Does Anyone Admire Stalin and/or Mao? Why or Why Not?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I apologize in advance because I imagine this type of question has been absolutely worn out on this forum, but I did a search and it doesn't look like any current threads discuss this issue.

Now, I understand Stalin and Mao both propelled their countries into economic advancement and social equality in many ways, however obviously there was a large famine in both China and Russia under their respective leaderships. I am not claiming either of them caused it deliberately. That would be absurd, I understand famines happen. However, they both failed to prevent a few million deaths because of it, and I cannot help but think it is because they were a bit too harsh with their unwavering stance on collectivization during the famine and failing to bring measures to prevent mass starvation.

Also, of course there were many unnecessary executions for nonviolent crimes in both of their regimes.

Anyway, do any of you admire them, and if so, can you justify why they may have not been at fault for not preventing mass starvation? This is not meant to be a loaded question, I am actually asking to learn things that I may not have found in my research, which has led me only to biased sources.

[Sinister Intents]

I don't care for either of them or any of the of Marxist-Leninist dictators. They created state capitalist nations, and damaged the image of socialism.

[Sinister Intents]

Also I think this thread is a bit of a bad idea.

[Remus Bleys]

What do you mean by "admire" exactly? I absolutely detest both of them and their political line, but I wouldn't criticize them for being "totalitarian." (well maybe they were a little overboard but that's a silly criticism.)
But at a certain level i guess you could say that I "admire" them, in some dark twisted demented sort of way.
People admire them because they think that the political/theoretical line of each of them was correct, and that it built genuine socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This should be moved to learning to ensure it remains a respectful thread.

[Sinister Intents]

The things I like about them are some of their quotes. Like Stalin stating the capitalists will sell us the rope we'll hang them with. And Mao stating something about a frog being trapped at the bottom of the well only sees the small hole of the well as its sky, but when it's out of the well the whole world is opened up to it.

[Remus Bleys]

The things I like about them are some of their quotes. Like Stalin stating the capitalists will sell us the rope we'll hang them with. And Mao stating something about a frog being trapped at the bottom of the well only sees the small hole of the well as its sky, but when it's out of the well the whole world is opened up to it.
Actually that's Lenin who said that.

[Sinister Intents]

Actually that's Lenin who said that.

Ahhh thanks, personally I think Vladimir Lenin is better than Stalin.
edit: despite being an anarchist I like Lenin.

[Sabot Cat]

They are some of the worst human beings to have ever lived, in my opinion. Mao Zedong was an instigator of 18-43 million deaths through negligence and malice; Joseph Stalin caused, intentionally or not, the deaths of 2.4-7.5 million people, and he's complicit in the Holocaust and World War II because he provided the Nazis with Soviet resources while ensuring that they wouldn't be taken out by a two-front offensive. I don't know why people respect these individuals at all. They're not only bad because they led so many to die, they also irreparably harmed Marxism and socialism by using them to cloak the excesses of their dictatorial regimes. One wonders how much further we would be if people like them didn't parasitically attach themselves to the struggles of the proletariat, and to communism.

[Sinister Intents]

Mao and Stalin had cult-of-personallities didn't they? I find that disgusting. What other MLists had personality cults?

[John Lennin]

What other MLists had personality cults?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Mali_i_Shpiragut.jpg/800px-Mali_i_Shpiragut.jpg

Afaik every ML Leader had a cult of personality.

[Rosso]

Stalin can be called the savior of the motherland but not of communism. His industrialization may have modernized the Soviet economics and army so that they could form (with help from the winter and some other things of course) a strong enough opponent for the purely militarized nazi's, although it was a close call.
There is no 'if' in history but I doubt that the outcome of the war would be the same if Stalin wouldn't have modernized the Soviet Union in those few years.
Thereby he defended the world from nazism and fascism and he spared the lives of many that probably would have been killed under nazi regime. The modernization wouldn't have been possible without slave labour and other crimes against the humanity. There is no-one that can tell us what would have happened if the nazis would have defeated the SU. I think that the last would've caused much more casualties. Stalin had nothing to do with communism further, except for the fact that managed to defeat the nazis. I can't see why anyone would still admire him next to the above mentioned things.
But it sure is very interesting so now I'm reading a book about Stalinism, maybe that I find something interesting there.

PS. There is a Stalin Society in England who as they proclaim defend his work. You can search it up on youtube, it is related with a british communistic party.

[Diirez]

You can admire someone for some things. Like how Stalin brought backwards, poverty ridden, third world Russia to first world superpower and economically saved the nation. I don't much about Mao but, you can admire them for being good economically. However both are not very good leaders. I don't care for Leninism, nor do I care for dictators. Both were horrible people and gave communism a bad name.

