Why reject Lenin and/or Stalin?

[Anti-Fascist]

Comrade Stalin was one the greatest coninuers of the noble Socialist
way of life of all time and of Marxism-Leninism. He smashed Nazism and
fought against the greatest enemy of all mankind, U$ Imperialism. A
faithful Marxist-Leninist, the foundations of Communism were first build in
Russia under the wise leadership of Comrade Stalin. Freedom and
general wellbeing were ensured for all the Soviet people under Stalin. The
Soviet people (under the wise leadership of Stalin) took backwards
Russia out of the feudal ages and into the space age. Stalin has deeply
touched the lives of all progressive people of the world. I would go so far
as to say that Stalin was the greatest leader of all time.

Comrade Lenin was a great leader, a great revolutionary, and a great
theoretician. The very existence of the Soviet Union would have been
impossible without the noble leadership of Comrade Lenin. Comrade Lenin
guarded and strengethened the dictatorship of the proletetariat in the
Soviet Union. Great Comrade Stalin - a faithful Marxist-Leninist - was the
man who defended and strengthened the dictatorship of the proletariat
which Lenin helped to establish, the man who guarded the unity of the
Party which Lenin helped to establish, the man who strengethened the
alliance of the workers with the peasants, the man who strengthened the
Soviet Union to defend her noble Socialist way of life from imperialist
aggressors, under whose leadership the foundations of Communism
were built.

Why reject Stalin? Why accept the bourgeoisie's fanatically
anti-Communist lies about Stalin? By discrediting Stalin you
are only discrediting Socialism and thereby harming our
movement.

[Y2A]

Because whenever a communist revolution fails or ends up with thousands to millions dead and becomes a totalitarian state the former communists that once supported the revolution then claim the result is "not true communism" like how Chomsky ate his words after "the killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge he once supported.

[Saint-Just]

Maybe that description of Stalin should replace the one in the 'Whos Who' thread.

[canikickit]

"one the greatest coninuers of the noble Socialist way of life of all time "

"under the wise leadership of Comrade Stalin"

"under the wise leadership of Stalin"

"Stalin has deeply touched the lives of all progressive people of the world. I would go so far as to say that Stalin was the greatest leader of all time."

"The very existence of the Soviet Union would have been impossible without the noble leadership of Comrade Lenin"

"Great Comrade Stalin - a faithful Marxist-Leninist - was the man who defended and strengthened the dictatorship of the proletariat which Lenin helped to establish, the man who guarded the unity of the Party which Lenin helped to establish, the man who strengethened the alliance of the workers with the peasants, the man who strengthened the Soviet Union to defend her noble Socialist way of life from imperialist aggressors, under whose leadership the foundations of Communism were built. "

I reject them because people's sole reasons for accepting them seems to be based on hyperbole and worship.
I think both of them made things better on average for people in their nations, but I reject their authoritive measures. I don't believe in "great leaders". IT's a more complicated matter than I care to discuss.

The above which I've quoted from you is quite revolting. Lose the rethoric, it makes you look silly.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:03 PM
Because whenever a communist revolution fails or ends up with thousands to millions dead and becomes a totalitarian state the former communists that once supported the revolution then claim the result is "not true communism" like how Chomsky ate his words after "the killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge he once supported.
The Soviet Union under Stalin was not totalitarian, millions
were not killed, and obviously it was not "true Communism".
No one was claiming that it was "true Communism". It was
a Socialist State, a proletarian democracy. Obviously you
have not read Lenin's "State and Revolution", a work which
has greatly touched my life.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Anti-Fascist+Jan 20 2004, 08:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Jan 20 2004, 08:07 PM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 08:03 PM
Because whenever a communist revolution fails or ends up with thousands to millions dead and becomes a totalitarian state the former communists that once supported the revolution then claim the result is "not true communism" like how Chomsky ate his words after "the killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge he once supported.
The Soviet Union under Stalin was not totalitarian, millions
were not killed, and obviously it was not "true Communism".
No one was claiming that it was "true Communism". It was
a Socialist State, a proletarian democracy. Obviously you
have not read Lenin&#39;s "State and Revolution", a work which
has greatly touched my life. [/b]
All I am doing is giving an example i.e Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge, of how communists support revolutions yet when it comes out to be a complete failure they try and say "it&#39;s not true communism" as an excuse.

And don&#39;t kid yourself, the USSR under Stalin was a totalitarian state.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:06 PM
I reject them because people&#39;s sole reasons for accepting them seems to be based on hyperbole and worship.
I think both of them made things better on average for people in their nations, but I reject their authoritive measures. I don&#39;t believe in "great leaders". IT&#39;s a more complicated matter than I care to discuss.

The above which I&#39;ve quoted from you is quite revolting. Lose the rethoric, it makes you look silly.

I reject them because people&#39;s sole reasons for accepting them seems to be based on hyperbole and worship.

"People&#39;s sole reason" for accepting Comrade Lenin and Comrade
Stalin is that they liberated millions of people and set a great example
for all progressives and revolutionaries the world over. The legacy of
Lenin and Stalin proves irrefutably that we can abolish
exploitation of man by man, that we can end oppression, that
we can fight imperialism, that we can overthrow this cannabalistic
system of repression and exploitation; it gives us hope that the toiling
and exploited masses can be liberated, and that a worker&#39;s democracy
based on sharing and caring is possible. This is why people accept
Lenin and Stalin. Lenin abolished exploitation, built a democracy, and
Stalin guarded and strengthened this democracy.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:10 PM
[...] of how communists support revolutions yet when it comes out to be a complete failure they try and say "it&#39;s not true communism" as an excuse.

And don&#39;t kid yourself, the USSR under Stalin was a totalitarian state.
Obviously you know little of history and of Communism. First,
no one - not a single person - claimed that it was "true Communism"
to begin with. Not once, not ever. They were Socialist democracies -
not Communist societies, in which the State has been abolished.

