Stalin, good, bad or in-between

[Comrade Jacob]

I await your opinions.

EDIT: Oh, sorry everyone for the unintentionally sick pun I made in the questions.

Yes! YES! Continue to argue on this! Muahahaha. -___-

[Human Liberation Front]

I have an "in-between" feeling towards Stalin. While he was able to industrialize the USSR making it into a formidable super power against the West, he did do it by killing shart loads of human beings and exploiting them. All in all, I can't really say I hate or love the guy. I mean, what would YOU do if you had to take command of a backwards, agricultural based country while being surrounded on all sides by capitalists and fascists who want nothing but to install a puppet.

[Fourth Internationalist]

He did more bad than good, but I don't think what he did was "bad" for the sake of "badness". The workers' state was degenerating due to isolation, civil war, famines, and other economic instabilities, which of course cause political problems. The state was either going to move forward towards socialism (with the help of further revolutions) or back into capitalism (due to isolation). Because their was no further successful revolutions, Russia inevitably was going to become further bureaucratic and move backwards. Stalin could not do anything about this, even if he was a Saint. Of course, he could have done things to perhaps slow down this process, thus buying more time so to say for further revolutions.

[Ace High]

I just look at the statistics, revealing millions of dead peasants. Therefore I say bad, regardless of what his actual intentions were.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Another day, another Stalin thread. Welcome to Revleft.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I just look at the statistics, revealing millions of dead peasants. Therefore I say bad, regardless of what his actual intentions were.

That's not a very materialistic analysis. Why were there millions dead? Did Stalin personally cause this? Were these caused by Soviet policies? Was there a way to prevent this? Did the regime do the best it could? What if millions died of a completely natural famine? What if by the government?

[Ace High]

That's not a very materialistic analysis.

You're right, it's a very simple analysis.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You're right, it's a very simple analysis.

Simple and incorrect.

[Sotionov]

Even though there is no option of "He didn't do any good, he was not only bad, but evil", I voted for "He did more bad then good" because there was one good thing about him- he showed what happens when you thing that the working people needs (hierarchical) leaders.

[Ace High]

Simple and incorrect.

What is incorrect?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What is incorrect?

That Stalin is bad because statistics show millions of dead peasants. You ignore everything else.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Even though there is no option of "He didn't do any good, he was not only bad, but evil", I voted for "He did more bad then good" because there was one good thing about him- he showed what happens when you thing that the working people needs (hierarchical) leaders.

Hierarchy leadership inevitably creates Stalinism? The specific conditions of Russia, not hierarchy, created Stalinism.

[Ace High]

That Stalin is bad because statistics show millions of dead peasants. You ignore everything else.

Oh no, I didn't mean to sound ignorant. I'm not sure what I would have done if I was placed in his position with counter revolutionaries attempting to destroy the USSR at all costs. I'm just saying, whatever his intentions, millions of peasants died while he was in power. Not saying he went out and said "I'm going to starve everyone to death for fun", but that's simply what happened.

[Sotionov]

Hierarchy leadership inevitably creates Stalinism? The specific conditions of Russia, not hierarchy, created Stalinism.
Specific conditions that were so different from the specific conditions of Ukraine (a part of Russia then btw) in which the working people established a classless and statless society, and non-hierarchically organised it's economy, politics and war efforts?

The only condition specific to Russia that lead to the later creation of stalinism was that the state-capitalists (/leninists) came into power.

[Sir Comradical]

It's hard to say because the good vs. bad dichotomy necessarily leads to counter-factual history, and what-would-have-happened-if-Trotsky-took-over type arguments. It suffices to say that despite all the horrible things he did the property relations of the USSR that Stalin helped form were progressive and worth defending.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like how he killed off practically all the "Old Bolsheviks".

Unfortunately he didn't kill himself, though, so it was a job incomplete.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Specific conditions that were so different from the specific conditions of Ukraine (a part of Russia then btw) in which the working people established a classless and statless society, and non-hierarchically organised it's economy, politics and war efforts?

An anarcho-communist society was not formed in Ukraine. (sioc?) The peasantry were almost entirely still alive and independent from the communes. [Also, the Makhnovists would suppress through their military those that challenged its own form of "anarchism". Bolshevik papers were repressed because they were critical of the Makhnovist "anarchist" government. Combined with tons of other anti-anarchist actions of the Makhnovists, they were far from a classless society. Even I knew this when I was an anarchist!


The only condition specific to Russia that lead to the later creation of stalinism was that the state-capitalists (/leninists) came into power.World war 1? Civil war? Famines? Isolation? Those things are what lead to the growing bureaucracy in Russia, not the ideas of Marxists.

[supernova]

First post here on this forum. Guess I picked a dangerous topic to reply to for that?

Stalin did some good (industrializing, WW II role he played), but he also did some bad (the whole gulags for political dissenters). He was also known to have his rivals killed and even get them edited out of photographs.

It is really hard to say, though. Anyone else in that same role may have done the exact same things. And after the revolution, perhaps he needed to stop dissent to save himself and the movement?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why is there no creepy cool uncle like figure option? This poll is reactionary bullshitery.

[Comrade Jacob]

How? They are the 3 main stances. I want to get the "jist" of what other leftists think.

[NGNM85]

Were it an option, I would have voted; 'Fucking despicable.' No Socialist worthy of the name could support that mass murdering scumbag. That should go without saying.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

how? they are the 3 main stances. i want to get the jist of what other leftists think.

Do you want black bagged in the night by the thread checkas? Put it in the options naoww.

[baronci]

he would be kind of cool if he never actually existed

[International_Solidarity]

I disagree with the degeneration of the USSR under the reign of Stalin. However, to blame the entire degeneration on him would be to foolishly reject the existing material conditions within the country, it began to decline before Stalin was in power. Although, he was definitely one of the many instruments that brought about it's degeneration. That being said, he still did attempt some good things. The collectivization in the USSR being one of the major ones.

[Sotionov]

An anarcho-communist society was not formed in Ukraine.
I didn't say that an AnCom society was formed, but a classless and statless one. It's economy was a mix of anarcho-individualism (wrongly called 'mutualism'), anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism. They didn't have enough time to establish full blown anarcho-communism, being that they were destroyed by state-capitalists.


The peasantry were almost entirely still alive and independent from the communes.So? Anarchism, as a form of genuine socialism, is a movement of the working people- wage-workers, artisans and peasants, and in general of people who don't oppress or exploit anyone, so there's no problem with peasants existing or not joining communes.


Also, the Makhnovists would suppress through their military those that challenged its own form of "anarchism". The military was a non-hierarchical people's millitia, an organisation of the people for it's self-defense against the germans, austro-hungarians, hermanate, the reds and the whites, it suppressed aggressors.


Bolshevik papers were repressed because they were critical of the Makhnovist "anarchist" government. Sorry, but this is a lie. Not only they were not repressed, Bolshevik (like menshvik, eser, etc) members and sympathyzers were free to participate in the bodies of people's organization, as long as they did not call for or start an armed fight against the established anarchist institutions. E.g. In Free Terriorty there was a body called Revolutionary Military Soviet, which had the purpose of voicing decisions of the civilian populace to the insurgents, by publishing and communicating decisions of people's congresses and by being a message service between local soviets during the time between congresses. When at the 3rd Congress of delegates of the Free Territory new people were elected to the RSM, among the 22 delegates chosen- 4 were members of Nabat (Anarchist confederation), 6 were Mensheviks, and 3 were Bolsheviks, the rest with no known affiliation. So that story about repression is just bullshit, it was the Bolsheviks who did the repressing of anyone not accepting their rule, which included also everyone who was a genuine socialist.