Also, Stalin's Ukrainian famine was forced. He deliberately forced a famine against the Ukrainians because they revolted against his forced collectivization.

[Bala Perdida]

I think most of the people that contributed to this thread sum it up well. Especially the Stalin and Mao ruining the good name of socialism statement. I mean sure the capitalists killed more than the socialists when you examine their policies, but the burden left by these two is still very heavy. The propaganda against us is only that much more emphasized, I can't even call myself an "anarcho-communist" without someone trying to tell me it's an oxymoron. They're actions and the regimes they inspired basically damaged the left politically. Also, I think it's funny that one of my first threads was calling for Stalin supporters to defend their idol, and the only reply I got was from a comrade saying that they won't do that.

[Brutus]

You can admire someone for some things. Like how Stalin brought backwards, poverty ridden, third world Russia to first world superpower
Russia was the fifth most industrialised country in 1917- it would've reached the same rate of industrialisation as it did under Stalin.

[DOOM]

Afaik every ML Leader had a cult of personality.

I'm waiting for the angry Hoxhaists :grin:

[Sinister Intents]

I was actually kind of expecting this thread to go wild with people discussing Mao and Stalin, and all of the other MList dictators.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Thanks for the replies. I'm actually kind of surprised there are not more people defending them. I saw one user with a picture of Stalin as their avatar, I forget who.

Also, as I said before, this thread isn't meant to be a loaded question, and I appreciate the civility. As The Boss said, I'd be fine with moving it to the learning forum if that would work better.

Directed at Rosso, what is the book you're reading about Stalinism?

[RedWaves]

There's not enough Stalin's or Mao's in the world today, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation and we'd be living in a much better place. Say what you will about them but Russia and China both have been extremely fucked up since both of their deaths.

Stalin industrialized Russia and propelled their economy, look at them now and tell me they are better off today.
Besides, the Soviet Union fought the Nazi's during WW2 and who had the biggest share in destroying them? Sure, the Allies get all the credit but Russia was invaded and Stalin still managed to kick the German's asses all the way back to Berlin to shove it in their faces. Stalin defeated fascism, not the UK, and certainly not the US who just sat there waiting and hoping that the Soviets would fall and then finally jumped into the war when it became very clear that Russia was going to win it.


Look at China today and look at how they used to be under Mao. They went from a Communist country all the way into a pure capitalist haven which is what it is today. China is not a socialist country anymore.

[Bala Perdida]

Look at China today and look at how they used to be under Mao. They went from a Communist country all the way into a pure capitalist haven which is what it is today. China is not a socialist country anymore.
:what: Please tell me you're joking here!

[G4b3n]

I can admire certain aspects of Mao, while there is not much in the way of theoretical work I find desirable, he struggled for the oppressed and was a friend of working people. Stalin was a parasite, nothing more.

[Zukunftsmusik]

You can admire someone for some things. Like how Stalin brought backwards, poverty ridden, third world Russia to first world superpower and economically saved the nation.

...

Also, Stalin's Ukrainian famine was forced. He deliberately forced a famine against the Ukrainians because they revolted against his forced collectivization.

You don't see the link here?

Leave the admiration of forcing wage-labour on millions of peasants to others. We should have no interest in modernising and restructuring capital.

[Sinister Intents]

There's not enough Stalin's or Mao's in the world today, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation and we'd be living in a much better place. Say what you will about them but Russia and China both have been extremely fucked up since both of their deaths.


Indeed, but certainly the world doesn't need anymore state capitalist dictators or people with personality cults surrounding them. I think both nations wer extremely fucked up before them.


Stalin industrialized Russia and propelled their economy, look at them now and tell me they are better off today.
Besides, the Soviet Union fought the Nazi's during WW2 and who had the biggest share in destroying them? Sure, the Allies get all the credit but Russia was invaded and Stalin still managed to kick the German's asses all the way back to Berlin to shove it in their faces. Stalin defeated fascism, not the UK, and certainly not the US who just sat there waiting and hoping that the Soviets would fall and then finally jumped into the war when it became very clear that Russia was going to win it.

Stalin may have helped with that, and the Russia was much better as the Soviet Union. Doesn't Russia today have half of the world's racists now? I swear I saw someone on RevLeft state this when I was lurking in the past.


Look at China today and look at how they used to be under Mao. They went from a Communist country all the way into a pure capitalist haven which is what it is today. China is not a socialist country anymore.

