You justify how Lenin treated his opposition and split from them because they were "different" and yet with that justify Stalin's treatment of the opposition and "split" from them because they were also "different". Pro logic. Thus Lenin did not "cooperate" nor "listen" to the opposition, but split from them and destroyed the party.



Did NEP or Collectivization implied a ideological break from Marxism? Don't think so.
Are you implying that the differences between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were differences with origins in an ideological break from Marxism and thus Lenin's actions towards the Mensheviks was acceptable? :laugh: Then the NEP and collectivization, permanent revolution and socialism in one country, and the thousand and one differences that were an "ideological break" from Marxism are enough grounds for the way Stalin treated the opposition. Good job, yet again. :laugh:



You wanted Lenin cooperating with forces which supported the Whites during the Civil War? LOL. I was referring to opposition within the party not outside. But even outside I can present you the example of the Left SR's who joined the Bolsheviks before they attempted to overthrown them by force with backing from Western Powers.
Before the Civil War, kiddo, before the Civil War. The break and conflicts between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks did not take place AFTER the Civil War but BEFORE the Civil War. The Mensheviks were opposition within the party that Lenin split from. Thus, again, Lenin did not "cooperate" nor "listen" to the opposition, but split from them and destroyed the party.



As far as Stalin being a dictator, you said yourself that Stalin centralized the power around him and killed his opposition. So I don't need to prove you something that you say yourself.
I can say all I want for the sake of argument, it is you that still needs to prove it unless you consider my claims as being authority and thus everything I am saying is true and factual in which case we need not be having this debate in the first place.


So if they didn't change their ideology why they had to be purged and killed? This is the main issue.
Because, as you said Social-Democrats differed from each other. Communists also different from each other. Falling under the banner of an ideologies does not eliminate differences. All of them were Marxists, even the Mensheviks, and yet observe what happened.



And others would have done the same? Trotsky actually could have used the Red Army against Stalin in a earlier stage of the struggle against Stalin but he didn't.

Trotsky was not able to use the Red Army or else he would have done so. He was already losing supporting within the party and a simple ruling would see him demolished. The Red Army would not follow anti-Soviet rulings and orders. Read this:


" Yet in October 1924, Trotsky published The Lessons of October,[84] an extensive summary of the events of the 1917 revolution. In it, he described Zinoviev's and Kamenev's opposition to the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917, something that the two would have preferred left unmentioned. This started a new round of intra-party struggle, which became known as the Literary Discussion, with Zinoviev and Kamenev again allied with Stalin against Trotsky. Their criticism of Trotsky was concentrated in three areas:

Trotsky's disagreements and conflicts with Lenin and the Bolsheviks prior to 1917.

Trotsky's alleged distortion of the events of 1917 in order to emphasize his role and diminish the roles played by other Bolsheviks.

Trotsky's harsh treatment of his subordinates and other alleged mistakes during the Russian Civil War.

Trotsky was again sick and unable to respond while his opponents mobilized all of their resources to denounce him. They succeeded in damaging his military reputation so much that he was forced to resign as People's Commissar of Army and Fleet Affairs and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council on 6 January 1925. Zinoviev demanded Trotsky's expulsion from the Communist Party, but Stalin refused to go along and skillfully played the role of a moderate. Trotsky kept his Politburo seat, but was effectively put on probation."

Trotsky was taken out of possession of the Red Army before the shit hit the fan.



No, you said that Zinoniev and Kamenev expelled Trotsky together with Stalin.

I already explained this.



Lenin's glorification was part of Stalin's policy. Lenin never promoted that shit. The responsibility of his cult of personality which emerged after his death cannot by any means be attributed to him. Stalin was the main orchestrator behind it.
Lenin never promoted that shit for himself nor did Stalin promote that shit for himself as I have shown. Stalin glorified Lenin, but even before then Lenin was already glorified as was seen when he died, his funeral, and so on.



Is this a joke? Because killing off the opposition was just a detail, right? I mean, if Trotsky had not been exiled or if the members of the Congress of the Condemn who voted almost unanimously for Kirov as the leader had not been purged and killed Stalin would have continued to be an uncontested leader, correct?
According to you who already stated that Stalin was in power and everyone subjugated to him before the Great Purge and thus there was no reason for the Great Purge, yes. Remember what you said about Zinoviev and Co. admitting to their mistakes and so on and so forth as well being subjugated to Stalin.



Lenin did not impose himself as the leader of the party. Stalin did impose himself as the leader of the party. You see the difference?
No I do not see the difference because Stalin did not impose himself as ABOVE the party, but leadership of the party was evident even in the case of the de facto leadership of Lenin. Stalin could never impose himself as anything, he gained enough support to become a de facto leader or otherwise.



Dude, the Great Purge began in 1936 when Stalin was already the leader of the party a long time ago. I am not exactly sure if you know the dates because you apparently don't. Otherwise you wouldn't say that bullshit.
Ergo "killing off the opposition was just a detail" because "Stalin would have continued to be an uncontested leader". Good job again. If Stalin were the leader WITH an opposition then ALL your claims about Stalin imposing himself as the leader, not being a leader, and a dictator are false. Your logic, it must hurt you.


They wanted Kyrov simply because they saw the true nature of Stalin's character and policies and tried to remove him. But it was too late for them and the majority paid with their lives.
Stalin's character and policies would have been also found in Kirov's case, with him being his staunchest supporter and all that you described him. Kirov would have thus been nothing but Stalin's puppet. Voting for Kirov would be essentially a vote for Stalin. The only reason why Stalin was thus not voted for was due to PERSONAL REASONS thanks to the personal divisions and conflict during the power struggles.



I already mentioned Trotsky's opportunity to use the Red Army above but in any case it is no argument at all saying that others would have done the same if they had the chance. Stalin was the one who showed earlier his perverse character and even Lenin recognized it. Read his passage about Stalin in his political testament if you want.
And I already mentioned that Trotsky's opportunity was too soon to be used and already stripped from him by the time the shit hit the fan. As for Lenin's Testament, see Grover Furr on "Khrushchev Lied" then remember that Lenin was no dictator to decide what takes place after his death.



Lenin was a member of the CC pretty much like everybody else. He didn't had more power attributed to him than others. If he was able to convince others through his charisma and prestige that his own personal merit. It is not like he imposed himself against the party or expelled everyone who disagreed with him.
Oh please, he was about to expel Zinoviev and Kamenev as well as others. In fact, he had more powers than other due to his large support. That means the same applies to Stalin who had also large support in order to become a leader in the first place, as you claimed yourself.



Lenin respected the decisions made against him in the CC. He didn't changed the voting resulting or expelled the people which voted against him. That is respecting the decision.
Actually no he didn't. Lenin attacked and insulted those who supported decisions against his will, as in the case of the trade union dispute. He even threatened to expel various members and even himself resign if he didn't get his way. He didn't change the voting results because he saw no reason to, his policies and line generally passed, it was only Brest-Litovsk which proved to be a problem but which he eventually won. That is not respecting the decision, the same goes with what he did with his opponents the Mensheviks, Cadets, Right and Left SRs, the Social-Democrats, and so on. Please, can your bullshit and stop making Lenin into a parliamentary angel. Lenin was a revolutionary that knew what had to be done and acted upon the ends justifying the means.



What is the problem with threatening to resign? I don't see the issue here. He had every right to do it and if people democratically changed their vote because of that I don't see any problem with that or perversion of rules here.
Threatening to resign is an extra-electoral measure that was used by Lenin to force people who wanted him to remain in the party to change their vote despite their willingness. That is to say it was no longer a vote on whether or not to pass the Brest-Litovsk Treaty but whether or not they wanted Lenin to resign or stay.



It was you who said that Lenin was also a dictator.
You already don't know where you're at.
Are you seriously unable to tell the difference between "dictator" and dictator? I was making fun of your position by showing that since Lenin could add someone to the CC then he is by your argument a dictator when compared to Stalin.



5 debates, hein? Too much confusion already.
Seems to me I'm less confused than you with all those debates.



LOL, now narrowly escaping expulsion is the same as expulsion? Not only they remained in the party, as they continued to voice opnely their criticism towards Lenin and Shlyapnikov even continued to be a Central Committee member.