World war 1? Civil war? Famines? Isolation? Those things are what lead to the growing bureaucracy in Russia, not the ideas of Marxists.Sorry, but no. Ukraine also experienced all these conditions, even more so, and yet they established a classless and stateless society with non-hierarchically organized economy, politics and millitia. The only thing that produced the bureaucracy in Russia was the state-capitalists taking power.

[Fourth Internationalist]

[...] being that they were destroyed by state-capitalists.The Mankhnovists weren't destroyed by state capitalists but by the Bolsheviks after the Mankhnovists had committed numerous counter-revolutionary acts.


So? Anarchism, [...], so there's no problem with peasants existing or not joining communes.In a classless society, the peasantry does not exist.


The military was a non-hierarchical people's millitia, an organisation of the people for it's self-defense against the germans, austro-hungarians, hermanate, the reds and the whites, it suppressed aggressors.
Except for when they raided peasants villages and supply trains under the guise of anarchism. Oh such great oppressors the villagers were. Of course, let's not forget that Mankhno had veto power in the army along with other anti-anarchist policies.


Sorry, but this is a lie. Not only they were not repressed, [...] the rest with no known affiliation. I don't see how having 3 Bolshevik delegates in a soviet at one point in time proves that the Mankhovists never ever suppressed opposition newspapers and other media. You might as well point out the existance of communist and anarchist organisations in capitalist society to prove anarchists and communists have never ever been suppressed. The Mankhnovists imposed their own form of electoral system through military force, which included banning parties and other things they deemed "authoritarian".


it was the Bolsheviks who did the repressing of anyone not accepting their rule, which included also everyone who was a genuine socialist.People were allowed to oppose the Bolsheviks. The Mankhovists were not suppressed for being anarchists (if they were they would have been suppressed sooner), but instead for counter-revolutionary activity (such as stopping railway supplies, stopping grain requisitioning, etc).


Ukraine also experienced all these conditions, even more so, and yet they established a classless and stateless society with non-hierarchically organized economy, politics and millitia. They set another Bolshevik government but with no plan for modern production and more primitive behaviour, under the guise of anarchism.


The only thing that produced the bureaucracy in Russia was the state-capitalists taking power.Civil war, famines, isolation, blockades, sanctions, imperialism from over 14 different armies? Nah, those could never cause a workers' state to degenerate. The evil Bolsheviks who are authoritarian just because? Definately.

added a few "[...]"s to not take up so much space

[Comrade Samuel]

I await your opinions.

EDIT: Oh, sorry everyone for the unintentionally sick pun I made in the questions.

I have not met you yet OP, welcome to revleft. Nice name by the way, we should all just start adding "comrade" before biblical names that every white middle class kid has.:laugh: But seriously I could have sworn you were my liberal brother whom I tried to get hooked on this site once.

Firstly if you are hoping for a conclusive answer to this question I can personally assure you that there will never be one. There have been 100+ threads exactly like this one that have lead to nothing but squabbling between supposedly intelligent, mature adults.

Rather than asking strangers on the internet why not research the topic yourself, form your own opinions and then return here to be promptly reminded that no analysis of Stalin that is truly objective(the same goes for any other person/event in history for that matter). Obviously there is plenty of outright crap propaganda from cold war right-wing American nutjobs but if you do enough digging you will eventually find sources that explain who he was and what he really did (don't confuse this as an apology for his innumerable atrocities just know the difference between propaganda and modern re-examination of the facts). Good luck!

[Sotionov]

The Mankhnovists weren't destroyed by state capitalists but by the Bolsheviks
Take a hint.


In a classless society, the peasantry does not exist.
Society is divided in the rulling class and the working class. Abolishing the rulling class deosn't abolish the peasantry.


You might as well point out the existance of communist and anarchist organisations in capitalist society to prove anarchists and communists have never ever been suppressed.
And one would be right, being that liberal capitalists, as oppossed to state-capitalists, generaly don't persecute, massacre socialists and destroy their organisations.


People were allowed to oppose the Bolsheviks.
Sure, if they were willing to risk being killed or imprisoned.


The evil Bolsheviks who are authoritarian
Yes.

[TheIrrationalist]

I see his 'reign' as a failure. Sure the industrialisation in Russia was phenomenal, the economy of Soviet Union skyrocketed and they beat the Nazis (surely we cannot give solely to him the credit of these feats, nevertheless they were done during his rule). I agree that these feats were mainly good. But I cannot accept that sort of state he established and 'goodness' cannot be measured on economic conditions purely. Central bureaucracy, the amount of social control, the Gulag, the Great Purge... And whats up with the lifelong leadership? Sounds like a fucking monarchy to me! What was achieved in the industrialisation never lasted, not due to Khrushchev or revisionism but because the whole system was sick and failure. Yet I think it was inevitable that someone like him would emerge in the USSR considering the conditions in the 1920's.

But rather I would not be touching the subject with a ten-foot poll!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Take a hint.

I know what you mean, and it's immature.



Society is divided in the rulling class and the working class. Abolishing the rulling class deosn't abolish the peasantry.You said classless.



And one would be right, being that liberal capitalists, as oppossed to state-capitalists, generaly don't persecute, massacre socialists and destroy their organisations.Both state capitalists and liberal capitalists killed and persecuted socialists. It's fascinating that you think liberals didn't. Bolsheviks suppressed counter-revolutionaries.



Sure, if they were willing to risk being killed or imprisoned.Only if they were attacking the dotp physically. At the point when they did do it for merely thinking, the party and state had degenerated and was no longer Bolshevik other than in name.



Yes.Usually I'd except resentment towards that sort of hyperbole, but it's surprising that you openly accept it.

[Popular Front of Judea]

31 responses, 9 of which essentially said "I have more productive uses of my time". Survey results do not register the untold number of Revleft users that looked at the title and said "Oh hell here we go again."

[Karlorax]

I think it is important to see Stalin in the context that he existed in. He was faced with a need to rapidly industrialize or the Soviet Union would have been bulldozed over in WW2. How was he to accomplish this without large social dislocation? It is hard to see what the alternative to Stalin was. I think that Russians themselves have a much greater sense of their history and what Stalin faced, which is why he is consistently voted one of the greatest leaders of all time in polls.

[Sotionov]

I know what you mean, and it's immature.
It's an understatement, being that state-capitalism has everywhere that it existed been more like feudalism then market-capitalism in terms of oppression.


You said classless.
That means abolishing hierarchy in economy, politics and society in general, not abolishing particular proffessions that don't involve any harm or hierarchy.


Both state capitalists and liberal capitalists killed and persecuted socialists. It's fascinating that you think liberals didn't.
I said they don't generaly. State-capitalists persecute socialists as a rule.


Bolsheviks suppressed counter-revolutionaries.
Bolsheviks were counter-revolutionaries.


Only if they were attacking the dotp physically.
Yeah, the membership of the Bolsheviks which wanted the workers and people in general to have any say in their own affairs, and were imprisoned or killed for holding such a view. Berkman documented his first hand experience of the Bolshevik persecution of any dissenters.


Usually I'd except resentment towards that sort of hyperbole, but it's surprising that you openly accept it.
There's nothing hyperbolic about it, the bolsheviks were authoritarian, and were evil reactionary persecutors of genuine socialists.

[Rural Comrade]

As I see it Stalin made two mistakes most of those who he purged were innocent and leaving a leadership that defied his ideals. These overshadow his accomplishments on letting the proletariat industrialize the country, his advancement of Marxist theory, and rebuilding the nation after World War II.