Seriously? Neither the Soviet Union, nor the People's Republic of China were ever socialist in any way. They may have used socialist rhetoric, but they were never socialist at all. They're state capitalist dictatorships, and socialism cannot exist in one country at all or ever. I'm sure you know this though I'm just ranting. All MList nations have been capitalist nations.

[reb]

Russia was the fifth most industrialised country in 1917- it would've reached the same rate of industrialisation as it did under Stalin.

Fifth largest economy, not fifth most industrialized.


There's not enough Stalin's or Mao's in the world today, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation and we'd be living in a much better place. Say what you will about them but Russia and China both have been extremely fucked up since both of their deaths.

Stalin industrialized Russia and propelled their economy, look at them now and tell me they are better off today.
Besides, the Soviet Union fought the Nazi's during WW2 and who had the biggest share in destroying them? Sure, the Allies get all the credit but Russia was invaded and Stalin still managed to kick the German's asses all the way back to Berlin to shove it in their faces. Stalin defeated fascism, not the UK, and certainly not the US who just sat there waiting and hoping that the Soviets would fall and then finally jumped into the war when it became very clear that Russia was going to win it.


Look at China today and look at how they used to be under Mao. They went from a Communist country all the way into a pure capitalist haven which is what it is today. China is not a socialist country anymore.

Great man theory of history. But anyway, you haven't mentioned communism here. Your criteria for supporting the soviet state is that it industrialized the country, reinforced it's economy and then defeated the nazis. If you're a Stalinist then I'm not surprised that you can't think outside of bourgeois moralism and fetish for the bourgeois state.

[Brotto Rühle]

I can admire certain aspects of Mao, while there is not much in the way of theoretical work I find desirable, he struggled for the oppressed and was a friend of working people. Stalin was a parasite, nothing more.

Mao openly allied with bourgeois elements before becoming one. And to add to reb, 5th largest due to population size.

[Remus Bleys]

I can admire certain aspects of Mao, while there is not much in the way of theoretical work I find desirable, he struggled for the oppressed and was a friend of working people. Stalin was a parasite, nothing more.

Why does everyone always go "mao good stalin bad?"
What's up with this anarchists that like mao? Anyway I'm gonna let slide a potential great man of history and just assume you meant the things these people represented.

[Rss]

Both men had great positive and negative sides. Overall, I think they were massively positive actors in worldwide communist movement. Surely, greater danger to communist movement are so called liberal "leftists" who never drop a chance to vilify and antagonize any communist movement that doesn't cater their liberal sensibilities.

[Sea]

[image]

Afaik every ML Leader had a cult of personality.Actually, they were just playing super mega crossword on hills, engraved with lasers. The correct word was "enter" but there was a "velvet" going across that was accidentally spelled "vevlet" causing the V to take up the place of the T in "enter".
I can admire certain aspects of Mao, while there is not much in the way of theoretical work I find desirable, he struggled for the oppressed and was a friend of working people. Stalin was a parasite, nothing more.It'd be more accurate to say that Mao fought alongside the oppressed, for the oppressors.

[Sabot Cat]

I can admire certain aspects of Mao, while there is not much in the way of theoretical work I find desirable, he struggled for the oppressed and was a friend of working people. Stalin was a parasite, nothing more.

Was he a friend to the millions of people he killed? Was he struggling for the oppressed when he said, "People who try to commit suicide — don't attempt to save them!" because "China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people," a theme repeated on two other occasions? Speaking of which: during his rule, suicide was so common in Shanghai that people avoided tall buildings for fear of people falling on them.

To all of the people who are praising them: either Stalin and Mao were criminally negligent and horrendously incompetent leaders, or they were genocidal, because you can't be the nation's autocrat and have an unprecedented, unnatural famine that claimed the lives of millions of people without being one of these or both.

[IBleedRed]

I don't care for either of them or any of the of Marxist-Leninist dictators. They created state capitalist nations, and damaged the image of socialism.

While I agree with you that the Soviet Union was never an example of socialism, this sort of dismissal is unhelpful at best. Russia was not ready for socialism at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, so it is unsurprising that the USSR became something other than socialism. As it was, industrialization under Stalin certainly did a great deal of good for the country at large.

The same for Mao. I like to think of the Chinese and Soviet experiments as first steps rather than complete disasters.

[Sabot Cat]

While I agree with you that the Soviet Union was never an example of socialism, this sort of dismissal is unhelpful at best. Russia was not ready for socialism at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, so it is unsurprising that the USSR became something other than socialism. As it was, industrialization under Stalin certainly did a great deal of good for the country at large.

The same for Mao. I like to think of the Chinese and Soviet experiments as first steps rather than complete disasters.