And most important of all is that they were almost expelled by the Congress that was by no means controlled by Lenin.
Actually no they're not the same and that is not by any means the point. The point was that they were AT RISK OF EXPULSION meaning Lenin and Co. were not only thinking of expelling them but threatening to do so. As soon as they did so then the possibility for expulsion remains and thus Lenin was no better than Stalin except in the fact that Lenin did not carrying through it. Lenin treated his opposition with threats of expulsion just as Stalin and Co. obviously did the same before actually dispelling the opposition. In fact, the threats from Lenin's period inevitably led to the actual expulsions later on.

Lenin did not control the Congress nor did Stalin control the Congress. Ergo you just destroyed your entire argument again. Thus Stalin was as much of a "dictator" as Lenin was.



This basically resumes the shit that your entire argument really is. If Stalin perceived them as a threats then they were really a threat. What kind of argument is that? Oh wait, only now I remembered with whom I am debating...
My argument is shit? Your argument is shit as we have so far seen. I already explained my position on this, it is you who just, yet again, completely ignored it. Let those who may read this decide for themselves. If Stalin perceived them as a threat, then they were a threat to him. That is self-evident.



Tell me what party member was expelled and forced by Lenin to write a letter acknowledging its mistakes before being readmitted in the party?
Zinoviev, Kamenev, and others were threatened with expulsion after they acted in opposition to the party and its decisions which is THE SAME as expulsion if acted upon. The fact that they were threatened with actual expulsion is enough for my point. Had they continued on that path they would have been expelled, but they did not. Zinoviev and Kamenev later admitted their mistakes and were left within the party. Oh and by the way, numerous party members were expelled from the party during Lenin's purges, some of whom were eventually readmitted.


What party members were expelled? Alright:
Worker's Truth was expelled from the Party before Lenin's death. "In December 1923 Fanya Samoilova Shutskever, Efim Rafailovich Shul'man, Vladimir Markovich Khaikevich, Yakov Grigorevich Budnitsky, Pauline Ivanovna Lass-Kozlova, Oleg Petrovich Vikman-Beleev and Nellie Georgievna Krym were identified as the leaders of Workers' Truth and expelled from the Communist Party.[2]"



Where in the world I ever said that? Your mind is totally fucked up. Too much computer leads to this.
You really are unable to read nor analyze. I said "APPARENTLY", not "YOU SAID". "Apparently" is a representation fo what I concluded fromn your pathethic shit of a post. Observe:
"And claiming that they had influence on the opposition of the Congress of the Condemn is damn absurd since Kyrov was one of the most close associates of Stalin and one of the most enthusiastic Stalin supporters.
And they were even accused of being the conspirators behind Kyrov assassination!!!"
You are implying that Zinoviev and Co. had NO influence on the opposition because it is "damn absurd" since Kirov was Stalin's supporter. By such logic, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin/Someone else did not support Stalin's position and thus would have not have voted for Kirov. Since you claim that they have no influence since it is "damn absurd" then they have only 1 vote each, ergo you implied by logic that only the THREE of them votes against Kirov.


Who here is the one with the "totally fucked up" mind? Apparently it is you. Too much computer leads to this.



Your childish argument really amuses me. I'm not kidding. OF COURSE the vote was against Stalin for every reason. Call it personal or whatever you want. They were seeing how Stalin was killing democracy within the party and build a dictatorship around him and tried to stop him before it was too late. Unfortunately for them it was too late.
Aha, so it was a personal conflict! Personal conflicts cannot be reconciled and have no place in Democratic Centralism. Thus you just justified their expulsion from the party and eventual killing. Good job, kid. It was NOT about Stalin killing democracy otherwise they would not have voted for Kirov nor Stalin but proposed another candidate or completely abstained from voting. In fact, they did not disagree about policy, killing democracy, or any of those nonsense otherwise they would have not voted for KIROV who by EVERY MEANS supported Stalin. The ONLY reason thus that they did not vote for Stalin was a "fuck you", not because of his policies, not because he was killing democracy, but PURELY because they wanted to tell him "fuck you" for PERSONAL reasons which have NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTY DEMOCRACY and only create irreconcilable divisions. Good job. Your argument just got imploded.



LOL. If they wanted to blame on Stalin they would have it done, don't you think? Actually it was precisely the opposite that happened.
Precisely the opposite happened because they were unable to argue that Stalin's most ardent supporter was killed by Stalin. Not even Khrushchev himself claimed such a ridiculous tale of nonsense. It was more plausible and more believe that the opposition killed him than it was that Stalin killed him. But here you will ignorantly ask, "Why did they vote for him then?" The answer would be simple, in order to not allow Stalin to win, no matter the costs. People followed Stalin and trusted him on that question because of Kirov's support for Stalin rather than the other way around.



Stalin was. And was successful.
Prove it. I am still waiting.



No, you are the one needing to learn it, weirdo. Were Zinoniev, Kamenev or Shlyapnikov expelled from the party? NO. On the contrary, Zinoniev and Kamenev continued to be high figures within the party and all of the three continued to be part of the CC.


ZINONIEV AND KAMENEV WERE EVEN ELECTED FOR THE POLITBURO.
They were about to be expelled and that is evidence enough to show how Lenin treated the opposition. Lenin wanted to expel them as you can see yourself from the text. They continued to be high figures within the party because they renounced what they had done and made amends.


Worker's Truth was expelled from the Party before Lenin's death. "In December 1923 Fanya Samoilova Shutskever, Efim Rafailovich Shul'man, Vladimir Markovich Khaikevich, Yakov Grigorevich Budnitsky, Pauline Ivanovna Lass-Kozlova, Oleg Petrovich Vikman-Beleev and Nellie Georgievna Krym were identified as the leaders of Workers' Truth and expelled from the Communist Party.[2]"



I've never heard about a tendency called Zinonievism or Kamenevism. Perhaps someone who distinguishes communism from communism should be aware of it but I really don't.
Actually there were such things as Zinovievites, such as his loyalists in Leningrad. These men also had support within and outside the party. The reason why you don't hear of such a tendency is because they aren't as popular in the Left as Trotskyism and Stalinism is when it comes to Marxism-Leninism. "c"ommunism is different from "C"ommunism, as I have already explained but why should I bother trying to do away with your ignorance for you? Of course I shouldn't even bother explaining anything to this kid since he thinks that all communism is the same, that Communism referring to the Communist countries, Communists, and the ideology is the same as communism used to refer to the communist mode of production. No force on Earth can do away with his level of ignorance. The one who is ignorant such as on the difference between the two does not argue against another telling him the difference and informing him. Just goes to show your logic.



And think that all of Stalin's opponents changed their communist ideals is really stupid.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you that there are numerous fucking schools of thought within Communism and that they need become anti-Communists to have differences on the fucking question of Communism? But of course someone who cannot distinguish Communism from communism is unable to know that.




What led to Stalin's actions was his desire of centralizing power around him as you stated in your first post in this thread.
Which was a concession for the sake of argument and need not even be factual.



Permanent or temporary opposition should never be eliminated as it was the case of Lenin's leadership.
Lenin eliminated the Mensheviks from splitting away from them. Lenin wanted to expel Zinoviev and Kamenev. Lenin threatened to resign to get his way through. Lenin also bashed his opposition during conferences, mocking them, and treating them as inferiors. Lenin also never allowed permanent opposition as with the banning of permanent factions, he only allowed factions during and directly before Congresses. The Workers' Truth were expelled in 1923. "In December 1923 Fanya Samoilova Shutskever, Efim Rafailovich Shul'man, Vladimir Markovich Khaikevich, Yakov Grigorevich Budnitsky, Pauline Ivanovna Lass-Kozlova, Oleg Petrovich Vikman-Beleev and Nellie Georgievna Krym were identified as the leaders of Workers' Truth and expelled from the Communist Party.[2]"




I was referring to your other text. Don't get confused.
And I'm referring to the other (new) text for you to read after I posted. Don't get confused.



So it wasn't the same as different parties in a parliament.
It actually became so. Leftists, Centrists, and Rightists within the Bolshevik Party/Communist Party. Heard of them, kiddo? And even then heard of the division of the party into supporters of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.? Obviously you have not.