Just I side not on the purges I get a felling Stalin didn't really purge after the war aside from planing one before he died. What I mean is that his actions post war can be likened to Brenchev in terms of brutality.

[Tenka]

Ugh mutualists.
Anyway, I'm frankly surprised nobody has yet made a D&D alignments reference to mock the thread title.

I think Stalin was an opportunist with some terribly erroneous beliefs, but these things did not substantially affect the number of people who died in the Soviet Union, or its transition to bourgeois statehood(s).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If, hypothetically, you were a person whose thoughts were grounded in logic, common sense and compassion, you'd tend to think that any leader who presided over a period in which millions of people lost their lives in supposed peacetime, should not have anything other than a terrible legacy.

I believe this should apply to Stalin, regardless of the fact that he didn't authorise every killing, and probably never murdered anyone with his own hands - it speaks a great deal about his leadership abilities, or lack of them, that on his watch so many people died. People like that should not hold positions of power.

[Ace High]

If, hypothetically, you were a person whose thoughts were grounded in logic, common sense and compassion, you'd tend to think that any leader who presided over a period in which millions of people lost their lives in supposed peacetime, should not have anything other than a terrible legacy.

I believe this should apply to Stalin, regardless of the fact that he didn't authorise every killing, and probably never murdered anyone with his own hands - it speaks a great deal about his leadership abilities, or lack of them, that on his watch so many people died. People like that should not hold positions of power.

Exactly, that is honestly the only argument you even need to denounce Stalin. Whenever I say this, people tell me, "well you aren't taken into consideration the events surrounding Russia and what would you have done when the Nazis and capitalism was threatening you" and so forth. While he was a leader, millions died, and that means that he was obviously incompetent at the very least.

[ComradeOm]

I think Stalin was an opportunist with some terribly erroneous beliefs, but these things did not substantially affect the number of people who died in the Soviet Union, or its transition to bourgeois statehood(s).Because in a non-Stalin world somebody else would have been pushing the exact same policies and signing the exact same death warrants?

[Nevsky]

Looks like there is no "stalinist" willing to take up arms for the beloved father of the international proletariat up to this point. Unfortunately, I am too lazy myself to repeat the exact same things in the thousandth Stalin thread, hence I'll just quote comrade Enver:

"Stalin's whole life was characterized by an unceasing fierce struggle against Russian capitalism, against world capitalism, against imperialism and against the anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist currents and trends which had placed themselves in the service of world reaction and capital. Beside Lenin and under his leadership, he was one of the inspirers and leaders of the Great October Socialist Revolution, an unflinching militant of the Bolshevik Party.

After the death of Lenin, for 30 years on end, Stalin led the struggle for the triumph and defence of socialism in the Soviet Union. That is why there is great love and respect for Stalin and loyalty to him and his work in the hearts of the proletariat and the peoples of the world. That is also why the capitalist bourgeoisie and world reaction display never-ending hostility towards this loyal discipline and outstanding, resolute co-fighter of V1adimir Ilyich Lenin."

[Sotionov]

Stalin's whole life was characterized by an unceasing fierce struggle against Russian capitalismHe was the ruler of a state-capitalist system.


against imperialismActually it's more then clear that he was an imperialist.


Stalin led the struggle for the triumph and defence of socialism in the Soviet Union.USSR was socialist as much as Nazi Germany or any other state saying it's "socialist", which is to say- as much as today's systems are "democratic".

[Nevsky]

USSR was socialist as much as Nazi Germany or any other state saying it's "socialist", which is to say- as much as today's systems are "democratic".

USSR = Nazi Germany? Really? Is that really how unimaginative anti stalinism on revleft has become?

[Brutus]

USSR = Nazi Germany? Really? Is that really how unimaginative anti stalinism on revleft has become?

This comparison lacks class analysis, and is used mainly by fools.

[Ace High]

I don't think Sotionov was comparing the USSR to Nazi Germany.... They were just saying that they both claimed to be socialist which is a fact. But just because they made claims to be socialist does not mean that they actually did it in practice. Of course, the Nazis were right wing socialists which is the complete opposite of left socialism, but they did both call themselves socialist.

[OHumanista]

I think you missed an option."He only (or almost only) did terribly bad crap".
But lacking that choice I voted for "he did more bad than good".

[The Feral Underclass]

I fucking hate Trots so much. Reading this thread just re-affirms everything I despise about you people.

[Fourth Internationalist]

[QUOTE=Sotionov;2644114]It's an understatement, being that state-capitalism has everywhere that it existed been more like feudalism then market-capitalism in terms of oppression.


I'm not arguing for state capitalism, though.


That means abolishing hierarchy in economy, politics and society in general, not abolishing particular proffessions that don't involve any harm or hierarchy.The peasantry is a class, not a job.



I said they don't generaly. But they do generally.


State-capitalists persecute socialists as a rule.Yes, all capitalists do.



Bolsheviks were counter-revolutionaries.I guess the October Revolution, which was lead by the Bolsheviks, was a counter-revolution?



Yeah, the membership of the Bolsheviks which wanted the workers and people in general to have any say in their own affairs, and were imprisoned or killed for holding such a view. Berkman documented his first hand experience of the Bolshevik persecution of any dissenters.They did not much more so than the anarchists did. But the Bolsheviks are bad because they were in a larger area and called it a state.



There's nothing hyperbolic about it, the bolsheviks were authoritarian, and were evil reactionary persecutors of genuine socialists.Evil is a laughable word to describe people.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I fucking hate Trots so much. Reading this thread just re-affirms everything I despise about you people.

Despite my disagreements with anarchism and other flawed ideologies, I don't hate those who are. If you're revolutionary leftist, and not a tankie, I like you.

[OHumanista]

I fucking hate Trots so much. Reading this thread just re-affirms everything I despise about you people.

I love you too honey, now come here and give me a hug. :trotski:

[The Feral Underclass]

Despite my disagreements with anarchism and other flawed ideologies, I don't hate those who are. If you're revolutionary leftist, and not a tankie, I like you.

But it's okay to lie about and mischaracterise our history and tradition and call us counter-revolutionaries?

Fuck you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

But it's okay to lie about and mischaracterise our history and tradition and call us counter-revolutionaries?

I called the Mankhnovists, who had anti-anarchist policies, counter-revolutionaries. A lot of anarchists, such as those in the Spanish Civil War, are/were great revolutionaries.


Fuck you.

That would be illegal.

[The Feral Underclass]

I called the Mankhnovists, who had anti-anarchist policies, counter-revolutionaries. A lot of anarchists, such as those in the Spanish Civil War, are/were great revolutionaries.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. All you are doing is regurgitating the same Trot bullshit they have been spewing since 1919.

You know nothing about the Makhnovshchina or the Makhnovists. You can't even spell it correctly! -- or is it supposed to be some hilarious jibe?

[Fourth Internationalist]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. All you are doing is regurgitating the same Trot bullshit they have been spewing since 1919.

You know nothing about the Makhnovshchina or the Makhnovists. You can't even spell it correctly! -- or is it supposed to be some hilarious jibe?

Oh god spelling errors. The horror.

[OHumanista]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. All you are doing is regurgitating the same Trot bullshit they have been spewing since 1919.

You know nothing about the Makhnovshchina or the Makhnovists. You can't even spell it correctly! -- or is it supposed to be some hilarious jibe?

How about explaining why he is wrong (repeatedly if necessary) instead of screaming "FILTHY TROT LIAR!! DIE YOU LYING SCUM!! IT'S ALL LIES YOU IGNORANT TOTALITARIAN $#$U$Y$!!!!"
I mean it's rather amusing but it doesn't really presents anything new to the discussion. Nor does it makes your position look any better.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh god spelling errors. The horror.