And do not kid yourself - the USSR under the leadership of Stalin
was most certainly not Totalitarian.

[canikickit]

That&#39;s great&#33; You should write speeches for politicians&#33;


Lenin and Stalin proves irrefutably that we can abolish
exploitation of man by man, that we can end oppression, that
we can fight imperialism, that we can overthrow this cannabalistic
system of repression and exploitation

It doesn&#39;t prove that this system can be maintained. It shows that people will ultimately reject attempts to subjugate them.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:22 PM
That&#39;s great&#33; You should write speeches for politicians&#33;


Lenin and Stalin proves irrefutably that we can abolish
exploitation of man by man, that we can end oppression, that
we can fight imperialism, that we can overthrow this cannabalistic
system of repression and exploitation

It doesn&#39;t prove that this system can be maintained. It shows that people will ultimately reject attempts to subjugate them.
Revising Marxism to the benefit of the bourgeoisie and the
imperialists shows that revisionism cannot be maintained,
that - like Capitalism and exploitation and imperialism - it is
doomed to failure. This is what brought about the collapse of
Socialism in the USSR.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:26 PM
Revising Marxism to the benefit of the bourgeoisie and the
imperialists shows that revisionism cannot be maintained,
that - like Capitalism and exploitation and imperialism - it is
doomed to failure. This is what brought about the collapse of
Socialism in the USSR.
What were the reasons behind the "revisionism" of those accused?
Was it greed and inherent bourgeois tendencies that caused Stalin&#39;s successors to sell-out?
How was it that a system had not been established which would eliminate the need to "revise" (what a distasteful term) Marx&#39;s theories?

[Saint-Just]

One reason is that by the 50s Stalin said that class struggle in the Soviet Union had come to and end. Obviously it had not. Stalin should have been head of state beyond his death perhaps.

[canikickit]

Stalin should have been head of state beyond his death perhaps.

What are you suggesting?

I would perhaps applaud more a criticism of Stalin misinterpretation of the class struggle then a piece about how great he is, a piece defying someone who claimed to be against the system of classes.

[Saint-Just]

That last comment I made really was of no consequence.

I would perhaps applaud more a criticism of Stalin misinterpretation of the class struggle then a piece about how great he is, a piece defying someone who claimed to be against the system of classes.

I would write myself but at present I have not got time to do so. And, why write what has already been written. These are various pieces about the situation of 1953:

Mao Zedong and Lin Pao:

Weaknesses in the struggle against opportunism

There is no no doubt that Stalin continued, during the latter years of his life, to struggle against social-democratic and bourgeois nationalist tendencies and against Anglo-American subversion.

Nevertheless, it is clear that this struggle was not done to the extent that was necessary to redress and reinvigorate the Party ideologically and politically.

After the war, which had required extraordinary professional effort on the part of military, technical and scientific cadres, the old tendencies of military professionalism and technocratism were substantially reinforced. Bureaucratization and the search for privileges and the easy life were also reinforced. This negative development was encouraged with the `dizziness of success&#39;: the tremendous pride that the cadres had developed from the anti-fascist victory often became presumptuousness and arrogance. All these phenomena undermined the ideological and political vigilance that was necessary to fight the opportunist tendencies.

Stalin struggled against particular forms of opportunism and revisionism. He thought that the class struggle in the ideological sphere would continue for a long time. But he was not capable of formulating a comprehensive theory of its basis and its social base. In other words, he was not able to formulate a consistent theory explaining how classes and the class struggle persist in a socialist society.

Stalin had not completely understood that after the disappearance of the economic basis of capitalist and feudal exploitation, that there would still exist in the Soviet Union fertile ground for bourgeois currents. Bureaucracy, technocratism, social inequalities and privileges allowed the development within certain sectors of Soviet society a bourgeois lifestyle and aspirations for the reintroduction of certain aspects of capitalism. The persistence of bourgeois ideology among both the masses and the cadres was an additional factor that encouraged entire sectors to veer towards anti-socialist positions. The adversaries of socialism always had important resources and ideological and material resources from imperialism, which never stopped infiltrating its spies and buying off renegades; the latter never stopped in their efforts to exploit and amplify all forms of opportunism within the Soviet Union. Stalin&#39;s thesis, according to which `There is no class basis, there can be no class basis, for the domination of the bourgeois ideology in our Soviet society&#39;, was one-sided and undialectic. It introduced weaknesses and errors in the political line.

.

G. Malenkov, Report to the Nineteenth Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1952), p. 126.


Stalin was not able to define the adequate forms of mass mobilization of workers and kolkhozians to combat the dangers of restauration. Popular democracy should have been developed, with the deliberate intention to eliminate bureaucracy, technocratism, ambitiousness, and privileges. But the popular participation in such a defence of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not ensured as it should have been done. Stalin always underscored that the influence of the bourgeoisie and of imperialism was reflected in the Party through opportunist tendencies. But he was not able to formulate a theory about the struggle between the two lines in the Party. In 1939, summarizing the Great Purge, Stalin focused exclusively on `the espionage and conspiratorial activities of the Trotskyite and Bukharinite leaders&#39; and on the manner in which `the bourgeois states ... take advantage of people&#39;s weaknesses, their vanity, their slackness of will&#39;.

.

Stalin, Leninism: Selected Writings (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1975), pp. 468--469.


Stalin clearly underestimated the internal causes that gave birth to opportunist tendencies, which, once infiltrated by secret services, became linked one way or the other to imperialism. Consequently, Stalin did not think that it was necessary to mobilize all of the Party members to combat opportunistic lines and to eliminate unhealthy tendencies. During the ideological and political struggles, all the cadres and members shoud have educated and transformed themselves. After 1945, the struggle against opportunism was restricted to the highest circles of the Party and did not assist in the revolutionary transformation of the entire Party.