And what about Lenin threatening to resign? What is the perversion here? Did he expelled or forced those who disagreed with him to step sown? Threatening to resign isn't the same as imposing. If they changed their vote it was because they wanted. Lenin didn't force them to step down. They did it on their own will. See the difference?

Explained above on the question of resignation. Lenin forced them to step down or else he would resign. It no longer became a question of approving the Brest-Litovsk Treaty but a vote on whether or not they wanted Lenin to resign. That's why they stepped down. Oh on their own will? You remind me of the fucking voluntarists when you speak of "their own will". So tell me, when I threaten to take away your child or shoot you in the face if you vote "no", and you then vote "no" instead of "yes", are you then doing it by your own will? DO NOT EVEN TRY saying that this is different, this is exactly the same with an argumentum ad absurdum. Look it up. It was no longer a decision on the Treaty but a decision on something else that forced them to vote on that issue lest they lose something they want and do not want to lose



As far as the Zimmerwald Conference goes what is the problem of not being a Bolshevik conference? Not seeing your point here.

Where I ever stated that the Zimmerwald Conference was Bolshevik???:confused:


The party was voting whether the Bolsheviks should attend the Zimmerwald Conference or not and Lenin was the only who no since he wanted to break with Zimmerwald.


You better explain what you meant with your observation about not being Bolshevik again.
THIS is what you said:


"The party devoted to Lenin? That's why Lenin had a hard time and a narrowed approval of the Brest-Litvosk Treaty? Really? You know that in some voting of the CC Lenin's option was rejected by all the other members as it was the case of the Zimmerwald Conference?"


The Central Committee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZIMMERWALD CONFERENCE. You gave the Zimmerwald Conference as an example thinking it had to do with the CC and the Party as an example that Lenin was opposed WITHIN THE PARTY/CC! Read again what you had said because you, as I have already shown, are unable to read nor comprehend. Lenin also had already been planning for the Zimmerwald Conference "Lenin had been busy preparing for the conference for several months, attempting to rally "left" elements and drafting documents. He wrote a "draft declaration" which he shared with Alexandra Kollontai as early as July 1915. Kollantai apparently criticized this draft for not distinguishing between imperialist wars, wars of national liberation and civil wars.[9]". It was also there that Lenin was voted down, "This caucus voted down Lenins original resolution in favor of Radeks.[11]". Good job again, kid.



Your ignorance now is really shocking me. You know that the party controlled the Soviets, don't you?
No, the Soviets controlled the party. The Soviets put forward the legislative decisions, not the other way around as with the Congresses. Your ignorance is shocking me, not the other way around. Stalin and the party CANNOT control the Soviets because they Soviets were made up of delegates voted upon by local districts. Read up on your history, kid.



It would be "virtually impossible"? LOL


The Nazi German Party had 8,5 million members. According to your logic we should say that would be "virtually impossible" the non-existence of opposition to Hitler.
What the fuck are you arguing about? 8.5 million members is NOT the entire population of Germany, Hitler had a lot of opposition both within and outside the party. It would thus be virtually impossible to have no opposition to Hitler just as it would virtually impossible to have no opposition to Stalin given that he cannot control every single individual in the government, party, state, Soviets, etc.
Actually this exactly proves you wrong. If Stalin had a large support within the party then that does not mean he no longer had any opposition as you previously claimed.



I laughed hard now. Your text says:
"In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917"


It doesn't say that they were delegates prior to 1917 but just that they were members of the party. And you said now: "That's TWENTY-TWO YEARS, do you honestly expect the same delegates to be alive or even in the same position as delegates after 22 years?"


The funniest part of this was that you called me ignorant after it. AHAHA.


Dude just stop. You are making fun of yourself.


I am the one making fun of myself? Observe how it is as always the other way around. First of all, what the FUCK are you arguing about? The membership was not membership of the party because only a PART of them belonged to party organs. In fact, this is what was said:


"The composition of delegates to the congress was in terms of kind of work: from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35.

In terms of education there were 418 delegates with higher education (26.5 percent), 78 with incomplete higher education (5 percent), 352 with secondary education (22.5 percent), and 721 with incomplete secondary education and primary education, (46 percent).

In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917, [...]"


As we can see here, YOU are the one who is ignorant and YOU are the one making fun of yourself, not me. There were only 659 members from Party organs, i.e. members of the Party.

Before you even dare criticize someone else, first learn to read and comprehend before you even argue.

Secondly, what is the fucking problem here? The same argument applies that after 22 years these individuals would not remain as delegates and parts of the Congress, this does not show that Stalin killed them off but that after 22 years rarely do the same people remain.



Opposition to Stalin here? LOL. It's obvious that it was something bearing Stalin's signature.
Prove it.



That law would be valuable BEFORE the Great Purge, not AFTER!

That is because they saw what happened during the Great Purge and did not want that HAPPENING AGAIN, that is why it is a POST HOC BAN! They had absolutely no reason to ban purges before because they never involved anything like the Great Purge. Seriously, why am I even debating this kid?


There were permanent factions with Lenin. Take the Democratic Centralists just to not resort to the same example.

Is laughable and it shows how little you know about what we are talking about.
No there weren't. In fact, the Workers' Truth faction was expelled form the Party. The Democratic Centralists only had organized PRIOR to the trade-union debates in 1921 after which they weer marginalized and without any influence until 1923 after which they were expelled in 1927.



I get it. I am a troll because I have a different opinion from you pretty much like people were anti-communist because they disagreed with Stalin. You have all the qualities of a truly Stalinist. In some cases people call Stalinist as an empty label but in your case is perfectly properly.
No, you are as much as a troll as you accused me of being a troll, a Stalinist, and an anti-Marxist.



You were the first to claim that Stalin centralized power around him.
For the sake of argument and my claims are not by any means factual, remember that, kiddo.



Do you ever write anything with sense? I asked you where I claimed that there is no such thing as Dictatorship of the proletariat?


No, you need to look at your definition of autocracy. That's the issue here.
ARE YOU UNABLE TO FUCKING READ NOR COMPREHEND? Autocracy can be used as a dictatorship is used in the case of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Dictatorship and autocracy refer, according to the definitions, to the absolute rule of one person, and yet the "dictatorship" in Dictatorship of the Proletariat refers not to the dictatorship of ABSOLUTE RULE OF ONE PERSON, but the ABSOLUTE RULE OF AN ENTITY, I.E. A CLASS. Ergo why I thought you were using autocracy in the same fashion. What the fuck do you not seem to understand here?



Now you are defending Hitler and Mussolini? This is getting better. The difference between Lenin and the rest is that Lenin had opposition and didn't kill it.
Are you seriously unable to read? I am defending Hitler and Mussolini as not being dictators inasmuch as Stalin and Lenin were not dictators despite what the media says. That is the fact, whether you like it or not. Lenin had opposition and called for their expulsion, threatened to expel them, led to their expulsion, and some of their expulsion did in fact take place during Lenin's life in accordance with Lenin's ban of factions. Killing your opposition DOES NOT make you a dictator, you need ABSOLUTE power to become a dictator.



Using your logic there was never any modern dictator since it would be logically impossible to have it.
Exactly, just as there is no such thing as a totalitarian regime because it would be logically impossible to have.



Did you read what he said? I'm gonna quote it again: " Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution. I won't put up a fight."


He clearly states that his position was different from Stalin. And you claim that it was the same? Stop making fool of yourself.

Lol? Khrushchev LOST ALL SUPPORT, Stalin had A LOT OF SUPPORT, which is exactly why Stalin was able to pull off the Great Purge with a lot of support backing him up compared to Khrushchev who so unpopular that he was voted out of power unable to do anything! Khrushchev can say whatever he wants in public, that does not by ANY MEANS make it true.



I don't know if he using the same logic as yourself as I need to check it before.
Check it out, use the search function, post history, or whatnot.



There is no such thing as "reactionary on the scale of human rights". WTF is this? Is reactionary or it isn't.
Do you even know what the fuck I am talking about? When people call someone progressive in the liberal bourgeois sense, the sense that you are using when it comes to the question of homosexual and abortion rights, it is on the question of human rights, not on revolutionary theory as determined by Marx or Engels. The same applies for the terms reactionary and conservative. I'm not surprised you don't know this basic shit given your entire arguments. :laugh:




I don't see here Engels defending the assimilation of Slavs but just making a historical analysis.