It's not about spelling errors, it's about your lack of credibility on the subjects you try to present yourself as being knowledgeable in.

Why don't you stop with the self-eulogising, party-line bullshit and fucking educate yourself. You know, you might actually learn something.

[The Feral Underclass]

How about explaining why he is wrong (repeatedly if necessary) instead of screaming "FILTHY TROT LIAR!! DIE YOU LYING SCUM!! IT'S ALL LIES YOU IGNORANT TOTALITARIAN $#$U$Y$!!!!"
I mean it's rather amusing but it doesn't really presents anything new to the discussion. Nor does it makes your position look any better.

What difference would it make. None of you are interested in facts. You are interested in being right. You have no interest in being sympathetic towards, or at the very least knowledgeable about the Makhnovshchina, otherwise you would have taken the time to actually learn about what it is you're talking about instead of just bullshitting your way through a discussion.

[OHumanista]

What difference would it make. None of you are interested in facts. You are interested in being right. You have no interest in being sympathetic towards, or at the very least knowledgeable about the Makhnovshchina, otherwise you would have taken the time to actually learn about what it is you're talking about instead of just bullshitting your way through a discussion.

Says you the one using personal attacks since page 1 and dismissing us as idiots since the beggining. I am usually very sympathetic to anarchists and their moments in history. I just happen to disagree with your arguments especially when they degenerated into nonsense. I also happen to think the Makhnovshchina is not exactly the best example and much prefer the CNT-FAI.

Just because somoene disagrees with you it doesn't means we are not interested in your opnion or don't care about it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Says you the one using personal attacks since page 1 and dismissing us as idiots since the beggining.

You are delusional.


I am usually very sympathetic to anarchists and their moments in history. I just happen to disagree with your arguments especially when they degenerated into nonsense.

I haven't presented any arguments.


I also happen to think the Makhnovshchina is not exactly the best example and much prefer the CNT-FAI.

I would wager that you have no idea what the Makhnovischina even is.


Just because somoene disagrees with you it doesn't means we are not interested in your opnion or don't care about it.

This has nothing to do with being disagreed with. This has to do with Trots being ill-informed and/or lying, self-eulogising dicks. But then again Trotsky was an ill-informed and lying, self-eulogising dick, so what should we expect.

[ComradeOm]

I haven't presented any argumentsHow unusual for you. Plenty of abuse, a wave of acrimony and loads of arrogant condescension but no actual arguments. That's completely unlike the TAT we all know and love. But hey, who needs arguments when you can just dismiss everyone else out of hand?

Well done on making this thread even worse. You're no better than anyone else in it

[The Feral Underclass]

Interesting that you have chosen only to respond to me in this thread rather than the substantial posts I have made in other threads, including in response to you, which incidentally you have ignored.

It's almost as if you only like drama.

[ComradeOm]

Interesting that you have chosen only to respond to me in this thread rather than the substantial posts I have made in other threads, including in response to you, which incidentally you have ignoredThat would be the time we went round in circles two or three times, without getting anywhere near the issue at hand, only for you to pull us back to the beginning again? No, I learnt a lesson there TAT: you're just an argumentative idiot, pretty bad even by the standards of this site. It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone like you; you just chop things up into one-liners and then trade insults. Much like any Stalinoid would

This thread is a prime example. Seven posts and you've contributed nothing but insults and aggro. There's not even something to challenge you on because your posts are so empty. You make a lot of noise but no arguments. I'm not even sure whether it's trolling or just you being an asshole


It's almost as if you only like drama.Actually, you just bore me. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore it when you start kicking off in a thread that I'm subscribed to

So either say something worth reading or fuck off to Chit Chat

[Sotionov]

USSR = Nazi Germany? Really? Is that really how unimaginative anti stalinism on revleft has become?
USSR was "socialist" as much as the Nazi Germany was. Having "socialist" in your name doesn't make a system socialist. Workers' control over production does.


I'm not arguing for state capitalism, though.
If you're a Leninist, yes, you are.


The peasantry is a class, not a job.
No, it's not. Peasants are just workers that are in the agricultural business.


I guess the October Revolution, which was lead by the Bolsheviks, was a counter-revolution?
A political revolution maybe. Which is also called a coup. And it simply was a coup, state-capitalist taking power. It didn't change the mode of production, so- no, it wasn't a (social) revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

That would be the time we went round in circles two or three times, without getting anywhere near the issue at hand, only for you to pull us back to the beginning again?

You mean the time I asked you to back up your claims with evidence and you refused. Anyone can look at my post to you. It's here: Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2636788&postcount=162)

You made claims. I asked you to back them up. You ignored me.


No, I learnt a lesson there TAT: you're just an argumentative idiot, pretty bad even by the standards of this site. It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone like you; you just chop things up into one-liners and then trade insults. Much like any Stalinoid would

Any one can see from my posting history that you're full of shit. I consistently engage people in debate without any nonsense. Feel free to go and look. You can even get involved if you want. Of course you won't because you can't argue with me properly; you're not as clever as you think you are. That's why you have waited for me to start being rude so you can have something to say. This petty exchange is more at your level.


This thread is a prime example. Seven posts and you've contributed nothing but insults and aggro.

And here you are doing exactly the same...Why are you so unaware of yourself? At least I can admit to being a dick. I guess being self-deluded comes with the territory of being a Leninist.


There's not even something to challenge you on because your posts are so empty.

Which is exactly how I feel about the Trotskyists and their posts in this thread. I mean, what is it that I'm supposed to challenge people on? Their wild generalisations or their outright slander?

None of the Trots here have done anything but attempt to belittle a revolutionary movement they know absolutely nothing about. My response is perfectly in keeping with the level of discussion presented in this thread.


So either say something worth reading or fuck off to Chit Chat

Or else what? You're just going to have to fucking deal with me or you can put me on ignore. The choices is your, dicko.

[ComradeOm]

You mean the time I asked you to back up your claims with evidence and you refused. Anyone can look at my post to you. It's here: Post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2636788&postcount=162)

You made claims. I asked you to back them up. You ignored me.Yeah, that was the time I was talking about. I wasted how many posts peeling away the layers of your ignorance only for you to suddenly decide that the references that I'd presented in my first/second post on the topics weren't good enough. After you'd presented squat all and displayed a good slice of ignorance (oh yeah, the Ukraine had no industry. As the kids today say: LOL)

So yeah. If you don't contribute to a discussion then eventually I'll get tired and ignore you. Like I'll probably do shortly here. But I do live in hope that someday someone will have the patience to help you lever your head out of your ass


That's why you have waited for me to start being rude so you can have something to say. This petty exchange is more at your levelThe vanity is staggering? I 'waited for you'? This is, what, the second or third time I've spoken to you in nine years on the site? This is after you jump into and start shitting in a thread that I've already posted in? Plus of course this is an off-day for you, right? Normally you're the picture of serene civility. It's not like you at all to just start insulting people whose politics you disagree with and contribute nothing to a thread

I'm not sure that you're as self-aware as you like to think you are


None of the Trots here have done anything but attempt to belittle a revolutionary movement they know absolutely nothing about. My response is perfectly in keeping with the level of discussion presented in this thread.Which is exactly the point. You "despise" these posters? You're as bad as the worst of them. All mouth and no brain. 'I don't need to worry about facts or history or common sense because you're a blah, blah blah.'