They were complete disasters, not just because of the famines/mass murders, but because both of the resulting nations were as communist, socialist, or worker-controlled as the Holy Roman Empire was holy, Roman, or an empire. Furthermore, the Russian Republic had socialism before the Bolsheviks changed the mode of production, but the subsequent Soviet historians have revised and distorted history so much that it's commonly believed that the October Revolution wasn't anything but a reactionary removal of power from the then autonomous communes.

[IBleedRed]

They were complete disasters, not just because of the famines/mass murders, but because both of the resulting nations were as communist, socialist, or worker-controlled as the Holy Roman Empire was holy, Roman, or an empire. Furthermore, the Russian Republic had socialism before the Bolsheviks changed the mode of production, but the subsequent Soviet historians have revised and distorted history that they try to make it seem as though the October Revolution wasn't anything but a reactionary removal of power from the then autonomous communes.

Things aren't nearly so simple as you make them out to be. You are implicitly contending that either we have a perfect first-attempt with a perfect first-time leader, so that socialism is achieved without a single mistake being made, or otherwise we may as well abandon the entire effort. I don't think this way.

The Soviet Union and Maoist China are finished. They are history. It is important to learn from history, from mistakes and successes. And there were successes in the former Soviet Union, a point made clearer when taking into account the context of the experiment.

Also, I'm curious, what do you mean the Russian Republic had socialism before the Bolsheviks? You seem to be defending the autonomous communes. Well, I can't say I disagree with the notion that communal tenure (which existed in Imperial Russia) is better than hereditary tenure (i.e. "private" farming), but the communes were designed to protect the peasant way of life, which was not socialist but precapitalist.

[Sabot Cat]

Both men had great positive and negative sides. Overall, I think they were massively positive actors in worldwide communist movement. Surely, greater danger to communist movement are so called liberal "leftists" who never drop a chance to vilify and antagonize any communist movement that doesn't cater their liberal sensibilities.

If not vilifying mass murderers or the kind of negligence that leads millions of people to die is somehow a liberal sentiment, sign me up. They weren't communists in the actions they took on the stage of history or in their nations, but they helped to create a mass grave and put up a tombstone that reads (falsely) "socialism", warding off would-be revolutionaries for generations to come.

[IBleedRed]

If not vilifying mass murderers or the kind of negligence that leads millions of people to die is somehow a liberal sentiment, sign me up. They weren't communists in the actions they took on the stage of history or in their nations, but they helped to create a mass grave and put up a tombstone that reads (falsely) "socialism", warding off would-be revolutionaries for generations to come.

Nay, comrade, what wards off socialists is the kind of simplistic dismissal of the past that you seem to be expressing, i.e, a failure to acknowledge that yes, the Soviet Union and Maoist China were attempts at socialism and so we need to address that. This sort of attitude is no different than the lolbertarian "that wasn't real capitalism".

[Sabot Cat]

Things aren't nearly so simple as you make them out to be. You are implicitly contending that either we have a perfect first-attempt with a perfect first-time leader, so that socialism is achieved without a single mistake being made, or otherwise we may as well abandon the entire effort. I don't think this way.

Causing millions of people to die isn't an amateurish mistake. The previous reactionary autocrats failed to be as incompetent, and it's certainly fascinating that Mao caused almost as many or more Chinese people to die than the Second Sino-Japanese War.


The Soviet Union and Maoist China are finished. They are history. It is important to learn from history, from mistakes and successes. And there were successes in the former Soviet Union, a point made clearer when taking into account the context of the experiment. Also, I'm curious, what do you mean the Russian Republic had socialism before the Bolsheviks? You seem to be defending the autonomous communes.

Of course I defend the autonomous communes; that's one of the basic forms of the proletariat controlling the means of production.


Well, I can't say I disagree with the notion that communal tenure (which existed in Imperial Russia) is better than hereditary tenure (i.e. "private" farming), but the communes were designed to protect the peasant way of life, which was not socialist but precapitalist.

The Russian Provisional Government and the Russian Republic had localized democratic government with a secret and universal ballot as well as free speech and assembly, while the economy was managed by labor unions and communes. It may have had flaws, but it was certainly better than the Bolshevik regime.


Nay, comrade, what wards off socialists is the kind of simplistic dismissal of the past that you seem to be expressing, i.e, a failure to acknowledge that yes, the Soviet Union and Maoist China were attempts at socialism and so we need to address that. This sort of attitude is no different than the lolbertarian "that wasn't real capitalism".