Again, show me where he defended that Slavs should be assimilated.
ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND?


"Thus ended for the present, and most likely for ever, the attempts of the Slavonians of Germany to recover an independent national existence. Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished, and who in consequence had been obliged, for almost a thousand years, to follow in the wake of a mightier nation, their conqueror, the same as the Welsh in England, the Basques in Spain, the Bas-Bretons in France, and at a more recent period the Spanish and French Creoles in those portions of North America occupied of late by the Anglo-American race —these dying nationalities, the Bohemians, Carinthians, Dalmatians, etc., had tried to profit by the universal confusion of 1848, in order to restore their political status quo of A. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the Poles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself. Certainly this is no very flattering prospect for the national ambition of the Panslavistic dreamers who succeeded in agitating a portion of the Bohemian and South Slavonian people; but can they expect that history would retrograde a thousand years in order to please a few phthisical bodies of men, who in every part of the territory they occupy are interspersed with and surrounded by Germans, who from time almost immemorial have had for all purposes of civilization no other language but the German, and who lack the very first conditions of national existence, numbers and compactness of territory?”"


"The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the Poles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself."


"and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors"


"subdue, absorb, and assimilate"


"assimilate"


Not only does he say assimilate, but he goes specifically and says SUBDUE AND ABSORD. Now I am, and anyone else reading this, 100% sure you are not able to read nor comprehend basic fucking English. READ THE ENTIRE FUCKING QUOTE FOR CONTEXT.



I don't see any defense of nationalism but rather a historical analysis.
You actually ARE blind. Tell the person reading this to you to read the quotes again. That is a defense of bourgeois nationalism as raw as possible, but he did it on the basis of what he considered PROGRESSIVE over what was REACTIONARY on the question of the historical progress by defending the bourgeoisie over the reaction.


"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/01/arndt.htm


"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm.

This remnant of a nation that was, as Hegel says, suppressed and held in bondage in the course of history, this human trash, becomes every time -- and remains so until their complete obliteration or loss of national identity -- the fanatical carriers of counter-revolution, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution."

"Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development

The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is progress."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm



"Neue Rheinische Zeitung February 1849: "And if during eight centuries the "eight million Slavs" have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars! .... what a "crime" it is, what a "damnable policy" that at a time when, in Europe in general, big monarchies had become a "historical necessity", the Germans and Magyars untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness... In short, it turns out these "crimes" of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history"."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm



"This miserable debris of former nations, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other thieving rabble, whom the liberal Philistine raves about in the interest of the Russians, deny each other the very air they are breathing, and have to slit each others' greedy throats."

http://www.zechweb.de/IstEngelsVorbild.htm



Start reading ACTUAL MARXISM not that bullshit you think is Marxism. You need to understand Marxism and then adopt it, not the other way around. I bet, as I have previously contested, that you have not even read anything on Marxism and yet hold the label and its designation as such!



Since USSR was capitalist I really don't see why it was more progressive than any other country.[/quoet]
I FUCKING CHALLENGE YOU to show me WHERE the USSR had PRIVATE PROPERTY to even BEGIN speaking of CAPITALISM. Now, do it. I fucking dare you.

Nevertheless, Germany was purely bourgeois and was defended by Marx and Engels as more progressive than those non-Capitalist countries (reactionaries) to the "East".


[quote]You don't care about it? They are relative??? And you are still here?
Yes I do not care about it because it has nothing at all to do with Marxism and as shown from about Marx and Engels didn't really give a shit about minorities and in fact considered them reactionary if they were so. Yes they are relative, the Cossacks for examples were pro-Tsarist and anti-Communist. Under the Tsar they were glorified and not suppressed. Under Communism they were suppressed and demonized.




You said that USSR supported Greece. There is nothing in your quote that backs your claim.
The KKE followed the USSR's line. The USSR's line changed after falling relations between the USSR and the Allies. This prompted the KKE and pro-USSR parties to join the war on behalf of the USSR.



Why? Stalinist is offensive to you?
No, calling me empty labels which you know nothing about is.



It was still capitalist after collectivization.
Delusional anti-Marxist yourself resorting to a No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Capitalism without private property, without the bourgeoisie, without private interests, etc. as I have already explained. Obviously you are not a Marxist. You are unable to classify what Capitalism is according to Marxism or otherwise.



When I or any other Marxist talk about communism is referring to the mode of production. The only people who call "communist countries" are ignorant bourgeois people like yourself.
Oh so when someone calls you a Communist they are either ignorant, such as yourself, or referring to YOU as a mode of production? This guy fucking cracks me up! :laugh: :laugh: Either you fucking understand the difference between Communism and communism or you continue showing your own ignorance and embarrassing yourself. Simply laughable! :laugh:




You failed to show where Marx and Engels defend the assimilation of Slavs.
I already showed you above, you are unable to read.



Besides this, comparing a context of the mid-XIX Century with mid-XX Century is ridiculous.
THAT IS YOUR FUCKING EXCUSE? Oh okay then, you just completely fucking justified Stalin on EVERYTHING. How? Because "comparing a context of the early/mid-XX Century with early-XXI Century is ridiculous". You just fucking imploded your own argument. :laugh: Seriously, stop making fun of yourself. You just justified all of Stalin's actions including those on the question of homosexuals, abortion, etc. which were in the "context of the early/mid-XX Century" not the "early-XXI Century". Good job.



Yep. That is why USSR was not revolutionary anymore and no different from any other country.
By this point I and anyone reading this should not at all take you nor your use of any terms, such as "revolutionary" above, seriously at all. You do not determine what is and what isn't revolutionary. The USSR was a Communist/Socialist country whether you desire it or not. Stalin and Co. had to ensure the continual existence of the proletariat's country just as Lenin and Trotsky justified their actions during the Civil War and Red Terror for the same reason.



If you want to specify one opposition you identify it by its name.
Every single one who turned to de-Stalinization after Stalin's death including Khrushchev, Olrev, etc. And yes Khrushchev, you read that right even though he was not publicly in opposition.



And claiming that opposition existed among THOUSANDS of members is even more ridiculous.
Law of probability. It is logically impossible to have thousands of members following Stalin, as you falsely claim, without question nor opposition.



LOL. Did Kruschev opposed Stalin when he was alive and the leader of USSR? He opposed Stalin once he was DEAD AND BURIED and after their supporters had been defeated by him!
Yes but not openly.



Don't you fucking read your texts??? It says " Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public". Where it says that Lenin had a cult of personality like Stalin here???

No, YOU ARE NOT FUCKING ABLE TO READ. To say "Like Lenin" Stalin ignored the cult of personality by acting modestly and unassumingly in public it means that Lenin ignored the cult of personality by acting modestly and unassumingly in public. English, learn it. In fact, learn to read the fucking context. "The degree to which Stalin himself relished the cult surrounding him is debatable. Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public. In the 1930s, he made several speeches that diminished the importance of individual leaders and disparaged the cult forming around him, claiming that such a cult was un-Bolshevik; instead, he emphasized the importance of broader social forces. Stalin claimed that the only reason Lenin could acceptably be adored as a leader was because Lenin understood these social forces, and therefore knew how to most effectively channel the desires of the Soviet people."


And he said I'm not one unable to read. Pathetic. :lol:



LOL. Marx took pride in bourgeois nations and glorified Germany??? What a joke. Show me where they did this.
Above in their pride of Germany.



There is no such thing as reactionary of civic or human rights. You are either a reactionary or not. And there is no such thing as being reactionary and revolutionary at the same time. That is bullshit. Using this logic you can consider jucheists or Strasserists revolutionaries because they defend the nationalization of the means of production.
You REALLY ARE UNABLE TO FUCKING READ AGAIN?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is radicalism, though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical. While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary it has been adopted as a self-description by some such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,[1] Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie[2] and John Lukacs.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[3] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues.


READ THIS AGAIN:


"There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues."


AND AGAIN:


"There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues."


GET IT NOW? You can also be culturally reactionary (in this case going back against homosexual rights and abortion) whilst still being a MARXIST REVOLUTIONARY. And no, your false analogy is a logical fallacy.