It was by analyzing these weaknesses that Mao Zedong formulated his theory about continuing the revolution:

`Socialist society covers a fairly long historical period. In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and there is the danger of capitalist restoration. We must recognize the protracted and complex nature of this struggle. We must heighten our vigilance. We must conduct socialist education .... Otherwise a socialist country like ours will turn into its opposite and degenerate, and a capitalist restoration will take place.&#39;

Victor Anpilov:

We cannot allow any nomenklatura tendencies of the leadership to appear as was the case in the post-1953 era.

The Party of Soviet Communists must follow absolutely Lenin&#39;s norm of party building, must have unity in its leadership and membership. In this regard the present Constitution that was adopted at this Congress states emphatically that the leadership must be discussed, criticized or replaced at open meetings of Communists and non-party worker collectives.

Cooperation between members of our party must be the same as between citizens of our country. There must be freedom to express oneself and also to understand that after decisions are adopted there must be a unified response.

Every candidate for leadership or worker in party or government posts must follow the principle of wages laid out by the Paris Commune - the wages of ANY leader or functionary cannot exceed that of a skilled worker. It would be a crime to institute any privileges for party functionaries, and after Soviet power is established, state functionaries. No one cannot receive higher wages than a skilled worker, otherwise it would be against the best interests of our Soviet Motherland. If there should be a breach of this edict the guilty person will be dealt with by the courts of the land.

Stalin on the situation in the Party in 1937 (the criticism essentially is that this situation had not completely disappeared by 1953. The Party was not just menaced by the subversive work of infiltrated enemies, but also by serious deviations by cadres, in particular the tendency to form closed cliques of friends and to cut oneself off from militants and from the masses through bureaucratic methods.)

.

Ibid. , p. 280.

`Most often, workers are not chosen for objective reasons, but for causal, subjective, philistine, petty-bourgeois reasons. Most often, so-called acquaintances, friends, fellow-townsmen, personally devoted people, masters in the art of praising their chiefs are chosen.&#39;

.

Ibid. , pp. 279--280.


Finally, Stalin criticized bureaucracy, which, on certain questions, was `positively unprecedented&#39;.

.

Ibid. , p. 296.

During investigations, many ordinary workers were excluded from the Party for `passivity&#39;. Most of these expulsions were not justified and should have been annuled a long time ago. Yet, many leaders held a bureaucratic attitude towards these unjustly expelled Communists.

.

Ibid. , p. 294.

`(S)ome of our Party leaders suffer from a lack of concern for people, for members of the Party, for workers .... because they have no individual approach in appraising Party members and Party workers they usually act in a haphazard way .... only those who are in fact profoundly anti-Party can have such an approach to members of the Party.&#39;

.

Ibid. , pp. 292--293.


Bureucracy also prevented Party leaders from learning from the masses. Nevertheless, to correctly lead the Party and the country, Communist leaders had to base themselves on the experiences of the masses.

Finally, bureaucracy made the control of leaders by Party masses impossible. Leaders had to report on their work at conferences and listen to criticisms from their base. During elections, several candidates had to be presented and, after a discussion of each, the vote should take place with a secret ballot.[/i]

[Jesus Christ]

I reject Stalin because of the millions that were killed under his rule, or "WERENT KILLED" by Stalinist standards

[canikickit]

I&#39;ll applaud that alright, Chairman Mao. You won&#39;t see me parodying that.
There are ideas put forth in what you have quoted, and the ideas are supported by reasoning and discussion. It&#39;s not just a bunch a platitudes.


Stalin should have been head of state beyond his death perhaps.

You think a dead man should have ruled as premier of the Soviet Union?

:o

:lol:

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Jesus [email protected] 20 2004, 09:39 PM
I reject Stalin because of the millions that were killed under his rule, or "WERENT KILLED" by Stalinist standards
Millions of people were not killed under the noble
leadership of Comrade Stalin. Indeed, not only did
Stalin have not the power to "kill millions", but
there is not a scintilla of evidence that millions
were murdered by any Soviet during his "rule".
The people who come up with these absurd numbers
include in their calculation all causes of death,
including natural causes. They include war deaths.
They include every criminal who was executed for
commiting terrible crimes. They include starvation
caused by massive drought and epidemics. Then,
with these absurd numbers, they go on and miscalculate
by a factor of time (and even admit it, yet still use the
same numbers). And the people who have come
up with these absurdities have been proven to be
part of anti-Communist disinformation campaigns, part
of the CIA (e.g. Conquest). Or they make use of "evidence"
from journalists who have been proven to make use of
fake evidence, who have not even been to the Soviet Union
during Stalin&#39;s time (e.g. Robert Green). And so forth, and
so forth, and so forth. Do you believe the bourgeois-imperialist
lies about Lenin, Castro and Mao Zedong as well? Anyone
who has historical knowledge can expose all of these as
myths and deliberate distortions. Give me one piece of
evidence that Stalin "killed millions", and I will change my
mind and completely reject Stalin.

[Jesus Christ]

I agree that the numbers are greatly exaggerrated, but anyone here has yet to prove me wrong that millions werent killed under his rule
and im not gonna present you with any evidence because I know that everything contradicting your beliefs will be dismissed as propaganda by you

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Jesus [email protected] 20 2004, 09:57 PM
I agree that the numbers are greatly exaggerrated, but anyone here has yet to prove me wrong that millions werent killed under his rule
and im not gonna present you with any evidence because I know that everything contradicting your beliefs will be dismissed as propaganda by you
Again you commit the "appeal to ignorance fallacy" of logic.
For more information on this logical fallacy which you have
decidedly committed, see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[Xprewatik RED]

Posted on Jan 21 2004, 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (Jesus Christ @ Jan 20 2004, 09:57 PM)
I agree that the numbers are greatly exaggerrated, but anyone here has yet to prove me wrong that millions werent killed under his rule
and im not gonna present you with any evidence because I know that everything contradicting your beliefs will be dismissed as propaganda by you

Again you commit the "appeal to ignorance fallacy" of logic.
For more information on this logical fallacy which you have
decidedly committed, see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html



Great more brainwashed Stalinists. Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians... I know I had family members who suffered. Poor peasants who saw Siberia and who saw a forced famine. I won&#39;t go any further because Stalinist just yell I&#39;m lying or that im a Capitalist..So worship your leader pray at his alter.
Stalin the Conquerer......