On virtue of being a reaction to a socialist society that crushed the autonomy of workers and whole communist insurrections, the Soviet Union was never socialist. Maoist China was collaborating with the bourgeois from the beginning ("Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie." and their flag reflects as much; there was never a real attempt to build a socialist society but a state capitalist one, and so they were never socialist either.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

There's not enough Stalin's or Mao's in the world today, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation and we'd be living in a much better place. Say what you will about them but Russia and China both have been extremely fucked up since both of their deaths.

Germany was pretty fucked up after Hitler died.:rolleyes:

[IBleedRed]

Causing millions of people to die isn't an amateurish mistake. The previous reactionary autocrats failed to be as incompetent, and it's certainly fascinating that Mao caused almost as many or more Chinese people to die than the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Causing millions of people to die isn't usually something a single person can do all alone. Policy and policy execution in the real world are very complicated things.



Of course I defend the autonomous communes; that's one of the basic forms of the proletariat controlling the means of production.
The Russian Provisional Government and the Russian Republic had localized democratic government with a secret and universal ballot as well as free speech and assembly, while the economy was managed by labor unions and communes. It may have had flaws, but it was certainly better than the Bolshevik regime.
What time period/events are you referring to?

If by autonomous communes you mean the communal tenure system, then that had nothing to do with socialism.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnhS8YtgURM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnhS8YtgURM)
Mao was a total joke

[Sabot Cat]

Causing millions of people to die isn't usually something a single person can do all alone. Policy and policy execution in the real world are very complicated things.

They were the autocrats with the most power in the political infrastructure, they get the responsibility because they personally engineered/approved the policies that led to these famines.


What time period/events are you referring to?

If by autonomous communes you mean the communal tenure system, then that had nothing to do with socialism.

I'm referring to the autonomous local Soviets and workers' organizations as communes, perhaps incorrectly.

[Rss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnhS8YtgURM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnhS8YtgURM)
Mao was a total joke

I have to tip my atheism-lined fedora to this not-at-all-useless-oneliner post.

Care to elaborate?

[CrimsonSerpent]

Hello, I'd like to give my opinion.

I admire both Stalin and Mao but I do not mindlessly worship them.
Stalin achieved the fastest record for industrialization of a nation and no other comes close. The deaths during his regime were exaggerated but for actual deaths they were due to historic conditions. A weather irregularity had devastated the crops. The government responded by ordering higher grain production and the acceleration of the commune program to combats the famine. However, the famine's effects was compounded by the fact that farmers were hoarding grain to inflate the a price of grain while people were starving. Stalin reacted appropiatly by getting rid of the farmers that were hoarding and replacing them with people eager to work. Another historic cause was much earlier, when the Soviet Union was formed. The soviets had emerged from a bloody revolution, a bloodily civil war and foreign invasions by many capitalist nations. The government feared foreign invasion, especially since nazi germany and imperial Japan were now real military threats. They must root out internal enemies to prevent revolts and to supply military equipment or they could not resist a nazi invasion, who had vast military superiority in many fields.

Mao's works had contributed greatly to Marxist ideas especially his work on contradiction. I don't care if you hate the man but contradictions are very important to study. The great famine was not Mao's fault. He was not in charge of the agriculture program, it was under deng xiaoping's control. (Who was a capitalist.) Mao had even lost his position in the government to rightist elements before the people forced him back into power.

Also the reason why China was so heavily attacked by the right wing was because China came the closest to communism. Due to their socialist program and developed social consciousness. Think about it for a second, why would the first world say anything good about communism or socialism? It would be like the British government during the Napoleon era saying that he was a brilliant man and deserves to be emperor. Enemies spread propaganda no matter how much of a lie it is. Don't be deluded and look at the works these two men left behind and learn what they left behind.

[RedHal]

You might get an overall negative view of Stalin and Mao on revleft, but in the real world, people who identify with the radical left still view them as positives. Of course the internet is all that matters:lol:

[RedHal]

Was he a friend to the millions of people he killed? Was he struggling for the oppressed when he said, "People who try to commit suicide — don't attempt to save them!" because "China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people," a theme repeated on two other occasions? Speaking of which: during his rule, suicide was so common in Shanghai that people avoided tall buildings for fear of people falling on them.

To all of the people who are praising them: either Stalin and Mao were criminally negligent and horrendously incompetent leaders, or they were genocidal, because you can't be the nation's autocrat and have an unprecedented, unnatural famine that claimed the lives of millions of people without being one of these or both.

have you read anything else besides anti Maoists literature? There is a huge industry around anti maoist literature, any petty bourgeois individual who had a bad experieince during the cultural revolution will instantly get a book deal, no matter how rediculous their claim.

[Sasha]

i think admire is the good word, you have to admire a ruthless bastard seizing and keeping power in such ways, that said i admire a tatcher or a cromwell or a himler and an endless line of other ruthless bastards in exactly the same way.

