General thoughts on Stalin

[burntheflag?]

The title's pretty much self explanatory. What are the general leftist thoughts on Stalin?

[blake 3:17]

Just as a reminder:


The BA will be monitoring the Learning forum extra carefully, in an effort to give it's quality a lift, and make it better resemble it's description:

Quote:
A place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues. Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless.
Please help us with this effort, by making useful contributions in a respectful tone in this forum - and by reporting posts that break the rules or are rude to new users, and other people striving to learn about revolutionary left politics.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/read-before-posting-t182306/index.html

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Let the Stalin games begin!!!

[Sea]

Generally speaking, any attempts to make generalities of Stalin's life and work will leave the asker wanting, and will not progress to anything beyond mere generalities. However, I will make the following general points:

Regarding Lenin:
Stalin and Lenin were, by and large, close comrades. They worked closely together and were, for most of their shared careers, on friendly terms as well. Therefore, attempts made to distance Stalin from Lenin during the time in which they were both alive and active revolutionaries, are to be treated with suspicion. Simon Sebag Montefiore, who traced Stalin's personal and political life from his early childhood until around 1917 in his biography Young Stalin (shoot me a PM if you want to read this), confirms this. Lenin generally received warmly Stalin's work in the party as well as his theoretical work, such as his writing on the national question. I point this out so that you can take guard against your current opinions of Lenin biasing your opinions of the first half or so of Stalin's career. Many fans of Trotsky fall into the trap of exaggerating any discontinuities between Lenin and Stalin, and many fans of Stalin fall into the trap of exaggerating any discontinuities between Lenin and Trotsky, and it would be a shame for you to fall into the same trap. Did Stalin deviate from scientific socialism after Lenin's death? This is a question that you must approach yourself. In doing so you will also learn a great deal about Stalin and the Soviet Union in general. It may be tedious, but this is the only way for you to certainly avoid the personal bias of others. The following links contain more than enough primary material for you to make an informed decision:
Lenin's work sorted by date (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/by-date.htm)
Stalin's work sorted by date (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/decades-index.htm)

Regarding death tolls:
The claim of tens of millions of systematic executions is patently false, but nevertheless deaths and disappearances under fishy circumstances were a semi-regular occurrence in the Soviet Union during Stalin's tenure. This is another instance where fans of Stalin tend to deflate the numbers, and detractors of Stalin tend to inflate the numbers. Not all do, but it is fairly common. In either case, the false assumption is made that Stalin must have been personally responsible for the occurrence of such atrocities, providing motivation to fudge the numbers in either direction depending on ones views regarding Stalin himself. This brings me to my third point:

Regarding petty views:
Be very weary of assessments of Stalin that have little or no political character. Personal aspects of Stalin the man, his niceness or rudeness (or mustache), should, if they are to be considered at all, be secondary and absolutely subordinated to the political aspects of Stalin the general secretary.


Let the Stalin games begin!!!Ahem:
Just as a reminder:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/read-before-posting-t182306/index.html

[Diirez]

Stalin was a good leader in general. He especially was good at improving the country. Where I had a problem with Stalin was how authoritarian he was. For instance, if anyone spoke out against Stalin or expressed criticism went "missing."

That could be overlooked, but the main issue that he caused was the Ukrainian Famine. I'm doing a research project on it now. The number of deaths is debatable due to lack of records, but it's between 1.5 million to 12 million. Stalin forced the famine because the Ukrainian farmers were revolting against his forced collectivization.

[Geiseric]

Stalinism and Marxism are different theoretically because one believes in socialism in one country and one is based in internationalism. Stalinism became popular only because the German revolution failed in the first place. There were also counter revolutionary trends becoming systematic regarding the Soviet bureaucracy as well which was borne out of the civil war and famine. It was exactly how NaPoleon came to power in France.

But their power was based off the Soviet planned economy, meaning their privelages were limited until the restoration of private property in 89. Everything fucked up they did was illegal in the laws drawn up during the revolution regarding the economy. If Lenin and Trotsky were able to put together a coalition against Stalinism in 1920 maybe things would of been different. There were no other political trends which have presented a real alternative to Bolshevism.