Since when I called them class? I said oppressed people. And yes, you had proletarians homosexuals for sure. Revolution is also about them.
The point is that you didn't call them a class and thus completely forgot that a PROLETARIAN (Marxist) revolution concerns CLASSES and nothing else, despite the rhetoric. Proletarian homosexuals are represented as PROLETARIANS not as homosexuals in the revolution. If you dare speak of oppressed people as being a reason for a PROLETARIAN MARXIST REVOLUTION then you would have to include the bourgeoisie who are oppressed by Capitalism (yes, they do go out of business, study economics) and the state (yes, the state does regulate and enforce larger taxes on the big bourgeoisie as well).



That isn't a justification of Stalin's behavior towards homosexuals.
Actually in their eyes it is. And in fact, in YOUR eyes if left unbiased it is, remember that argument about "XIX" vs "XX" centuries and their context? Good.



Fuck the religious minorities??? This clearly shows that you are on the wrong forum.
Oh I'm the one on the wrong forum or are you the one who thinks this is motherfucking WE-LOVE-JESUS-GOD-BLESS.COM?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

For the sake of clarity, I will note that the words "deformed workers' state" never crossed Trotsky's lips ... or desk. A minor slip-up on your part, I'm sure, but he contended that the USSR was a degenerated workers' state.
Quite correct, comrade. The Soviet Union alone was a "degenerated workers' state," because it had degenerated through the Bonapartist, nationalist bureaucracy. China, Vietnam, Cuba, et al., began their existence as such. Trotsky did not live to see these developments. I think it is a reasonable extension of his theories.

[Old Bolshie]

So according to Thyophys:

- the difference between communists and social democrats was the same as Zinoniev Kamenev and Stalin. This comes from a guy who says that the opposition developed post-Lenin was about personal reasons. Unless you believe that communists and social democrats split was due to personal reasons this user destroys himself his own argument.:rolleyes:

- threatening to expel and mocking with opponents is the same as expelling and killing. It must be remembered that those who Lenin threatened were in fact integrated in CC and Politburo.:cool:

- Threatening to resign is the same as threatening to take your child away or shoot you in the face.:crying:

- Stalin didn't control the Congress after arresting 1,108 of the delegates out of 1,996.:confused:

- Stalin's opponents opposed simply because they did not like him perhaps because of his moustache. Forget about persecuting opponents or having a different opinion on Stalin's policy as it was the case of Bukharin. It was all because they didn't not like his persona.:lol:

- It is impossible to be a dictator because if one out of millions of people disagrees INWARDLY with you that is enough to have opposition.:laugh:

- Exists a tendency called Zinonievism. According to him to create a tendency you only need to support the guy and not the fact that he promoted ideas which were distinguished from others.:confused:

- Leftists and rightists within the Bolshevik party shared the same ideology (communist) but had different ideologies at the same time. :lol:

- The Soviets controlled the Bolshevik party and not the other way around.:tt1:

members of the congress

- We can say Autocracy of the proletariat as much as we say Dictatorship of the proletariat.:laugh:

- Stalin had a lot of support in the party and that is why he killed his opposition. :rolleyes:

Making an historical analysis is the same as

- If KKE followed the line of USSR that immediately means that was being supported by USSR even if USSR doesn't support it as it didn't. :confused:

One person can be a reactionary and a revolutionary at the same time.


To say "Like Lenin" Stalin ignored the cult of personality by acting modestly and unassumingly in public it means that Lenin ignored the cult of personality by acting modestly and unassumingly in public. English, learn it. In fact, learn to read the fucking context. "The degree to which Stalin himself relished the cult surrounding him is debatable. Like Lenin, Stalin acted modestly and unassumingly in public. In the 1930s, he made several speeches that diminished the importance of individual leaders and disparaged the cult forming around him, claiming that such a cult was un-Bolshevik; instead, he emphasized the importance of broader social forces. Stalin claimed that the only reason Lenin could acceptably be adored as a leader was because Lenin understood these social forces, and therefore knew how to most effectively channel the desires of the Soviet people."


Again, where it says that Lenin had a cult of personality?


The Central Committee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZIMMERWALD CONFERENCE. You gave the Zimmerwald Conference as an example thinking it had to do with the CC and the Party as an example that Lenin was opposed WITHIN THE PARTY/CC!

No, I gave the example of the CC voting about the Zimmerwald Conference. As far as I know the Zimmerwald didn't have a CC.


Read again what you had said because you, as I have already shown, are unable to read nor comprehend. Lenin also had already been planning for the Zimmerwald Conference "Lenin had been busy preparing for the conference for several months, attempting to rally "left" elements and drafting documents. He wrote a "draft declaration" which he shared with Alexandra Kollontai as early as July 1915. Kollantai apparently criticized this draft for not distinguishing between imperialist wars, wars of national liberation and civil wars.[9]". It was also there that Lenin was voted down, "This caucus voted down Lenins original resolution in favor of Radeks.[11]". Good job again, kid.

"The report says: “Zinoniev introduced in the name of his commission a resolution: “To take part in the international conference of Zimmerwaldists designated for May 18. The report says: Adopted by all votes against one.”That one was Lenin. He demanded a break with Zimmerwald"

Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution.


I am the one making fun of myself? Observe how it is as always the other way around. First of all, what the FUCK are you arguing about? The membership was not membership of the party because only a PART of them belonged to party organs. In fact, this is what was said:


"The composition of delegates to the congress was in terms of kind of work: from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35.

In terms of education there were 418 delegates with higher education (26.5 percent), 78 with incomplete higher education (5 percent), 352 with secondary education (22.5 percent), and 721 with incomplete secondary education and primary education, (46 percent).

In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917, [...]"I am the one making fun of myself? Observe how it is as always the other way around. First of all, what the FUCK are you arguing about? The membership was not membership of the party because only a PART of them belonged to party organs. In fact, this is what was said:


"The composition of delegates to the congress was in terms of kind of work: from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35.

In terms of education there were 418 delegates with higher education (26.5 percent), 78 with incomplete higher education (5 percent), 352 with secondary education (22.5 percent), and 721 with incomplete secondary education and primary education, (46 percent).

In terms of length of membership 2.4 percent had been members prior to 1917, [...]"

You idiot, delegates of the Congress had to members of the Bolshevik Party. The delegates who weren't in party organs were also members of the party. You are dumb as fuck.

[Theophys]

And this guy ignores my entire post and instead resorts to misrepresenting my arguments in a ridiculous and absurd fashion as can be seen below. For anyone that bothered to follow the debate, you shall see this yourself.


So according to Thyophys:
Who's "Thypohys"?


- the difference between communists and social democrats was the same as Zinoniev Kamenev and Stalin. This comes from a guy who says that the opposition developed post-Lenin was about personal reasons. Unless you believe that communists and social democrats split was due to personal reasons this user destroys himself his own argument.:rolleyes:
No, the difference between Communists (Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin) is similar to the differences between Social-Democrats (Menshevik and Bolsheviks before the split), not the difference between Communists and Social-Democrats.

And no, the differences post-Lenin were based on differences between Communists (divided into Rightists, Centrists, Leftists, and the supporters of Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. with their differences). This conflict led to the personal difference that led to Kirov being voted for instead of Stalin despite Kirov being a staunch supporter of Stalin which you yourself admitted was for personal reasons. That is the only instance where I spoke of personal reasons.


- threatening to expel and mocking with opponents is the same as expelling and killing. It must be remembered that those who Lenin threatened were in fact integrated in CC and Politburo.:cool:
Note that I never said killing is the same as expelling, threatening to expel, and mock opponents, but I did say the threatening to expel and expelling are the same line.