[Comrade Jacob]

This thread will lead to flame-wars and then tears.
I have this view. "Stalin 70% good, 30% bad" - Mao
And Mao 80% good, 20% bad.
It's sounds very lacking in analysis but that's because I don't want to spend much time on another Stalin-Mao thread.

[Sinister Intents]

This thread will lead to flame-wars and then tears.
I have this view. "Stalin 70% good, 30% bad" - Mao
And Mao 80% good, 20% bad.
It's sounds very lacking in analysis but that's because I don't want to spend much time on another Stalin-Mao thread.

This thread should immediately be moved to learning, like I said earlier I think this thread is a bad idea.

[Rosso]

Directed at Rosso, what is the book you're reading about Stalinism?

It's called the history of Stalinism by Jean Ellenstein. Mine is translated into Dutch (original is France), and I got it from someones attic :lol: Not sure if there's an English version, but it is worth the search because it gives a good image of the Soviet Union in its first days.

[G4b3n]

Mao openly allied with bourgeois elements before becoming one. And to add to reb, 5th largest due to population size.

Spend a few years fighting a people's war with the impoverished peasantry in the Chinese wilderness then come back and complain to me a about how bourgeois Mao was.
Also, as I said before, I have no Maoist elements, there is close to nothing that I have in common with Mao theoretically. I simply admire the struggles of revolutionaries. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary, and again, a parasite.

[G4b3n]

Why does everyone always go "mao good stalin bad?"
What's up with this anarchists that like mao? Anyway I'm gonna let slide a potential great man of history and just assume you meant the things these people represented.

Not "everyone" does that. Also, I believe it is a misinterpretation of my view. I can admire his struggle, but anything farther will produce more criticism than anything from myself.

As for the anarchists, it is typically those who are more concerned with socialism than anarchism, which I am a leftist before I am an anarchist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Spend a few years fighting a people's war with the impoverished peasantry in the Chinese wilderness then come back and complain to me a about how bourgeois Mao was.
Also, as I said before, I have no Maoist elements, there is close to nothing that I have in common with Mao theoretically. I simply admire the struggles of revolutionaries. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary, and again, a parasite.Stalin, too, spent many years active in a revolution. Therefore he could not have ultimately been counterrevolutionary? Mao and Stalin both were counterrevolutionary, regardless of whether or not they, at some point in the past, may have done something revolutionary.

[Sasha]

Why does everyone always go "mao good stalin bad?"
What's up with this anarchists that like mao?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_%28book%29...

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

This thread will lead to flame-wars and then tears.
I have this view. "Stalin 70% good, 30% bad" - Mao
And Mao 80% good, 20% bad.
It's sounds very lacking in analysis but that's because I don't want to spend much time on another Stalin-Mao thread.

It doesn't just sound lack of analysis, it is lack of analysis. Arbitrary percentages (though please give us calculations, please!), meaniningless gibberish so you can avoid serious debate. If you do not want to "spend much time on anaother Stalin-Mao thread" then don't post instead of posting meaningless percentages.

[G4b3n]

Stalin, too, spent many years active in a revolution. Therefore he could not have ultimately been counterrevolutionary? Mao and Stalin both were counterrevolutionary, regardless of whether or not they, at some point in the past, may have done something revolutionary.

Stalin acting as a revolutionary during the pre-soviet years has little bearing on my view of him as a person and as a political leader, I doubt he ever had any serious convictions other than the means necessary to obtain and retain power. Also, running newspapers back and forth is a little different than what Mao endured. As I have said in this thread already, I do not hold Mao in a high regard for his politics.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Stalin acting as a revolutionary during the pre-soviet years has little bearing on my view of him as a person and as a political leader, I doubt he ever had any serious convictions other than the means necessary to obtain and retain power. Also, running newspapers back and forth is a little different than what Mao endured. As I have said in this thread already, I do not hold Mao in a high regard for his politics.Your doubts don't really prove anything. What if Mao, then, endured what he went through to get to power? Making assumptions like that isn't really helpful. What is helpful, however, is looking and analyising the regimes they headed, regardless of what they went through to get there. What we see from those regimes is that neither Stalin nor Mao were on the side of the working class.

[Per Levy]

seriously revleft, im dissapointed in you, shouldnt you know better then to go to threads like this? how often have all of of you participated in these?

i mean its pretty well known that there are enough people on here and in the real world that who adore these 2 leaders of dictatorships over the proletariat, these 2 who helped to make their countries strong imperialist superpowers. and then there are people who dont adore them, its that simple.