[Jesus Christ]

I love it how you just contradicted yourself right there.


If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don&#39;t know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

You excercise that by saying that Stalin didn&#39;t kill millions, and that is your belief, so you write it off as false.


There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

You say that all the information about Stalin is propaganda, therefore it is false according to you.


There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.

You say that there is no true evidence that millions died under Stalin, so it must be false according to you.

Self-contradiction is common amongst the caged Stalinists, and you are a main example of why I don&#39;t like to argue with religious Stalin worshippers, because I know that your next reply is going to be some sort of insult, probably containing the words:
Trot
Liberal
Misinformed

Or maybe you wont use them because I&#39;ve just mentioned that you would.

ALOT OF PEOPLE HERE DONT LIKE STALIN&#33;
get used to it

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Xprewatik [email protected] 20 2004, 10:06 PM
Posted on Jan 21 2004, 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (Jesus Christ @ Jan 20 2004, 09:57 PM)
I agree that the numbers are greatly exaggerrated, but anyone here has yet to prove me wrong that millions werent killed under his rule
and im not gonna present you with any evidence because I know that everything contradicting your beliefs will be dismissed as propaganda by you

Again you commit the "appeal to ignorance fallacy" of logic.
For more information on this logical fallacy which you have
decidedly committed, see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html



Great more brainwashed Stalinists. Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians... I know I had family members who suffered. Poor peasants who saw Siberia and who saw a forced famine. I won&#39;t go any further because Stalinist just yell I&#39;m lying or that im a Capitalist..So worship your leader pray at his alter.
Stalin the Conquerer......
He did not "murder" any Ukrainians. The Russian
research indicates that six Kulak villages were
not sent food - that is all. Not "millions", but only
six villages. And for what reason? Because Stalin
was a bloodthirsty maniac who ate babies? No,
because these Kulaks - who had brutally exploited
the poor peasants for over three hundred years -
were commiting acts of sabotage. These same
Kulaks killed government officials, committed
acts of terrorism, killed farm animals, destroyed
grain deliveries, refused to produce, etc., etc. -
this is what brought about the famine in the
Ukraine. But yes, sometimes the local
authorities mistreated the Kulaks. And what did
Stalin do about this situation? He launched a
thorough investigation into this matter, and
had those people who mistreated the Kulaks
denounced, and he had them give more respect
to the Kulaks. The Kulaks may have been brutal
and exploitative, but excesses are never justified.
Even so, is it not surprising that the poor peasants
would brutalise the Kulaks after being liberated
from over 300 years of Kulak oppression? Is it not
surprising? It is not understandable?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:52 PM
I&#39;ll applaud that alright, Chairman Mao. You won&#39;t see me parodying that.
There are ideas put forth in what you have quoted, and the ideas are supported by reasoning and discussion. It&#39;s not just a bunch a platitudes.
I did not put the italic and bold in all of the right places in that post unfortunately. Anyway, I suspect you could fairly easily pick out key points.


You think a dead man should have ruled as premier of the Soviet Union?

I think that the way in which Stalin led the party and the USSR should have lived on. I think he could have still been premier although, physically, it would be an inactive role.

[Anti-Fascist]

You excercise that by saying that Stalin didn&#39;t kill millions, and that is your belief, so you write it off as false.

You are not making any sense. I am saying that there is no evidence
that Stalin killed millions; therefore I do not believe that Stalin
killed millions. I did not see that I believe that Stalin "didn&#39;t kill"
millions.


You say that all the information about Stalin is propaganda, therefore it is false according to you.

No, I do not.


You say that there is no true evidence that millions died under Stalin, so it must be false according to you.

Well if it is not true, what do you think?

It is now very apparent to me that you do not
understand what an appeal to ignorance fallacy
is.


because I know that your next reply is going to be some sort of insult, probably containing the words:
Trot
Liberal
Misinformed

Unlike you, I never resort to name calling. And I would say
that I am very liberal - therefore why would I use that as
an insult?

[Jesus Christ]

Tell me where I have resorted to name calling against you and I will apologize wholeheartedly.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Anti-Fascist+Jan 20 2004, 08:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Jan 20 2004, 08:07 PM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 08:03 PM
Because whenever a communist revolution fails or ends up with thousands to millions dead and becomes a totalitarian state the former communists that once supported the revolution then claim the result is "not true communism" like how Chomsky ate his words after "the killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge he once supported.
The Soviet Union under Stalin was not totalitarian, millions
were not killed,
[/b]
:blink:, yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I reckon I do not even need to add to this as Comrades Mao and Anti-Fascist have presented (very nice work indeed&#33;) a case that will probably either end this thread as is or incite demands for "banning" and bring about needless slags to our comrade&#39;s character.

Either way I am pleased to see that the inevitable question of "empirical evidence" supporting the absurd theory that comrade Stalin "murdered millions" has led to, once again, a great field of chirping crickets.


Hey, can you hear me in the back? Please don&#39;t forget to tip your waitresses as they have all donated their first born to be sacrificed and made into boots for the remaining members of comrade Stalin&#39;s "evil empire"


Salute comrades AF and Mao.


Here&#39;s some real facts, just to keep the debte flowing...