- Threatening to resign is the same as threatening to take your child away or shoot you in the face.:crying:
As an analogy, yes. It forces the individual to decide when voting on a policy, not to vote on the policy, but to vote on whether they want that person to resign, get the child taken away, or getting shot in the face. I shall quote myself:

"Threatening to resign is an extra-electoral measure that was used by Lenin to force people who wanted him to remain in the party to change their vote despite their willingness. That is to say it was no longer a vote on whether or not to pass the Brest-Litovsk Treaty but whether or not they wanted Lenin to resign or stay. "

"Explained above on the question of resignation. Lenin forced them to step down or else he would resign. It no longer became a question of approving the Brest-Litovsk Treaty but a vote on whether or not they wanted Lenin to resign. That's why they stepped down. Oh on their own will? You remind me of the fucking voluntarists when you speak of "their own will". So tell me, when I threaten to take away your child or shoot you in the face if you vote "no", and you then vote "no" instead of "yes", are you then doing it by your own will? DO NOT EVEN TRY saying that this is different, this is exactly the same with an argumentum ad absurdum. Look it up. It was no longer a decision on the Treaty but a decision on something else that forced them to vote on that issue lest they lose something they want and do not want to lose "


- Stalin didn't control the Congress after arresting 1,108 of the delegates out of 1,996.:confused:
People getting arrested during a purge =/= controlling the Congress, especailyl sicne the Congress voted for Stalin's staunchest supporter rather than an opponent of his and especially since during this Congress that Zinoviev and Co. repented for constant opposition that led to constant obstacles in the way of progress just for the sake of opposition for PERSONAL REASONS. The personal reasons were DUE TO the post-Lenin power struggles and conflicts and the fall out after the Troika and party alliances.


- Stalin's opponents opposed simply because they did not like him perhaps because of his moustache. Forget about persecuting opponents or having a different opinion on Stalin's policy as it was the case of Bukharin. It was all because they didn't not like his persona.:lol:
On the question of the Kirov vs Stalin vote, yes, that was the case as I have explained and you have admitted. I shall quote myself again with the explanation:

I said: "Stalin's character and policies would have been also found in Kirov's case, with him being his staunchest supporter and all that you described him. Kirov would have thus been nothing but Stalin's puppet. Voting for Kirov would be essentially a vote for Stalin. The only reason why Stalin was thus not voted for was due to PERSONAL REASONS thanks to the personal divisions and conflict during the power struggles."

You said: "Your childish argument really amuses me. I'm not kidding. OF COURSE the vote was against Stalin for every reason. Call it personal or whatever you want. They were seeing how Stalin was killing democracy within the party and build a dictatorship around him and tried to stop him before it was too late. Unfortunately for them it was too late."

I replied: "Aha, so it was a personal conflict! Personal conflicts cannot be reconciled and have no place in Democratic Centralism. Thus you just justified their expulsion from the party and eventual killing. Good job, kid. It was NOT about Stalin killing democracy otherwise they would not have voted for Kirov nor Stalin but proposed another candidate or completely abstained from voting. In fact, they did not disagree about policy, killing democracy, or any of those nonsense otherwise they would have not voted for KIROV who by EVERY MEANS supported Stalin. The ONLY reason thus that they did not vote for Stalin was a "fuck you", not because of his policies, not because he was killing democracy, but PURELY because they wanted to tell him "fuck you" for PERSONAL reasons which have NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTY DEMOCRACY and only create irreconcilable divisions. Good job. Your argument just got imploded."



- It is impossible to be a dictator because if one out of millions of people disagrees INWARDLY with you that is enough to have opposition.:laugh:
No Stalin was not a dictator because he did not have all power in his hands nor rule in his hands, there was the party, the state, the government, the soviets, and so on that had power themselves greater than Stalin's.

I NEVER said that "It is impossible to be a dictator because if one out of millions of people disagrees INWARDLY with you that is enough to have opposition." In fact, I CHALLENGE YOU To show me where I did. More misrepresentation from you.

In fact, this was when I said it is impossible to have an OPPOSITION in Stalin's case, not that it is impossible to be a dictator. Here's what I said:

"It would thus be virtually impossible to have no opposition to Hitler just as it would virtually impossible to have no opposition to Stalin given that he cannot control every single individual in the government, party, state, Soviets, etc. "


- Exists a tendency called Zinonievism. According to him to create a tendency you only need to support the guy and not the fact that he promoted ideas which were distinguished from others.:confused:
Actually yes that was the case. If you supported Trotsky, and thus his position, you were a Trotskyist. If you supported Zinoviev and his position then you were a Zinovievist. What the FUCK do you simply NOT understand?


- Leftists and rightists within the Bolshevik party shared the same ideology (communist) but had different ideologies at the same time. :lol:
More misinterprations. Are you really only lying here for the sake of lying when you failed with your arguments? Sad and sickening, disgusting in fact.
I NEVER said that they "shared the same ideology but had different ideologies at the same time". I said that they had the SAME ideology but DIFFERENT beliefs, ideas, and support when it came to questions WITHIN the ideology of Communism. I brought up the debates on the question of the NEP during Lenin's time, the debates on the NEP vs collectivization after Lenin's death, the debates regarding the trade unions, etc. etc. Those were all sources of conflict and opposition that shaped the Leftist, Centrist, and Rightist lines within the Communist Party. Here's what I said:

"It was not a different ideology but different beliefs within that ideology"

"It actually became so. Leftists, Centrists, and Rightists within the Bolshevik Party/Communist Party. Heard of them, kiddo? And even then heard of the division of the party into supporters of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.? Obviously you have not. "

"Actually there were such things as Zinovievites, such as his loyalists in Leningrad. These men also had support within and outside the party. The reason why you don't hear of such a tendency is because they aren't as popular in the Left as Trotskyism and Stalinism is when it comes to Marxism-Leninism."

I explained that Communism is an umbrella idealogy with numerous schools of thought, but he doesn't seem to understand as is evidently the case with his latest post.


- The Soviets controlled the Bolshevik party and not the other way around.:tt1:
Yes. As I have said:

"No, the Soviets controlled the party. The Soviets put forward the legislative decisions, not the other way around as with the Congresses. Stalin and the party CANNOT control the Soviets because they Soviets were made up of delegates voted upon by local districts. Read up on your history, kid."


- We can say Autocracy of the proletariat as much as we say Dictatorship of the proletariat.:laugh:
Yes you can, it would have the same meaning, but the difference is that Marx and Engels used "Dictatorship" instead of "Autocracy".


- Stalin had a lot of support in the party and that is why he killed his opposition. :rolleyes:
Otherwise if he had no support then he would not be able to kill his opposition, become a leader BEFORE the Great Purge, and assume power BEFORE the Great Purge, as you have said yourself.


Making an historical analysis is the same as
Same as what?


- If KKE followed the line of USSR that immediately means that was being supported by USSR even if USSR doesn't support it as it didn't. :confused:
Law of transitivity. Look it up.


One person can be a reactionary and a revolutionary at the same time.
Yes. As I have already explained:

You said: "There is no such thing as "reactionary on the scale of human rights". WTF is this? Is reactionary or it isn't."

I replied: "When people call someone progressive in the liberal bourgeois sense, the sense that you are using when it comes to the question of homosexual and abortion rights, it is on the question of human rights, not on revolutionary theory as determined by Marx or Engels. The same applies for the terms reactionary and conservative. I'm not surprised you don't know this basic shit given your entire arguments."

You said: "There is no such thing as reactionary of civic or human rights. You are either a reactionary or not. And there is no such thing as being reactionary and revolutionary at the same time. That is bullshit. Using this logic you can consider jucheists or Strasserists revolutionaries because they defend the nationalization of the means of production."

I replied: "You REALLY ARE UNABLE TO READ AGAIN?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is radicalism, though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical. While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary it has been adopted as a self-description by some such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,[1] Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie[2] and John Lukacs.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[3] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues.


READ THIS AGAIN:


"There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues."


AND AGAIN:


"There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues."


GET IT NOW? You can also be culturally reactionary (in this case going back against homosexual rights and abortion) whilst still being a MARXIST REVOLUTIONARY. And no, your false analogy is a logical fallacy."



Again, where it says that Lenin had a cult of personality?
It is implied. Why the hell would you think Lenin was even mentioned in such a context? Because of the RELEVANCE of his position, i.e. being affected by the cult of personality, and his reaction towards it being similar to Stalin's. English, learn it.