[reb]

Spend a few years fighting a people's war with the impoverished peasantry in the Chinese wilderness then come back and complain to me a about how bourgeois Mao was.

How does that disqualify Mao from being a bourgeois revolutionary? Leading a peasant army doesn't make you a bourgeois revolutionary? My God, then every army and rebellion since the 13th century has been a communist revolutionary movement! Lawrence of Arabia was a true communist, comrades. The Taliban were our allies in their struggle. All salute George Washington crossing the Delaware in this non bourgeois struggle against those evil capitalist English.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You might get an overall negative view of Stalin and Mao on revleft, but in the real world, people who identify with the radical left still view them as positives. Of course the internet is all that matters:lol:

Yet the 99% of people in the world who don't identify with 'the left' view Stalin as the dictatorial head of the capitalist state that he was.

Lucky they're not part of our movement, eh, otherwise our dear Leninist ideology might have to relinquish its hold over the organised left:rolleyes:

[IBleedRed]

They were the autocrats with the most power in the political infrastructure, they get the responsibility because they personally engineered/approved the policies that led to these famines.

What could they have done, then? Were they supposed to be omniscient? If any serious revolutionary mistake is made, you seem to be suggesting, then it's all a waste. I don't think that way. We can't think that way unless we want to be unrealistic and foolish.

[Sabot Cat]

have you read anything else besides anti Maoists literature?

Well, I've read Quotations from Chairman Mao, which I cited.


There is a huge industry around anti maoist literature, any petty bourgeois individual who had a bad experieince during the cultural revolution will instantly get a book deal, no matter how rediculous their claim.

Are you saying that the Great Chinese Famine was somehow exaggerated or fabricated? I'm assuming you're not because that's pretty implausible considering the extensive documentation thereof by sources that you would expect to side with Mao, and going against the historical consensus to downplay genocide strays uncomfortably close to Holocaust denialism. I'm going to assume you meant "some of those Mao quotes were fabricated", which is a possibility, but that doesn't change his negligent or murderous actions.


What could they have done, then? Were they supposed to be omniscient? If any serious revolutionary mistake is made, you seem to be suggesting, then it's all a waste. I don't think that way. We can't think that way unless we want to be unrealistic and foolish.

I'll quote Yang Jisheng, a Chinese historian who composed a voluminous work on the subject of the famine:

"In Xinyang, people starved at the doors of the grain warehouses. As they died, they shouted, "Communist Party, Chairman Mao, save us". If the granaries of Henan and Hebei had been opened, no one need have died. As people were dying in large numbers around them, officials did not think to save them. Their only concern was how to fulfill the delivery of grain."

You could cite conflict of interest or say that any source that speaks against him is trying to smear him, but one would normally be hard pressed to find some one who would speak against someone while it's politically disadvantageous for them (although, someone does just that below).

Furthermore, the CCP also bought into Lysenkoism, which took hold in the Soviet Union because the pseudoscience was politically appealing and its scientific critics were violently silenced under the helm of Stalin (which could make him partly culpable for both disasters). The lack of democratic institutions prevented any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party and Mao's leadership during the famine either, and the authoritarianism of the regime warped the channels of communication for resource allocation. Former Chairman Liu Shaoqi of the Communist Party of China and President who was to be Mao's successor if not for his criticism, stated that the famine was "30% natural disaster, 70% policy". The unforeseen consequences of the Four Pests Campaign was more of an honest mistake, but if there was more political freedom in Maoist China, the Great Chinese Famine would not have nearly been as disastrous.

Finally, even if this didn't happen, these people are still reprehensible dictators that did nothing to further socialism, and no amount of apologia will change that fact.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Regarding Stalin, I have read from a few sources that he actually contracted with Ford to facilitate rapid industrialization, but then he kicked them out once the objective was complete. Can anyone comment on this? There are some (such as that dude Ismail, I hope he comments as he is quite knowledgable) who assert that Stalin and Hoxha were pretty much the only two actual communists/socialists. But the contract with Ford would certainly prove otherwise, yeah?

Directed towards Sinister Intents: Not trying to be hostile, but it is rather rude to make comments and engage in a discussion of a thread, only to also make two comments, both complaining about how it should be moved to Learning and how it is a bad idea. You chose to click on it where you could have simply read something else. Also, I am not a mod. As I said earlier, I am perfectly fine with the mods moving this to learning. If I have that ability, I apologize, as I am new here. But do not come to a thread to engage in discussion only to say "I think it's a bad idea, move this" TWICE. Again, my comment sounds hostile, it's not meant to be though, I do appreciate what you have contributed to the discussion. No hard feelings or anything.