If you can't bring yourself to rise above the shit and present a coherent argument - because you lack either the knowledge or the patience - then sit down and shut up. It's better than being part of the problem, another idiot talking past everyone else


Or else what? You're just going to have to fucking deal with me or you can put me on ignore. The choices is your, dicko.Oh, not much. A sudden epiphany, in which you realise that being a stupid asshole on the internet isn't the most productive use of time, would be nice. In it's absence I'd settle for having flagging to others in this thread that you're a troll not worth engaging with. Fingers crossed that they get the message

It would be nice of course if there was some sort of site rule against, well, your brand of trolling but you of all people have little to fear from the admins

[The Feral Underclass]

Last word.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If you're a Leninist, yes, you are.
No, I'm not and you declaring it doesn't validate your claim.


No, it's not. Peasants are just workers that are in the agricultural business.No, it's a pre-capitalist class.


A political revolution maybe. Which is also called a coup. A political revolution and a coup are not the same thing.


And it simply was a coup, state-capitalist taking power. No, the working class took power. Eventually, the revolution degenerated.


It didn't change the mode of production, so- no, it wasn't a (social) revolution.A social revolution doesn't change the mode of production (capitalism, socialism, etc) immediately, but rather the property relations that dominate the state. The process towards socialism can't go from revolution to socialism immediately. Rather, from revolution to a transitional period that will move towards socialism.

[Brutus]

The October revolution was planned at the first all Russian congress of soviets, and ratified at the second.
Unless the workers of Petrograd were state capitlaist too, I'd say that's a proletarian revolution.

[Sotionov]

No, I'm not and you declaring it doesn't validate your claim.
Leninist fighting for and establishing state-capitalist systems does.


No, it's a pre-capitalist class.
That would be the serfs, not peasants.


No, the working class took power. Eventually, the revolution degenerated.
No, in Russia they didn't. They tried to dispose the ruling class but their attempt of revolution was stopped by a new ruling class coming into power- the bolshevik state-capitalists.


A social revolution doesn't change the mode of production (capitalism, socialism, etc) immediately, but rather the property relations that dominate the state.
Mode of production is based on the property relations, and with it the control of the means of production.


The process towards socialism can't go from revolution to socialism immediately.
Yes, it can, socialists abolished capitalist relations in Ukraine and Spain without any 'transitional period', they established workers' control over production and society in general right away- along with deposing all parts of the ruling class.

[Brutus]

It appears that Comrade Sotionov believes that socialism can exist in one country! Not only that, but it also appears that he believe socialism can exist in certain areas of a country! No doubt he supports the Kronstadt uprising? Can socialism in one barracks exist, Comrade Sotionov? It's rather utopian to think that, no? Did Marx and Engels not take up the pen against the Owenites for their Utopianism? We are scientific socialists, and we exert that socialism, communism, classless societies, etc. can only exist after capitlaism has been abolished on a worldwide scale.

[BIXX]

It appears that Comrade Sotionov believes that socialism can exist in one country! Not only that, but it also appears that he believe socialism can exist in certain areas of a country! No doubt he supports the Kronstadt uprising? Can socialism in one barracks exist, Comrade Sotionov? It's rather utopian to think that, no? Did Marx and Engels not take up the pen against the Owenites for their Utopianism? We are scientific socialists, and we exert that socialism, communism, classless societies, etc. can only exist after capitlaism has been abolished on a worldwide scale.

The abolishment of capitalism does not mean the destruction of free territories. Just cause socialism in one country can't work doesn't mean that we should abolish freedom in areas that have achieved it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Stalin had a group of particular policies which killed millions, alienated millions more from Communism and allowed Nazi Germany and other foreign Imperialists to gain more support from particular demographics.

(1) Forced collectivization of peasants
(2) Forced expropriation of agricultural commodities from peasant communities, exacerbating famine
(3) Forced relocations of populations deemed to be disloyal & collective punishment
(4) Wiping out many parts of society which were useful for managing the country
(5) Killing enough members of the Bolshevik party to terrify every other party member to the point that they would not speak up or criticize their superiors lest they wanted to lose their jobs or worse

Yeah the steel and tractor factories he insisted on probably helped to save Russia from the Nazis but I wonder if Russia would have needed so much saving had he not gone and pissed off the Ukranian peasants and ethnic minorities, or demoted/purged/killed so many supposedly "disloyal" generals and CParty members.


It appears that Comrade Sotionov believes that socialism can exist in one country! Not only that, but it also appears that he believe socialism can exist in certain areas of a country! No doubt he supports the Kronstadt uprising? Can socialism in one barracks exist, Comrade Sotionov? It's rather utopian to think that, no? Did Marx and Engels not take up the pen against the Owenites for their Utopianism? We are scientific socialists, and we exert that socialism, communism, classless societies, etc. can only exist after capitlaism has been abolished on a worldwide scale.

Marx writing critical opinions about utopianism is qualitatively different than wiping out anarchist communists by force.


This comparison lacks class analysis, and is used mainly by fools.

Yeah but people kind of open themselves up to it when they say "but let's not talk about how terrible Stalin is because it lacks an understanding of material reality"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sotionov - i'm afraid you're wrong re: the peasantry. Serfdom was a particular form of peasantry to feudalism, but the peasantry as a whole can be seen as a pre-capitalist class. Peasants were either unfree (serfs, bonded men, villein men etc.) or freemen who could build up landed holdings and, according to many sources, were in feudal times more akin to a minor gentry than what we typically think of as a peasant working the land. However, they were still peasants, and the existence of the peasant class is still a phenomenon that is generally agreed upon as being particular to the feudal mode of production; in capitalism, there is no real explanation for the progressive existence of the peasantry, since their social relationship to the means of production is actually explained by their relationship to the land, and to a lord, both of which are features not of the capitalist system, but of the feudal system.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

fyi Sotionov - my research indicated that, in areas such as England, the phenomenon of free peasants (i.e. non-serf peasants) could be seen as early as the 11th/12th century in some areas, and by the 14th/15th century a great number, even a majority, of peasants were of the free, non-serf kind. Yet Capitalism, in England, didn't come into being, politically speaking, until 2-3 centuries later, when the peasant class was all but destroyed.

[Brutus]

Marx writing critical opinions about utopianism is qualitatively different than wiping out anarchist communists by force.
I'm referring to his insistence that free territory Ukraine was classless and stateless.

[ComradeOm]

That would be the serfs, not peasantsSerfdom had been abolished in Russia two generations before the 1917 revolution. Are you contending that in 1917 the proletariat comprised some 90% of the Empire's population?

And incidentally during the revolution the peasants exhibited some very different behaviour and interests to that of the urban proletariat. I see the sleight of hand that you need to pull here but any simple re-labelling of the peasants as workers is just historically unsustainable. In Russia or elsewhere


No, in Russia they didn't. They tried to dispose the ruling class but their attempt of revolution was stopped by a new ruling class coming into power- the bolshevik state-capitalistsAnd what was the class basis of the latter? Who were those Bolsheviks who voted in soviets and flooded into the Soviet state post-revolution?

This is a problem: the fundamental confusion between a class and a political movement

[Sotionov]

It appears that Comrade Sotionov believes that socialism can exist in one country! Not only that, but it also appears that he believe socialism can exist in certain areas of a country!
And not only that, but socialism can exist in a single workplace. Actually it can't, being that socialism is a name of a system (whose cardinal trait is workers' control over production), but a single workplace can be socialistic, likewise a town, region, etc- if inside that firm, town, region, etc. the production is under control of the workers (and there are no forms of oppressiona and exploitation).