No, I gave the example of the CC voting about the Zimmerwald Conference. As far as I know the Zimmerwald didn't have a CC.
Are you still trying to get yourself out of this hole? Following that quote I was only direct to Trotsky's very "credible" source. Nowhere else did I find any hint of that quote form the document, specifically the "To take part in the international conference of Zimmerwaldists [...], but I did find documents by Lenin on this question which does NOT show his opposition. In fact, there is absolutely no proof nor evidence that I have found indicated that "That one was Lenin".

In fact, I went and searched further, found out that this was also quoted by Tony Cliff (figures) in his book "All Power To the Soviet: Lenin 1914-1917". The annotation number was 96. I look for it in the found and found the source to be: "Sedmaia konferenstsiaa p.372". Googling that I found no result at all.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for you to prove that it was Lenin's vote. Until then we have the fact that Lenin only had one single policy not put forward by the party, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, which he then won over by threatening to reisgn.


You idiot, delegates of the Congress had to members of the Bolshevik Party. The delegates who weren't in party organs were also members of the party. You are dumb as fuck.
No, they did not. Prove it. Delegates were elected/appointed by local comunities that were represented by those delegates, they were not selected by Stalin. Hell, even then FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, let us suppose that the delegates had to belong to the Party, what then? Are you somehow trying to imply that Stalin is some omnipotent being that can control the beliefs, opinions, ideas, and opposition of "delegates to the congress [...] from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35."

Unless of course you still believe that the omnipotent and omniscient being known as Stalin controls all party organs, the Komsomol, the Soviets and trade unions, the armed forces and NKVD, the industry, transportation, agriculture, and culture, science and art, and ALL the individuals within. Of course, then and only then would your point even be considered as "plausible" because we would then see that these individuals could have and did have inevitably opposed Stalin in one form or another. It is impossible for all of those individuals to have no opposition to Stalin.

[bcbm]

if you want to be mildly relevant (which is to say, very little) you should condemn or ignore stalin and move on with your politics

if you want to not matter for shit, you should get involved in all manner of minutiae about stalin and every other possible historical event relating to 'communism' and enjoy no one but a lowly class of pathetic scholars caring about what you say. if that.

[Nevsky]

Old Bolshie, why are you so narrow-minded on some things? A person is either fully reactionary or fully revolutionary? What happened to the middle ground, since when do communists believe in simple black and white schemes? Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Videla, Suharto etc. were reactionaries in the worst sense, fascist dictators. Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Merkel, Berlusconi were/are also reactionary but already in a slightly less murderous way. Merkel is not homophobic but is onviously highly opposed to socialist revolution. Stalin may have been homophobic but he lead the world's first revolutionary socialist country, a country with socially progressive values as they were never seen before. Just think of Paul Robeson's reaction to the kindness and solidarity he received in Stalin's Soviet Union compared to what was going on in the USA at the same time. Overall Stalin was not reactionary.

"Leftists and rightists within the Bolshevik party shared the same ideology (communist) but had different ideologies at the same time. :lol:"

I don't see how this idea would make you laugh. Have you missed the fact that communism is not one eternal ideology with a set number of values? Within the communist spectrum there are marxists, leninists, bolshevik-leninists, marxist-leninists, pro-Stalin m-ls, anti-Stalin m-ls, bukharinists, luxemburgists, titoists, maoists, "hoxhaists"... It is only natural that there are different tendencies in a communist party.

[Old Bolshie]

Old Bolshie, why are you so narrow-minded on some things? A person is either fully reactionary or fully revolutionary? What happened to the middle ground, since when do communists believe in simple black and white schemes? Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Videla, Suharto etc. were reactionaries in the worst sense, fascist dictators. Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Merkel, Berlusconi were/are also reactionary but already in a slightly less murderous way. Merkel is not homophobic but is onviously highly opposed to socialist revolution. Stalin may have been homophobic but he lead the world's first revolutionary socialist country, a country with socially progressive values as they were never seen before. Just think of Paul Robeson's reaction to the kindness and solidarity he received in Stalin's Soviet Union compared to what was going on in the USA at the same time. Overall Stalin was not reactionary.

You ask me how a person only can be reactionary or revolutionary and then you say "Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Videla, Suharto etc. were reactionaries in the worst sense...Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Merkel, Berlusconi were/are also reactionary but already in a slightly less murderous way". So being reactionary in a slightly less murderous way make them also revolutionaries??? And I am the narrow-minded? LOL.

I never said Stalin was homophobic, I said his policies were homophobic and that's what matter. If criminalize homosexuals is progressive then I don't need to be too much surprised with your final conclusion that Stalin was not a reactionary because for you a reactionary that it is in a slightly way is a revolutionary.



"Leftists and rightists within the Bolshevik party shared the same ideology (communist) but had different ideologies at the same time. :lol:"

I don't see how this idea would make you laugh. Have you missed the fact that communism is not one eternal ideology with a set number of values? Within the communist spectrum there are marxists, leninists, bolshevik-leninists, marxist-leninists, pro-Stalin m-ls, anti-Stalin m-ls, bukharinists, luxemburgists, titoists, maoists, "hoxhaists"... It is only natural that there are different tendencies in a communist party.That's because you didn't follow the context of the argument. The nationalist piece of shit was claiming that the Bolshevik Party post-Lenin was like a parliament. Then I said that in a parliament you can find different parties of different ideologies (communists, conservatives, etc). This was not clearly the case of the Bolshevik Party since they were all committed to the communist ideology and all of them belonged to one party unlike a parliament where exists different parties.

[Old Bolshie]

And this guy ignores my entire post and instead resorts to misrepresenting my arguments in a ridiculous and absurd fashion as can be seen below. For anyone that bothered to follow the debate, you shall see this yourself.


Who's "Thypohys"?


No, the difference between Communists (Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin) is similar to the differences between Social-Democrats (Menshevik and Bolsheviks before the split), not the difference between Communists and Social-Democrats.

And no, the differences post-Lenin were based on differences between Communists (divided into Rightists, Centrists, Leftists, and the supporters of Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. with their differences). This conflict led to the personal difference that led to Kirov being voted for instead of Stalin despite Kirov being a staunch supporter of Stalin which you yourself admitted was for personal reasons. That is the only instance where I spoke of personal reasons.


Note that I never said killing is the same as expelling, threatening to expel, and mock opponents, but I did say the threatening to expel and expelling are the same line.


As an analogy, yes. It forces the individual to decide when voting on a policy, not to vote on the policy, but to vote on whether they want that person to resign, get the child taken away, or getting shot in the face. I shall quote myself:

"Threatening to resign is an extra-electoral measure that was used by Lenin to force people who wanted him to remain in the party to change their vote despite their willingness. That is to say it was no longer a vote on whether or not to pass the Brest-Litovsk Treaty but whether or not they wanted Lenin to resign or stay. "

"Explained above on the question of resignation. Lenin forced them to step down or else he would resign. It no longer became a question of approving the Brest-Litovsk Treaty but a vote on whether or not they wanted Lenin to resign. That's why they stepped down. Oh on their own will? You remind me of the fucking voluntarists when you speak of "their own will". So tell me, when I threaten to take away your child or shoot you in the face if you vote "no", and you then vote "no" instead of "yes", are you then doing it by your own will? DO NOT EVEN TRY saying that this is different, this is exactly the same with an argumentum ad absurdum. Look it up. It was no longer a decision on the Treaty but a decision on something else that forced them to vote on that issue lest they lose something they want and do not want to lose "


People getting arrested during a purge =/= controlling the Congress, especailyl sicne the Congress voted for Stalin's staunchest supporter rather than an opponent of his and especially since during this Congress that Zinoviev and Co. repented for constant opposition that led to constant obstacles in the way of progress just for the sake of opposition for PERSONAL REASONS. The personal reasons were DUE TO the post-Lenin power struggles and conflicts and the fall out after the Troika and party alliances.


On the question of the Kirov vs Stalin vote, yes, that was the case as I have explained and you have admitted. I shall quote myself again with the explanation:

I said: "Stalin's character and policies would have been also found in Kirov's case, with him being his staunchest supporter and all that you described him. Kirov would have thus been nothing but Stalin's puppet. Voting for Kirov would be essentially a vote for Stalin. The only reason why Stalin was thus not voted for was due to PERSONAL REASONS thanks to the personal divisions and conflict during the power struggles."