At Rosso, preciate it. I've been looking for something like that that, especially about the early Soviet Union.

Keep up the discussion, though, good thoughts people.

[IBleedRed]

I'll quote Yang Jisheng, a Chinese historian who composed a voluminous work on the subject of the famine:

"In Xinyang, people starved at the doors of the grain warehouses. As they died, they shouted, "Communist Party, Chairman Mao, save us". If the granaries of Henan and Hebei had been opened, no one need have died. As people were dying in large numbers around them, officials did not think to save them. Their only concern was how to fulfill the delivery of grain."

You could cite conflict of interest or say that any source that speaks against him is trying to smear him, but one would normally be hard pressed to find some one who would speak against someone while it's politically disadvantageous for them (although, someone does just that below).

Furthermore, the CCP also bought into Lysenkoism, which took hold in the Soviet Union because the pseudoscience was politically appealing and its scientific critics were violently silenced under the helm of Stalin (which could make him partly culpable for both disasters). The lack of democratic institutions prevented any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party and Mao's leadership during the famine either, and the authoritarianism of the regime warped the channels of communication for resource allocation. Former Chairman Liu Shaoqi of the Communist Party of China and President who was to be Mao's successor if not for his criticism, stated that the famine was "30% natural disaster, 70% policy". The unforeseen consequences of the Four Pests Campaign was more of an honest mistake, but if there was more political freedom in Maoist China, the Great Chinese Famine would not have nearly been as disastrous.

Finally, even if this didn't happen, these people are still reprehensible dictators that did nothing to further socialism, and no amount of apologia will change that fact.

If famine is the result of policy, then it is the result of bad policy. Bad policy constitutes a mistake, and not deliberation. Sometimes bad policies can have far-reaching, horrific consequences, as many of the early economic policies under Stalin and Mao did. This does not excuse you, however, from the task of explaining just how these mistakes could have been avoided. Were revolutionary leaders supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent?

In pre-industrial societies such as Imperial Russia in 1917 and China in 1949, economic development could not have occurred rapidly except with a high risk for immense human cost. What would you have expected?

As for your final conclusion, that Stalin and Mao were "reprehensible dictators", I find that sort of emotionally-charged dismissal uninteresting. They may well have been, but I'd like to dig into the history involved in more detail nonetheless. Whether or not you approve of them, you do have an obligation to explain the failures of the Soviet and Chinese experiments if you indeed see them as failures.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

So in this thread, there is nearly nobody who completely defends them. Most people who are defensive say that there were other factors contributing to the famines, plus bad leadership from people other than the figure heads (Mao and Stalin). Many defensives claim that other people within the respective communist parties were also to blame for the famines. I'd like to see someone who completely defends Mao and Stalin for a different perspective. But those who disagree, feel free to comment as well. I appreciate your contributions to this thread, everyone.

[Sabot Cat]

Sorry for the lateness of this reply, I didn't notice this rebuttal.


If famine is the result of policy, then it is the result of bad policy. Bad policy constitutes a mistake, and not deliberation. Sometimes bad policies can have far-reaching, horrific consequences, as many of the early economic policies under Stalin and Mao did. This does not excuse you, however, from the task of explaining just how these mistakes could have been avoided. Were revolutionary leaders supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent?

I explained how they could have been avoided: democratized media, a leadership that is afraid of their people because they are accountable to them, and a means of production in the hands of the proletariat. Any one of these factors would have mitigated or prevented these "mistakes".


In pre-industrial societies such as Imperial Russia in 1917 and China in 1949, economic development could not have occurred rapidly except with a high risk for immense human cost. What would you have expected?


I don't remember tens of millions dying when Japan decided to industrialize during the Meiji Restoration, or in the United States, or in Brazil, or Mexico or Singapore or pretty much any country aside from China and Russia. Your thesis that economic development necessitates high human cost is tenuous at best.


As for your final conclusion, that Stalin and Mao were "reprehensible dictators", I find that sort of emotionally-charged dismissal uninteresting.

Sorry to bore you, but it's a necessary fact to acknowledge in dispelling the mystique around these people. Maoists should find a different person to affiliate themselves with.


They may well have been, but I'd like to dig into the history involved in more detail nonetheless. Whether or not you approve of them, you do have an obligation to explain the failures of the Soviet and Chinese experiments if you indeed see them as failures.

I did, at length. Tens of millions of people died, because of their policies. How is that not a complete and utter failure?

[Marshal of the People]

Mao and Stalin had cult-of-personallities didn't they? I find that disgusting. What other MLists had personality cults?

That is a trait with totalitarian leaders.