By the end of 1932 the volume of industrial output in the U.S.S.R. rose to 334 per cent of the pre-war output, the volume of industrial output in the U.S.A. dropped during this same period to 84 per cent of the pre-war level, in Britain to 75 per cent, in Germany to 62 per cent.

By the end of 1932 the volume of industrial output in the U.S.S.R. rose to 219 per cent of the 1928 output, the volume of industrial output in the U.S.A. dropped during this same period to 56 per cent, in Britain to 80 per cent, in Germany to 55 per cent, in Poland to 54 per cent.

industry 1927 1932 1937
Coal 35 mt 64 mt (75 mt target) 128 mt (152 mt target)
Oil 12 mt 21 mt (22 mt target) 29 mt (47 mt target)
Iron Ore 5 mt 12 mt (19 mt target) unknown
Pig Iron 3 mt 6 mt (10 mt target) 15 mt (16 mt target)
Steel 4 mt 6 mt (10 mt target) 18 mt (17 mt target)

For the 12% to 13% rate of annual industrial growth attained in the Soviet Union during the 1930&#39;s has few parallels in the economic history of other countries. What is more, this high rate of growth was resumed after World War II and continued into the early fifties, after which it has gradually declined. (after Stalin&#39;s death in 53)

Good golly, seems to me that socialism was quite stable indeed prior to Khruschev&#39;s "interesting" policies.



Tutto il potere al popolo armato. Onore a tutti i compagni e combattenti antimperialisti caduti&#33;

[Guest1]

Stability does not signify the developement of a progressive, decentralized Socialist state working towards the implimentation of Communism.

Stability can be brought with the barrel of a gun, and real development outlasts leaders. It is no surprise that the economy grew under Stalin&#39;s rule. I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find anyone here who&#39;ll deny that. You gonna tell me the chocolate rations increased from 23% to 15% under stalin? :P&#39;

God, I love 1984.

Anyways, to those who were saying Stalin increased worker&#39;s democracy, Rumsfeld would be proud of you. Reminds me of the "clean air act" that gutted environmental standards under George W. Bush, or the "no child left behind" initiative, that destroyed the public schooling system and gave rich parents money to school their children in schools no one else could afford.

[redstar2000]

After the war, which had required extraordinary professional effort on the part of military, technical and scientific cadres, the old tendencies of military professionalism and technocratism were substantially reinforced. Bureaucratization and the search for privileges and the easy life were also reinforced--Mao


Bureaucracy, technocratism, social inequalities and privileges allowed the development within certain sectors of Soviet society a bourgeois lifestyle and aspirations for the reintroduction of certain aspects of capitalism.--Mao

Note the "passive" tone in these two excerpts. Something bad is "reinforced", "allowed to develop", etc.

But, under the guidance of "Comrade Stalin", the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) claimed "mastery" of "Marxism"-Leninism. Surely they should have seen the consequences of the positive measures that they themselves put into place. Privilege doesn&#39;t just "fall out of the sky". Bureaucracy is not some microscopic "virus" that infects the unwary.

You take certain measures, you establish certain procedures, in order to accomplish certain ends. Even if there are unintended negative consequences, you notice them and act appropriately to remedy them.

Was everyone asleep?


Popular democracy should have been developed, with the deliberate intention to eliminate bureaucracy, technocratism, ambitiousness, and privileges.--Malenkov

How could you develop "popular democracy" while retaining "the leading role of the party"?

It couldn&#39;t be done...and was never even tried.


Socialist society covers a fairly long historical period. In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and there is the danger of capitalist restoration.--Mao

No kidding. But if Mao "knew better" than Stalin, the outcome was still the same.

What is it about these "great leaders" that they keep fucking up?

If ordinary capitalism is fully restored in Cuba or North Korea, are we going to get more "critiques" about how they "shudda done this" and "shudda not done that"?


In this regard the present Constitution that was adopted at this Congress states emphatically that the leadership must be discussed, criticized or replaced at open meetings of Communists and non-party worker collectives.

I&#39;m not sure when this was written--it sounds relatively recent (post-1992).

It would be interesting to get a look at the actual details of this "constitution"...most Leninist parties are nominally "democratic" but have "loopholes" that effectively permit the leadership to remain in power indefinitely.

This one? Who knows?


Finally, bureaucracy made the control of leaders by Party masses impossible.

Actually, criticism of "bureaucracy" is misleading and--in the end--always futile.

Everybody is "against bureaucracy".

The real problem was not the masses "controlling leaders"...it was that the masses had no direct control over policy.

There was no way (after March 1918) for the masses to say: "this must be done and not that" or even "we want this and not that".

Any social organization in which the ordinary members are not in control of policy-making must automatically generate a bureaucracy.

Somebody has to decide.

...........................


Stalin should have been head of state beyond his death perhaps.

Better still, he should have risen from the grave after three days.

That would teach all us "cynics" a lesson&#33; :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Stability does not signify the developement of a progressive, decentralized Socialist state working towards the implimentation of Communism.

Stability can be brought with the barrel of a gun, and real development outlasts leaders. It is no surprise that the economy grew under Stalin&#39;s rule. I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find anyone here who&#39;ll deny that. You gonna tell me the chocolate rations increased from 23% to 15% under stalin? &#39;



Who said anything about "stability"? If you think that these numbers represent a simple "stable" society, then you would be correct. However you ignore the fact that this ALL HAPPENED in a few DECADES. If you would prefer to dismiss the event as simple "economic stability" then go right ahead, I won&#39;t disagree, the economy was indeed "stable".

[ernestolynch]

Why has Anti-Fascist been banned?

For showing up some of the right-wingers&#39; true colours?