Serfdom had been abolished in Russia two generations before the 1917 revolution. Are you contending that in 1917 the proletariat comprised some 90% of the Empire's population?
I can easily say yes to that, and quote Bakunin's comment directed at Marx: "the designation of the proletariat, the world of the workers, as class rather than as mass is deeply antipathetic to us revolutionary anarchists who unconditionally advocate full popular emancipation. To do so means nothing more or less than a new aristocracy, that of the urban and industrial workers, to the exclusion of the millions who make up the rural proletariat and who will in effect become subjects of this great so-called popular State."


And incidentally during the revolution the peasants exhibited some very different behaviour and interests to that of the urban proletariat. I see the sleight of hand that you need to pull here but any simple re-labelling of the peasants as workers is just historically unsustainable. In Russia or elsewhereThe peasants are workers, even according to marxism, only they're not the "proletariat".


And what was the class basis of the latter? Who were those Bolsheviks who voted in soviets and flooded into the Soviet state post-revolution?

This is a problem: the fundamental confusion between a class and a political movementThere is a fundamental confustion in marxism, which defines class according to ownership of the means of production, and that confustion can perfectly be seen on the example of the USSR, where it was said that because that the ownership of the means of production is formally "social", capitalism was abolished, even though the workers didn't have control over production, but the party-state bureaucracy did, making it effectively the new monopolizers of the means of production, that is- a new economic ruling class, besides being a political ruling class, and the wage-laborers stayed wage-laborers, even in a worse position, resembling those of serfs.

[ComradeOm]

I can easily say yes to thatThen how are you defining that basic notion of 'class'?

You have one group that does not own its means of production and sells its labour to survive and you have another that does own its means of production and produces from that. Both groups exist separately as distinct milieus, both organise in different ways and, come 1917, both groups pursue different agendas. On what basis are you claiming that they are the same class?


There is a fundamental confustion in marxism, which defines class according to ownership of the means of production, and that confustion can perfectly be seen on the example of the USSR, where it was said that because that the ownership of the means of production is formally "social", capitalism was abolished, even though the workers didn't have control over production, but the party-state bureaucracy did, making it effectively the new monopolizers of the means of production, that is- a new economic ruling class, besides being a political ruling class, and the wage-laborers stayed wage-laborers, even in a worse position, resembling those of serfs.That's not what I asked. That was where did that 'new economic class' come from? You talk of a 'new ruling class coming to power' so who were they and where did they come from? What was this 'party-state bureaucracy' and its origins?

[Sotionov]

Then how are you defining that basic notion of 'class'?
How about instead of ownership, which is a legal term, a piece of paper, we talk about the control over the means of production. If the workers don't control the means of production, but someone else makes the decisions about it, we're surely talking about a class society.


You have one group that does not own its means of production and sells its labour to survive and you have another that does own its means of production and produces from that. Both groups exist separately as distinct milieus, both organise in different ways and, come 1917, both groups pursue different agendas. On what basis are you claiming that they are the same class?
On the basis on them not oppressing or exploiting anyone. And if we take bolshevik state-capitalism as the agenda of the 'proletariat', and free territory socialism as the agenda of the 'peasants' to that I would say- fuck the proletariat, I'm for the peasant agenda. But I hope you weren't implying that by their "different agendas".


. That was where did that 'new economic class' come from? You talk of a 'new ruling class coming to power' so who were they and where did they come from?
From the bolshevik political party. In slavery, there was a type of system where there is a class of private slaveowner, but there was also the "asiatic" type where the state and political ruling class were also slaveowners- the economic ruling class. The bolshevik system is similar, only in relation to capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

How about instead of ownership, which is a legal term, a piece of paper, we talk about the control over the means of production. If the workers don't control the means of production, but someone else makes the decisions about it, we're surely talking about a class societyFine. Workers don't control their means of production, peasants (in Russia 1917) did. They were producers who owned their own land and marketed their own produce


From the bolshevik political partyThis would be the same Bolshevik Party whose membership was overwhelmingly proletarian and which counted on the support of the leading worker organisations (soviets, unions and factory committees) in Russia? Yet prior to Oct 1917 they were just 'slaveowners in waiting'?

[Sotionov]

Fine. Workers don't control their means of production, peasants (in Russia 1917) did. They were producers who owned their own land and marketed their own produce
Which is marxian thought called "simple commodity production", and rightfully seen as not involving any exploitation or oppression. Marxian view is that by some laws of history SCP by it's very nature leads to a class society, not that it contains exploitation. But being that I'm not a marxist, I don't accept it's view about neccessary form of progression of economic systems through history.


his would be the same Bolshevik Party whose membership was overwhelmingly proletarian and which counted on the support of the leading worker organisations (soviets, unions and factory committees) in Russia? Yet prior to Oct 1917 they were just 'slaveowners in waiting'?
Yes something like that, being that marxism has two problems- it sees itself as a movement of proletariat and not of all workers, and it sees managers/coordinators as a part of proletariat, and no libertarian socialist agrees with those views.

[D-A-C]

Can I just take a moment to recommend a book for any and all comrades who wish to deepen their understanding of Stalin:

Stalin by Issac Deutscher

Deutscher is a Trotskyist most famous for is (excellent) three part trilogy on Trotsky, but his biography of Stalin always gets forgotten.

It is IMO, thorough, fair ... and Marxist!

He isn't a bourgeoise historian with an axe to grind, and even as a Trotskyist he manages to by nothing but fair to Stalin. He points out his faults where necessary, gives him credit where necessary and most importantly shows how the conditions of Russia/Soviet Union informed all of the actions Stalin undertook.

Stalin isn't 'evil' that's a bourgeoise concept.

Stalin wasn't stupid or non-Marxist either. He was highly intelligent and thoroughly Marxist.

He struggled all his life in the name of revolution whether you approve of his actions or not.


My own personal opinion is that I simply ACCEPT STALIN.

He isn't good or bad, he simply is.

He was in charge of the world's first socialist state from the late 1920's till his death in 1953 and as such his actions and ideas merit analysis and evaluation.

Althusser (the Marxist theorist I subscribe to and who is often labelled as a Stalinist by idiots) correctly asserted that many of Stalin's faults were caused by theoretical problems and the so called 'revenge of the second international' which was basically the idea that developing the economic base was all that was important and that everything else would become socialist and fix itself if the economic base was properly organized along socialist lines (Unlike Mao's correct argument for the need of a corresponding Cultural Revolution in the relations of production).

Overall I sympathise with Stalin. It's so easy to point out mistakes in retrosepct, but at the time, as Deutscher points out in his biography, Stalin was often the middle ground moderate compromiser. He prevented Trotsky from being expelled from the Party for a long time and for a long time would hear nothing of executing a Party member.

Unfortuantely events dictated many of his actions and forced his hand on many occasions.

Despite what some would have you believe he never set out or said to himself ... "You know what I am going to ruthlessly purge thousands of my comrades". He was basically in a state of civil war from the 1920's onward and unfortunately was left little room for compromise on many of his decisions.

Finally, despite what people say, he didn't act alone.

Its so fashionable to say that he hand picked his cronies and they did whatever he said, but he picked people because they could come up with solutions to problems and because they were effecient. Okay, perhaps there was a certain element of 'yes man' and recognizing him as no. 1 ... but Molotov, Kalinin and others all had to actually do work and solve problems as well.

Khrushchev tried to re-write history with his 'secret speech' denouncing the 'cult of personality'. The fact is a large majority of the people of the Soviet Union actively and willingly undertook the Stalin led politburo's policies and million's of people benefitted from his policies as well.

If Stalin was nothing but cruel, and did nothing to improve the Soviet Union no amount of secret police would have saved him from being overthrown.

As I said, people always want to argue is Stalin good or bad ... he simply was.

He was the leader of the Soviet Union for an important period in its existence and his ideas and actions are important points of study whether you like the man or not.