You said: "Your childish argument really amuses me. I'm not kidding. OF COURSE the vote was against Stalin for every reason. Call it personal or whatever you want. They were seeing how Stalin was killing democracy within the party and build a dictatorship around him and tried to stop him before it was too late. Unfortunately for them it was too late."

I replied: "Aha, so it was a personal conflict! Personal conflicts cannot be reconciled and have no place in Democratic Centralism. Thus you just justified their expulsion from the party and eventual killing. Good job, kid. It was NOT about Stalin killing democracy otherwise they would not have voted for Kirov nor Stalin but proposed another candidate or completely abstained from voting. In fact, they did not disagree about policy, killing democracy, or any of those nonsense otherwise they would have not voted for KIROV who by EVERY MEANS supported Stalin. The ONLY reason thus that they did not vote for Stalin was a "fuck you", not because of his policies, not because he was killing democracy, but PURELY because they wanted to tell him "fuck you" for PERSONAL reasons which have NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTY DEMOCRACY and only create irreconcilable divisions. Good job. Your argument just got imploded."


No Stalin was not a dictator because he did not have all power in his hands nor rule in his hands, there was the party, the state, the government, the soviets, and so on that had power themselves greater than Stalin's.

I NEVER said that "It is impossible to be a dictator because if one out of millions of people disagrees INWARDLY with you that is enough to have opposition." In fact, I CHALLENGE YOU To show me where I did. More misrepresentation from you.

In fact, this was when I said it is impossible to have an OPPOSITION in Stalin's case, not that it is impossible to be a dictator. Here's what I said:

"It would thus be virtually impossible to have no opposition to Hitler just as it would virtually impossible to have no opposition to Stalin given that he cannot control every single individual in the government, party, state, Soviets, etc. "


Actually yes that was the case. If you supported Trotsky, and thus his position, you were a Trotskyist. If you supported Zinoviev and his position then you were a Zinovievist. What the FUCK do you simply NOT understand?


More misinterprations. Are you really only lying here for the sake of lying when you failed with your arguments? Sad and sickening, disgusting in fact.
I NEVER said that they "shared the same ideology but had different ideologies at the same time". I said that they had the SAME ideology but DIFFERENT beliefs, ideas, and support when it came to questions WITHIN the ideology of Communism. I brought up the debates on the question of the NEP during Lenin's time, the debates on the NEP vs collectivization after Lenin's death, the debates regarding the trade unions, etc. etc. Those were all sources of conflict and opposition that shaped the Leftist, Centrist, and Rightist lines within the Communist Party. Here's what I said:

"It was not a different ideology but different beliefs within that ideology"

"It actually became so. Leftists, Centrists, and Rightists within the Bolshevik Party/Communist Party. Heard of them, kiddo? And even then heard of the division of the party into supporters of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.? Obviously you have not. "

"Actually there were such things as Zinovievites, such as his loyalists in Leningrad. These men also had support within and outside the party. The reason why you don't hear of such a tendency is because they aren't as popular in the Left as Trotskyism and Stalinism is when it comes to Marxism-Leninism."

I explained that Communism is an umbrella idealogy with numerous schools of thought, but he doesn't seem to understand as is evidently the case with his latest post.


Yes. As I have said:

"No, the Soviets controlled the party. The Soviets put forward the legislative decisions, not the other way around as with the Congresses. Stalin and the party CANNOT control the Soviets because they Soviets were made up of delegates voted upon by local districts. Read up on your history, kid."


Yes you can, it would have the same meaning, but the difference is that Marx and Engels used "Dictatorship" instead of "Autocracy".


Otherwise if he had no support then he would not be able to kill his opposition, become a leader BEFORE the Great Purge, and assume power BEFORE the Great Purge, as you have said yourself.


Same as what?


Law of transitivity. Look it up.


Yes. As I have already explained:

You said: "There is no such thing as "reactionary on the scale of human rights". WTF is this? Is reactionary or it isn't."

I replied: "When people call someone progressive in the liberal bourgeois sense, the sense that you are using when it comes to the question of homosexual and abortion rights, it is on the question of human rights, not on revolutionary theory as determined by Marx or Engels. The same applies for the terms reactionary and conservative. I'm not surprised you don't know this basic shit given your entire arguments."

You said: "There is no such thing as reactionary of civic or human rights. You are either a reactionary or not. And there is no such thing as being reactionary and revolutionary at the same time. That is bullshit. Using this logic you can consider jucheists or Strasserists revolutionaries because they defend the nationalization of the means of production."

I replied: "You REALLY ARE UNABLE TO READ AGAIN?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is radicalism, though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical. While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary it has been adopted as a self-description by some such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,[1] Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie[2] and John Lukacs.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[3] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues.


READ THIS AGAIN:


"There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues."


AND AGAIN:


"There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respective traditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues."


GET IT NOW? You can also be culturally reactionary (in this case going back against homosexual rights and abortion) whilst still being a MARXIST REVOLUTIONARY. And no, your false analogy is a logical fallacy."



It is implied. Why the hell would you think Lenin was even mentioned in such a context? Because of the RELEVANCE of his position, i.e. being affected by the cult of personality, and his reaction towards it being similar to Stalin's. English, learn it.


Are you still trying to get yourself out of this hole? Following that quote I was only direct to Trotsky's very "credible" source. Nowhere else did I find any hint of that quote form the document, specifically the "To take part in the international conference of Zimmerwaldists [...], but I did find documents by Lenin on this question which does NOT show his opposition. In fact, there is absolutely no proof nor evidence that I have found indicated that "That one was Lenin".

In fact, I went and searched further, found out that this was also quoted by Tony Cliff (figures) in his book "All Power To the Soviet: Lenin 1914-1917". The annotation number was 96. I look for it in the found and found the source to be: "Sedmaia konferenstsiaa p.372". Googling that I found no result at all.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for you to prove that it was Lenin's vote. Until then we have the fact that Lenin only had one single policy not put forward by the party, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, which he then won over by threatening to reisgn.


No, they did not. Prove it. Delegates were elected/appointed by local comunities that were represented by those delegates, they were not selected by Stalin. Hell, even then FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, let us suppose that the delegates had to belong to the Party, what then? Are you somehow trying to imply that Stalin is some omnipotent being that can control the beliefs, opinions, ideas, and opposition of "delegates to the congress [...] from Party organs, 659; from the Komsomol, 27; from Soviets and trade unions, 162; from the armed forces and NKVD, 283; from industry, 230; from transportation, 110; from agriculture, 63; and from culture, science, and art, 35."

Unless of course you still believe that the omnipotent and omniscient being known as Stalin controls all party organs, the Komsomol, the Soviets and trade unions, the armed forces and NKVD, the industry, transportation, agriculture, and culture, science and art, and ALL the individuals within. Of course, then and only then would your point even be considered as "plausible" because we would then see that these individuals could have and did have inevitably opposed Stalin in one form or another. It is impossible for all of those individuals to have no opposition to Stalin.

Why i would continue to waste my time with a nationalist piece of shit who defends ethnic/minorities repression and claims that Marx was a German Bourgeois nationalist?

If i wanted to discuss with a nationalist s.o.b such yourself i would go to the opposing views of Stormfront.

And I already know that one Admin has already warned you.

Besides being a nationalist s.o.b, you are ignorant as fuck to claim that the soviets controlled the Bolshevik Party and not otherwise. This is a basic issue. I never heard no one claiming this not even the most hardliners Stalinist supporters.

[Le Socialiste]

Please keep the conversation civil, folks. I don't want to begin issuing blanket warnings. This is in 'Learning', so please try to reign it in.

[Theophys]

Why i would continue to waste my time with a nationalist piece of shit who defends ethnic/minorities repression and claims that Marx was a German Bourgeois nationalist?

If i wanted to discuss with a nationalist s.o.b such yourself i would go to the opposing views of Stormfront.

And I already know that one Admin has already warned you.

Besides being a nationalist s.o.b, you are ignorant as fuck to claim that the soviets controlled the Bolshevik Party and not otherwise. This is a basic issue. I never heard no one claiming this not even the most hardliners Stalinist supporters.
Already explained everything in my previous post.

Oh and I got a verbal warning for insulting someone, not for my views. There is nothing to warn me about concerning my views. ;)1