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by Anti-Fascist+Jan 20 2004, 10:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Anti-Fascist @ Jan 20 2004, 10:14 PM)
Xprewatik [email protected] 20 2004, 10:06 PM
Posted on Jan 21 2004, 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (Jesus Christ @ Jan 20 2004, 09:57 PM)
I agree that the numbers are greatly exaggerrated, but anyone here has yet to prove me wrong that millions werent killed under his rule
and im not gonna present you with any evidence because I know that everything contradicting your beliefs will be dismissed as propaganda by you

Again you commit the "appeal to ignorance fallacy" of logic.
For more information on this logical fallacy which you have
decidedly committed, see:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html



Great more brainwashed Stalinists. Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians... I know I had family members who suffered. Poor peasants who saw Siberia and who saw a forced famine. I won&#39;t go any further because Stalinist just yell I&#39;m lying or that im a Capitalist..So worship your leader pray at his alter.
Stalin the Conquerer......
He did not "murder" any Ukrainians. The Russian
research indicates that six Kulak villages were
not sent food - that is all. Not "millions", but only
six villages. And for what reason? Because Stalin
was a bloodthirsty maniac who ate babies? No,
because these Kulaks - who had brutally exploited
the poor peasants for over three hundred years -
were commiting acts of sabotage. These same
Kulaks killed government officials, committed
acts of terrorism, killed farm animals, destroyed
grain deliveries, refused to produce, etc., etc. -
this is what brought about the famine in the
Ukraine. But yes, sometimes the local
authorities mistreated the Kulaks. And what did
Stalin do about this situation? He launched a
thorough investigation into this matter, and
had those people who mistreated the Kulaks
denounced, and he had them give more respect
to the Kulaks. The Kulaks may have been brutal
and exploitative, but excesses are never justified.
Even so, is it not surprising that the poor peasants
would brutalise the Kulaks after being liberated
from over 300 years of Kulak oppression? Is it not
surprising? It is not understandable? [/b]
Banned for this?

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:58 PM
Why has Anti-Fascist been banned?

For showing up some of the right-wingers&#39; true colours?
Anti-Fascist has been banned for beeing a racist, nationalist crpyto-fascist.
If you need any proof, look HERE (http://www.thephora.org/showthread.php?threadid=3927)
It&#39;s maybe not very fair to ban him for something he said on another forum, but I don&#39;t want such a prick here at Che-Lives anymore.

[ernestolynch]

All I saw was some geeky forum. I never knew there was so many of them in &#39;Murka&#39;.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:23 PM
All I saw was some geeky forum. I never knew there was so many of them in &#39;Murka&#39;.
Just one quote out of his stupid, anti-human pamphlet on eugenetics:


All ugly people will be sterilised

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by Malte+Jan 21 2004, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Malte @ Jan 21 2004, 07:30 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 09:23 PM
All I saw was some geeky forum. I never knew there was so many of them in &#39;Murka&#39;.
Just one quote out of his stupid, anti-human pamphlet on eugenetics:


All ugly people will be sterilised [/b]
LOL&#33; I forgot you are German....is there a word for &#39;irony&#39; in German? :lol:

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by ernestolynch+Jan 21 2004, 09:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ernestolynch @ Jan 21 2004, 09:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:30 PM

[email protected] 21 2004, 09:23 PM
All I saw was some geeky forum. I never knew there was so many of them in &#39;Murka&#39;.
Just one quote out of his stupid, anti-human pamphlet on eugenetics:


All ugly people will be sterilised
LOL&#33; I forgot you are German....is there a word for &#39;irony&#39; in German? :lol: [/b]
He is obviesly not ironic in his post, he is damn serious, and THAT is so anoying about his post...so just shut up, ok?

[Edelweiss]

BTW: Your cominform.org site shows indeed YOUR sense for humor. :D Funniest site I ever saw&#33;

[ernestolynch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:04 PM
BTW: Your cominform.org site shows indeed YOUR sense for humor. :D Funniest site I ever saw&#33;
Well if you cant have a laugh, eh&#33;

BTW I think you have Antifascist on a wrong one.

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by ernestolynch+Jan 21 2004, 10:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ernestolynch @ Jan 21 2004, 10:06 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 08:04 PM
BTW: Your cominform.org site shows indeed YOUR sense for humor. :D Funniest site I ever saw&#33;
Well if you cant have a laugh, eh&#33;

BTW I think you have Antifascist on a wrong one. [/b]
I&#39;m not talking about your Trotzky jokes on your site, but about the parts of your site that you mean serious. Hilarious&#33; :lol:

[ernestolynch]

Who the fuck is &#39;Trotzky&#39;?

Do you mean Trot? (Bronstein)?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Malte+Jan 21 2004, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Malte @ Jan 21 2004, 07:30 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 09:23 PM
All I saw was some geeky forum. I never knew there was so many of them in &#39;Murka&#39;.
Just one quote out of his stupid, anti-human pamphlet on eugenetics:


All ugly people will be sterilised [/b]
I questioned him about this and he said that this was only phase 3. Phase 1 would be based on intelligence. He said I would have 8 wives. However, I said this was highly immoral.

I find those views very offensive and reprehensible too, I can only hope he ceases to say those things one day.

[LuZhiming]

I reject both of them for their Imperialist and brutal invasions of other countries, and their brutal treatment of their own people. These attacks made the Soviet Union look like: "Mini-U.S." Lenin was a hypocrticial goof, Stalin was a paranoid murderer. But of course, the whold world is lying, and Lenin and Stalin&#39;s atrocities never really happened.... :rolleyes: After all, Lenin wanted to liberate Finland, just like the British wanted to liberate Africa from slavery, and the U.S. wanting to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban. :rolleyes: Similar to the U.S., the &#39;liberation&#39; turned out to be devastation. Cuba is the only socialist nation that can claim to have liberated other countries, the Soviet Union was a disgraceful republic of selfish killers.

[ernestolynch]

Who let the dog out?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 11:18 AM

Stability does not signify the developement of a progressive, decentralized Socialist state working towards the implimentation of Communism.