[Karlorax]

Stalin, or someone like him, was necessary given the tremendous difficulties the Soviet Union faced.

[danyboy27]

You attach too much importance to leaders.

[Goblin]

He sure liked to kill communists.

[Omsk]

He was an important theoretical figurehead of the Soviet party and of the world communist movement. His general line was correct. Although, as any human being, he made errors and most of those errors he corrected after the self-criticism. A man worthy of great respect and admiration.

[Ace High]

He sure liked to kill communists.

Exactly, I don't understand how nobody sees the irony that he killed more communists than.....probably anyone!

[Omsk]

Oh yes? Could you tell me exactly how many communists Stalin killed?

Of course, you can't. Nobody can determine that. How could you determine how many communists Hitler killed? Are going to devote your entire life to traveling around Russia, visiting war veterans and asking them the question; "Dear Alexei Prokudin, was your brother a communist, did he accept the principles of Marxism? Was he a communist when he died? And what about your other 10 family members who lost their lives in the GPW?"

Well, better run off to Russia son, and start questioning, i'd like to see the results of your search.. Jheesh, what people post on this board....

[Ace High]

Oh yes? Could you tell me exactly how many communists Stalin killed?

Of course, you can't. Nobody can determine that. How could you determine how many communists Hitler killed? Are going to devote your entire life to traveling around Russia, visiting war veterans and asking them the question; "Dear Alexei Prokudin, was your brother a communist, did he accept the principles of Marxism? Was he a communist when he died? And what about your other 10 family members who lost their lives in the GPW?"

Well, better run off to Russia son, and start questioning, i'd like to see the results of your search.. Jheesh, what people post on this board....

So you're saying that it was all a conspiracy and Stalin never went through mass purges of people within the communist party? Interesting.

[danyboy27]

Even if we accept the notion that Communists where killed during Stalin Rule, he probably didnt do it himself, therefore, saying that ''Stalin killed XXX peoples'' dosnt really make sense, just like saying Hitler killed XXX peoples.

Even in the most centralised states, governements are far from being a completely monolithic bloc controlled by the will of a single man, you have to consider the bigger picture, the entourage of the proheminent figure, their social and economical background and also the conditions on the ground.

Praising or hating Stalin is just a distraction that stop us from really understanding the soviet union has an entity.

[Omsk]

So you're saying that it was all a conspiracy and Stalin never went through mass purges of people within the communist party? Interesting.

Don't put words into my mouth. I never insinuated such a thing, i just pointed out that you were spilling out laughable accusations.

[Ace High]

Even if we accept the notion that Communists where killed during Stalin Rule, he probably didnt do it himself, therefore, saying that ''Stalin killed XXX peoples'' dosnt really make sense, just like saying Hitler killed XXX peoples.

Even in the most centralised states, governements are far from being a completely monolithic bloc controlled by the will of a single man, you have to consider the bigger picture, the entourage of the proheminent figure, their social and economical background and also the conditions on the ground.

Praising or hating Stalin is just a distraction that stop us from really understanding the soviet union has an entity.

Oh dear, your first comparison? By that logic, Hitler didn't do anything wrong because as you said "he didn't personally light up the gas chambers." I mean, the fact that you just made a comparison using Stalin and Hitler....says alot. Not implying that you don't think Hitler is a monster, I'm just saying your comparison kind of proved my point.

But yeah, there is no use in praising or hating Stalin BUT I feel I must point out when people are praising him because there is literally no reason to praise him. Therefore, I offer counter arguments.

[Ace High]

Don't put words into my mouth. I never insinuated such a thing, i just pointed out that you were spilling out laughable accusations.

But, what about what I said was a laughable accusation? If my accusation is laughable, aren't you implying that he didn't kill any communists?

[Omsk]

It's laughable that you think that one man, or his policies, "killed" more communists than the entire bourgeois class(es) throughout history.

Also, i don't know how you determine wether someone is, or isn't a communist. Listen, there are a lot of sources about these subjects, a lot of information, how about you go trough at least some of it, and than come back, because this is pretty much a pointless debate, too generalised.

[Mark the Leninist]

I believe he did more bad then good. Sure he industrialized the USSR and created a superpower but he turned the dictatorship of the proletariat into a totalitarian state and that isn't cool. I mean you need authority for there to be stability but there's a limit to how far you can go.

[Ace High]

It's laughable that you think that one man, or his policies, "killed" more communists than the entire bourgeois class(es) throughout history.

Also, i don't know how you determine wether someone is, or isn't a communist. Listen, there are a lot of sources about these subjects, a lot of information, how about you go trough at least some of it, and than come back, because this is pretty much a pointless debate, too generalised.

Ehh, you're right, this debate is a little too generalized. But by the way, I am not saying he personally authorized all those deaths. I am saying as the LEADER of the USSR, he seemed to allow alot of deaths on his watch, whether or not he actually killed them himself. That's all. So my point is not so much that he was evil, more so that he was incredibly incompetent and didn't seem to have the ability to take care of his people.

But yeah, this could honestly go on forever, so I suppose I'm done.

[danyboy27]

Oh dear, your first comparison? By that logic, Hitler didn't do anything wrong because as you said "he didn't personally light up the gas chambers." I mean, the fact that you just made a comparison using Stalin and Hitler....says alot. Not implying that you don't think Hitler is a monster, I'm just saying your comparison kind of proved my point.

But yeah, there is no use in praising or hating Stalin BUT I feel I must point out when people are praising him because there is literally no reason to praise him. Therefore, I offer counter arguments.
I used Hitler beccause he was living at the same epoch has Stalin, and like Stalin he is either extremely supported or hated today, and the focus of quite a lot of attention.

But for the sake of argument, lets compare him to Rosevelt instead. Today he is Praised and hated for the new deal, but quite frankly, claiming it was all his idea is a bit of a stretch if you consider the fact that he had an army of economists and bureaucrats working with him, influencing him to pass it.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Oh yes? Could you tell me exactly how many communists Stalin killed?

Of course, you can't. Nobody can determine that. How could you determine how many communists Hitler killed? Are going to devote your entire life to traveling around Russia, visiting war veterans and asking them the question; "Dear Alexei Prokudin, was your brother a communist, did he accept the principles of Marxism? Was he a communist when he died? And what about your other 10 family members who lost their lives in the GPW?"

Well, better run off to Russia son, and start questioning, i'd like to see the results of your search.. Jheesh, what people post on this board....

You can't count them all, so none were killed.
Great circular-reasoning right there.

[Ace High]

I used Hitler beccause he was living at the same epoch has Stalin, and like Stalin he is either extremely supported or hated today, and the focus of quite a lot of attention.

But for the sake of argument, lets compare him to Rosevelt instead. Today he is Praised and hated for the new deal, but quite frankly, claiming it was all his idea is a bit of a stretch if you consider the fact that he had an army of economists and bureaucrats working with him, influencing him to pass it.

Yeah but that doesn't excuse him. So I suppose we disagree on the issue of where blame falls. You argue that as a leader, you are not responsible for what your subordinates might do. I argue that you ARE responsible, and if the people of which you are in charge are killing communists then I feel like as a leader, you can easily stop it? Just my opinion.

[danyboy27]

Yeah but that doesn't excuse him. So I suppose we disagree on the issue of where blame falls. You argue that as a leader, you are not responsible for what your subordinates might do. I argue that you ARE responsible, and if the people of which you are in charge are killing communists then I feel like as a leader, you can easily stop it? Just my opinion.

well yeah political figurehead are responsable, at some extent yes.
But to say that its ALL beccause of one guy is a bit of a misunderstanding on how political systems work.