Stability can be brought with the barrel of a gun, and real development outlasts leaders. It is no surprise that the economy grew under Stalin&#39;s rule. I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find anyone here who&#39;ll deny that. You gonna tell me the chocolate rations increased from 23% to 15% under stalin? &#39;



Who said anything about "stability"? If you think that these numbers represent a simple "stable" society, then you would be correct. However you ignore the fact that this ALL HAPPENED in a few DECADES. If you would prefer to dismiss the event as simple "economic stability" then go right ahead, I won&#39;t disagree, the economy was indeed "stable".
Well, let&#39;s see:


Good golly, seems to me that socialism was quite stable indeed prior to Khruschev&#39;s "interesting" policies.

It was you who brought up stability, I said, stability doesn&#39;t always mean progress. It can mean stagnation, and the creation of a self-perpetuating elite comprised of such "immortals" as Lenin and Stalin.

Stagnation is the opposite of progress, and the enemy of the revolution.

So I would rather a country with constant political tensions, than a country ruled by an iron fist that has continuing oppression and no change in sight till the whole system collapses.

[Urban Rubble]

Wow, that site that Malte linked (why Anti Fascist got banned) is fucked up. Seriously, look at some of the fucking nutjobs there.

[Saint-Just]

Yes, that site does have some reasonable people on too. It is a site that is open to all political ideologies, thats why it has fascists etc. on as well.

[Soviet power supreme]

After all, Lenin wanted to liberate Finland, just like the British wanted to liberate Africa from slavery, and the U.S. wanting to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban.

Lenin did liberate the Finland.The Finnish government declared independency 6.12.1917.Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and other commissars gave the independecy 31.12.1917.

[sXe]

You&#39;ll actually find that Otto Von Bismarck or Adolf Hitler were the 2 greatest leaders of all time.

As for stalin creating a state of "well being and good feeling" you ARE crazy, never heard of the purges???

Reject Lenin for the whole misinterpretation the dictatorship of the proleteriat and reject Stalin because he was a fucking Nazi himself. If u were jewish u were fucked becoz stalins enemy, trotsky, was jewish, and he kicked all of the ukranian out of unkrain to make way for russians. He was a Russian National Socialist.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 03:07 AM
Reject Lenin for the whole misinterpretation the dictatorship of the proleteriat and reject Stalin because he was a fucking Nazi himself. If u were jewish u were fucked becoz stalins enemy, trotsky, was jewish, and he kicked all of the ukranian out of unkrain to make way for russians. He was a Russian National Socialist.
Please provide sources.

[antieverything]

Why do we ban Nazis but not these sick fucks?

[bombeverything]

Why ban anyone?

[antieverything]

Shit, why do anything. *ponder*

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:20 AM
Why do we ban Nazis but not these sick fucks?
You mean sXe?

[elbranio]

Death, I don&#39;t know if you know that archives of KGB and USSR national archives are now open. There are many books written on the sources from archives.
If you want to see the other side of communism read Black book of Communism.
In years 1917 - 1953 25 millions people were killed in USSR. Ukrainians weren&#39;t kicked out of Ukraine, they were killed. Most of them starved to death because they took their eatables from them. Between 1917 and 1932 6 millions Ukrainians died because of starvation and torture.
:hammer: El Branio

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:35 PM
Death, I don&#39;t know if you know that archives of KGB and USSR national archives are now open. There are many books written on the sources from archives.
If you want to see the other side of communism read Black book of Communism.
In years 1917 - 1953 25 millions people were killed in USSR. Ukrainians weren&#39;t kicked out of Ukraine, they were killed. Most of them starved to death because they took their eatables from them. Between 1917 and 1932 6 millions Ukrainians died because of starvation and torture.
:hammer: El Branio
What you have said is of no consequence. Death, if he has been here for sometime will have knowledge of archives and historical works on the USSR. What appear to be conjectures on the number of people you suggest died in the USSR in this period can easily be refuted. I know a good number of people on this forum who have knowledge of the archives and books you refer to and believe that what you are saying is entirely false.

Also, frankly, I find it disgusting that you recommend someone read the Black Book of Communism, I doubt you will find many comrades here if you recommend such a book.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:22 AM
Shit, why do anything. *ponder*

I guess that means I have to elaborate. I don&#39;t really see what banning achieves. I thought this was a forum for debate. Censoring undesirable opinions is the opposite of this.

Btw, is there really a need to be so arrogant?

[Pete]

There are reasons for bannings at times. One example is A Pict, who was banned for posting a link with a virus on it, therefore he was banned.

On the point of the topic, I would care to ignore most of what has gone on in the last three pages (I read them, then ate, and now am replying to them) I reject Lenin and Stalin simply because I do not see the hero worship of Anti-Facist/Ixabert/Huzington/whateverhisnextnamewillbe as productive. Also many (note: note all) cases of Leninism and Stalinism stray from the principles of leftism and seek a centralized solution of toppling the current regime and replacing it with a new one. While these can be benificial in the short run, in the long run all have failed, and with the imment death of Castro we will be able to see the &#39;final test&#39; of Leninism.

I believe in a decentralized solution, and that the masses cannot be forced into revolution, but have to be ready for it. "Professional Revolutionaries" need to be more like teachers than like politicians, and we must remember that it is not the &#39;vanguard&#39; that gaurantees the revolution but the mass grassroots (borrowing a word from the canadian rightwing) movement that is revolutionary. If oyu want more, ask and I&#39;ll give you more.

-Pete

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:50 PM
There are reasons for bannings at times. One example is A Pict, who was banned for posting a link with a virus on it, therefore he was banned.

On the point of the topic, I would care to ignore most of what has gone on in the last three pages (I read them, then ate, and now am replying to them) I reject Lenin and Stalin simply because I do not see the hero worship of Anti-Facist/Ixabert/Huzington/whateverhisnextnamewillbe as productive. Also many (note: note all) cases of Leninism and Stalinism stray from the principles of leftism and seek a centralized solution of toppling the current regime and replacing it with a new one. While these can be benificial in the short run, in the long run all have failed, and with the imment death of Castro we will be able to see the &#39;final test&#39; of Leninism.

I believe in a decentralized solution, and that the masses cannot be forced into revolution, but have to be ready for it. "Professional Revolutionaries" need to be more like teachers than like politicians, and we must remember that it is not the &#39;vanguard&#39; that gaurantees the revolution but the mass grassroots (borrowing a word from the canadian rightwing) movement that is revolutionary. If oyu want more, ask and I&#39;ll give you more.

-Pete

Yeah I see your point. Though I think there is a difference between banning someone because of their political views and banning them because they post a virus.

By the way I think the reasons to reject Lenin and Stalin are quite clear. They both believed in a centralized state, which is something I am strongly opposed to. The &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; will never lead to working class control. All state socialism can ever do is replace one tyrant with another. As long is there is hierarchy, there is oppression.

I agree with Pete about the blind state worship. The workers must organize themselves instead of following some charismatic leader.

[elbranio]

Sorry Mao but as a student of history i believe in objective view. I think anyone who discuss about things like Stalin and USSR must check both sides of a story and read Black book of Communism or similar works. I don&#39;t agree with everything that is written in Black book, but I also can&#39;t believe all the stuff that was written about USSR by supporters of Stalin and Stalinism. There are two sides of every story and you must check both of them in you want to come even close to the truth. It&#39;s easy to say that everything that you don&#39;t like is not true. And your last sentence is entirely in spirit of Stalin, read only stuff that is suitable and don&#39;t read anything else because it will corrupt and mislead you.
:hammer: El Branio

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:15 PM
Sorry Mao but as a student of history i believe in objective view. I think anyone who discuss about things like Stalin and USSR must check both sides of a story and read Black book of Communism or similar works. I don&#39;t agree with everything that is written in Black book, but I also can&#39;t believe all the stuff that was written about USSR by supporters of Stalin and Stalinism. There are two sides of every story and you must check both of them in you want to come even close to the truth. It&#39;s easy to say that everything that you don&#39;t like is not true. And your last sentence is entirely in spirit of Stalin, read only stuff that is suitable and don&#39;t read anything else because it will corrupt and mislead you.
:hammer: El Branio
I too am a student of history. However, I doubt you have read many pro-Soviet works. And, the Black Book of Communism is severely anti-Communist. The majority of people on this site are already rather too familiar with western propaganda, they already have knowledge of the anti-Communist view of every era in history.

You said that one should read the Black Book of Communism to see the &#39;other side of communism&#39;. You suggested that this book was generally truthful. You then said,

&#39;In years 1917 - 1953 25 millions people were killed in USSR. Ukrainians weren&#39;t kicked out of Ukraine, they were killed. Most of them starved to death because they took their eatables from them. Between 1917 and 1932 6 millions Ukrainians died because of starvation and torture.&#39;

Evidently, you subscribe to the views written by imperialists propagandists. You said that one should look at &#39;both sides of a story&#39;. With this view you have shown that you consider one side far more. Tell me how many people died in the Russian Federation in the last 10 years from unnatural causes, looking at the figure 25 million between 1917-1953 looks entirely reasonable.

[elbranio]

Mao, first of all i wrote before that i don&#39;t agree with everything written in Black book. But tell me some things. What can you tell me about freedom of speech and write in USSR. Didn&#39;t Stalin kill most of his opponents and they were Communists too. What about Russian Anarhists.
I live in Slovenia and I lived in Yugoslavia till 1991. And I have relatives in Poland and I visited them for many times before 1991 and I must tell you they lived in Communism and they didn&#39;t really fancy it.
It&#39;s easy for you to say Stalin was great and in USSR there was paradise, you didn&#39;t have to live there. You sit in warm home in the biggest imperial force of all times behind your computer and play Communist.
I can&#39;t say how it was in USSR, but i can tell how it was in Yugoslavia in years 1944 - 1948. Many civilians were executed by Political police. Few friends of my father were shooted without any trial and they were 16- 19 years old just because their parents didn&#39;t agree with Communism. They didn&#39;t care if you&#39;re guilty or not it was enough that you were suspicious. And even after Tito break the ties with Stalin he used many of his methods.
Q : Did you reed Black book or any other Imperial propaganda.
And i wrote killed not died and thats a huge difference.

:hammer: El Branio

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:14 PM
Mao, first of all i wrote before that i don&#39;t agree with everything written in Black book. But tell me some things. What can you tell me about freedom of speech and write in USSR. Didn&#39;t Stalin kill most of his opponents and they were Communists too. What about Russian Anarhists.
I live in Slovenia and I lived in Yugoslavia till 1991. And I have relatives in Poland and I visited them for many times before 1991 and I must tell you they lived in Communism and they didn&#39;t really fancy it.
It&#39;s easy for you to say Stalin was great and in USSR there was paradise, you didn&#39;t have to live there. You sit in warm home in the biggest imperial force of all times behind your computer and play Communist.
I can&#39;t say how it was in USSR, but i can tell how it was in Yugoslavia in years 1944 - 1948. Many civilians were executed by Political police. Few friends of my father were shooted without any trial and they were 16- 19 years old just because their parents didn&#39;t agree with Communism. They didn&#39;t care if you&#39;re guilty or not it was enough that you were suspicious. And even after Tito break the ties with Stalin he used many of his methods.
Q : Did you reed Black book or any other Imperial propaganda.
And i wrote killed not died and thats a huge difference.

:hammer: El Branio
I know dissidents were executed including Russian Anarchists, I do not disagree with this. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that millions and millions were killed, and for example that Stalin chose to cause an artificial famine killing milllions in the Ukraine because he did not like Ukranians. Yes, I have read imperialist propaganda.