[Ace High]

well yeah political figurehead are responsable, at some extent yes.
But to say that its ALL beccause of one guy is a bit of a misunderstanding on how political systems work.

I never said that. But it seems strange to defend the man, don't you think? Under his watch, many communists died and that is a fact. The numbers vary depending on the source, but this information is fact. Under his watch, many communists were killed while he was in charge. Doesn't that seem a bit incompetent? I don't want a man like that running a socialist government.

[danyboy27]

I never said that. But it seems strange to defend the man, don't you think? Under his watch, many communists died and that is a fact. The numbers vary depending on the source, but this information is fact. Under his watch, many communists were killed while he was in charge. Doesn't that seem a bit incompetent? I don't want a man like that running a socialist government.

That no more strange than having people writting books on how Stalin was a bad guy.

I think its an illusion to believe things might have turned differently with another guy in charge.

Stalin was a product of the soviet system, not the other way around.

[DOOM]

I think he was pretty fucked up.
His interpretation of socialism was nothing more than state capitalism.

[Sea]

Under his watch, many communists were killed while he was in charge. Doesn't that seem a bit incompetent?It seems a bit redundant.

I am saying as the LEADER of the USSR, he seemed to allow alot of deaths on his watch, whether or not he actually killed them himself.So what you're saying is:

1. Stalin had too much power.
2. Stalin used his power to kill good people.
3. Therefore Stalin must have had too much power!

Exactly, I don't understand how nobody sees the irony that he killed more communists than.....probably anyone!Stalin: Communist by day, killer by night. Coming soon to an indie theater near you.

[G4b3n]

It seems a bit redundant.
So what you're saying is:

1. Stalin had too much power.
2. Stalin used his power to kill good people.
3. Therefore Stalin must have had too much power!
Stalin: Communist by day, killer by night. Coming soon to an indie theater near you.

I would actually describe it more as paranoid asshole by day, paranoid asshole by night.
If I let my son die and regularly abused my wife by verbally demeaning her and putting cigarettes out on her as if she were some sort of object, then I would expect my comrades to have a distaste for me, nay, reject me. I guess Stalin logic differs though.

[Sea]

I would actually describe it more as paranoid asshole by day, paranoid asshole by night.
If I let my son die and regularly abused my wife by verbally demeaning her and putting cigarettes out on her as if she were some sort of object, then I would expect my comrades to have a distaste for me, nay, reject me. I guess Stalin logic differs though.[citation needed]

[4MyNation]

He is an example of why totalitarian communism cant' work. If the people are fed up, then is the job of revolutionaries to revolt. No matter who is in power

[mjg32]

It seems a bit redundant.


The deaths of 700,000+ people, under a regime led by a man who was clearly paranoid and completely intolerant of all opposition, is a "redundant" statistic?
:blink:

[Invader Zim]

The deaths of 700,000+ people, under a regime led by a man who was clearly paranoid and completely intolerant of all opposition, is a "redundant" statistic?
:blink:

The regime killed far more than 700,000.

[Old Bolshie]

He certainly did more bad than good especially as far as betraying the legacy of the October Revolution is concerned which I already expounded several times in different threads.

However, I already noticed that every time there is a Stalin pros and cons thread the arguments presented to defend him are basically always the same: he industrialized Russia and defeated the Nazis.

Why not change a little bit and highlight the outstanding improvements occurred during his rule for the life of soviet workers such as: the nearly elimination of illiteracy in USSR, universal access to education and healthcare the social equalization of the women in education and work, substantial increase in the lifespan of the soviet citizens with the first generation free from the fear of typhus, cholera, and malaria and the first generation of women able to give birth in the safety of a hospital, with access to prenatal care.

If we take in consideration that during this period most of the western world didn't know what welfare state meant and just 2 decades before Russia was one of the most backward countries in Europe I think those feats were really remarkable.

[G4b3n]

[citation needed]

What is the point? You would reject it as bourgeois lies.

[Vireya]

I have mixed opinions of Stalin. He failed as a socialist, but though brutal and heavy handed, his leadership brought the USSR from an agrarian backwater nation to rival the highly advanced USA as a superpower. That's got to count for something.

[Fred]

It is very difficult to separate Stalin the person and Stalin the political leader. I do think, although it is not particularly important to the topic, that Stalin was a psychopath. The way that he was able to calmly oversee the slaughter of untold comrades is not something your average politico can do. But that he was able to do what he did has a tremendous amount to do with the conditions faced by the USSR.

Politically, he was a complex figure. Certainly responsible for great horrors and many failed policies. Mostly he was reactive and opportunistic -- he brought the scourge of nationalism back into the picture after the Bolsheviks had spent their entire existence up until 1924 rooting it out. As a Trotskyist, my criticisms of Stalin come from the left. His biggest crime was the failure to carry out a revolutionary policy. Of course slaughtering communists in the USSR was a part of that.

[Brutus]

[citation needed]

TBH, he did the correct thing with his son. He was asked to trace Paulus (sp? Field marshal at Stalingrad) for his captured son, Jakob.
A Sergeant for a Field Marshal... Bad deal.

[Azreal]

to me, Stalin is sort of a tragic hero, in many senses. He saved the USSR in more ways than one, and had the steel will it takes to hold power through endless tumult. His real error lies in his conceptualization of class struggle, since he didn't understand the way class struggle and line struggle continue under socialism, and so he had a mechanistic view of who was friend and foe. But the Gulag issue and statistics are wildly, wildly wildly exaggerated by his detractors and western propaganda.

[Baseball]

I have mixed opinions of Stalin. He failed as a socialist, but though brutal and heavy handed, his leadership brought the USSR from an agrarian backwater nation to rival the highly advanced USA as a superpower. That's got to count for something.

It counts for very little. By 1914, Russia's economy was growing faster than that of the USA. All the "progress" for which Stalin gets credit-to whatever extent- was going to happen anyways.

[Zostrianos]

Oh yes? Could you tell me exactly how many communists Stalin killed?

More members of the Politburo of the German Communist Party were killed in the Soviet Union at Stalin's behest than in Germany on the orders of Hitler. (Professor Archie Brown, The Rise and Fall of Communism (http://books.google.ca/books?id=xO5GZQiCKmUC&pg=PA88&dq=german+communists+stalin%20%20+killed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m7gGUqSbCYPI9QTk4oCYBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=german%20communists%20stalin%20killed&f=false), 88).

On that same topic we have the Nazi-Soviet pact, whereby at one point Stalin handed over German Communists (who had fled to Russia to escape the Nazis) to the Gestapo; if I recall most of them were promptly executed.
So not only was Stalin a dictator, he was a traitor to communism.


[citation needed]

He didn't put out cigarettes on his wife, he threw cigarette butts at her. See Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, 17.

[Sea]

What is the point? You would reject it as bourgeois lies.Nice attempt at weaseling out. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I would like to learn more about Stalin's crimes. Or maybe I think you pulled it out of your ass, just like those people that claim Stalin put smokes out on his wife. But it's okay to slander without evidence when the person in question is the evil Stalin, of course! Either way, it doesn't matter.

So I ask you again, pretty please, where did you find that out?

[nizan]

Interesting that Stalin has to be judged in terms of some model of morality.

[Sea]

Interesting that Stalin has to be judged in terms of some model of morality.Bourgeois morality, of course! The most convenient kind! :lol:

Sadly, threads like this are always only good for superficial analysis, even the title implies that we are supposed to make some kind of judgement of uncle Joe. Not to mention the fact that all too often the personality of Stalin is alienated from everything else to make such judgements -- on the personality!