I do belIeve that if there was a restoration of workers democracy and the Stalinists were removed via a political revolution like the efforts in Hungary and Poland attempted, the SU could possibly still exist. Hell maybe they wouldn't of given terrible instructions to millions of communists resulting in their deaths, already making our situation more favorable. But his toadies told the German, Spanish, and Italian working class communists that fighting among themselves is better than teaming up against fascists, something people to this day haven't learned.

[G4b3n]

Stalin was a good leader in general. He especially was good at improving the country. Where I had a problem with Stalin was how authoritarian he was. For instance, if anyone spoke out against Stalin or expressed criticism went "missing."

That could be overlooked, but the main issue that he caused was the Ukrainian Famine. I'm doing a research project on it now. The number of deaths is debatable due to lack of records, but it's between 1.5 million to 12 million. Stalin forced the famine because the Ukrainian farmers were revolting against his forced collectivization.

No, that can not be overlooked.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Stalin was a good leader in general. He especially was good at improving the country. Where I had a problem with Stalin was how authoritarian he was. For instance, if anyone spoke out against Stalin or expressed criticism went "missing."

That could be overlooked, but the main issue that he caused was the Ukrainian Famine. I'm doing a research project on it now. The number of deaths is debatable due to lack of records, but it's between 1.5 million to 12 million. Stalin forced the famine because the Ukrainian farmers were revolting against his forced collectivization.

Oh dear. How could your tendency ever be labelled as Trotskyist?

[Sabot Cat]

Stalin was a good leader in general. He especially was good at improving the country. Where I had a problem with Stalin was how authoritarian he was. For instance, if anyone spoke out against Stalin or expressed criticism went "missing."

That could be overlooked, but the main issue that he caused was the Ukrainian Famine. I'm doing a research project on it now. The number of deaths is debatable due to lack of records, but it's between 1.5 million to 12 million. Stalin forced the famine because the Ukrainian farmers were revolting against his forced collectivization.

The first two sentences contradict everything else said after them. Good leaders don't force millions of people to die.

[reb]

He was either a complete moron when it comes to marxism or completely cynical. Socialism in one country, the law of value, classes, commodity production and the state in the lowest phase of communism... these amount to huge revisions in marxism. They, however, do not represent a huge break from the social-democratic heritage that the communist party inherited from the second international.

[SovietCommie]

He was a neccessary evil in a time of despair.
As a politician his policies on labor and industry turned the Russia from being agricultural based and third world into a superpower.
I don't give Stalin too much props as far as World War II goes, he was no military genius (in all honesty, Hitler himself wasn't much of a military genius either). He had some of his best and most loyal generals assassinated, simply because he felt they would rise against him.

Had Hitler sent Erwin Rommel and the rest of Afrika Corps to the Eastern Front, the Russians (and everyone in the Soviet Union for that matter) may have perished. The Red Army recieved most of its funding from the United States and Great Britain (which in turn have the USSR a boost in becoming a superpower all together).

As a person, Stalin was a very dynamic man. I can't post URLs but just look up a few documentaries (specifically one named "Mystery of Stalin's Death" from Russia Today) to learn more about him.

[Diirez]

Oh dear. How could your tendency ever be labelled as Trotskyist?
Because every time I slam Stalin I get immediately attacked. So I was trying to take a non-biased approach to Stalin. If you want my biased views:

Stalin was a corrupted, murderous individual who betrayed the revolution and the Communism. He was a lying tyrant who destroyed what Lenin struggled to achieve. He played a minor role in the revolution and when he was in power often removed people from photos (Trotsky) and put himself in place and used his propaganda machine to persuade the people into believing he was right next to Lenin leading the revolution. Stalin used bully methods to get his ideas and will fulfilled. If anyone even criticized Stalin on his horrible ideas (forced collectivization) then he would have them killed, even if they were an initial supporter, or close friend, trying to help (Just look at Nikolai Bukharin. "Koba, why do you need me to die?") All Stalin was, was a paranoid power-monger who destroyed what could have been a successful Communist country. Lenin knew that Stalin would use the power the wrong way and in his will, he wrote that Stalin shouldn't get control of the Soviet Union.

All in all I do not view Stalin with any shred of decency. I was just trying to provide a balanced, unbiased view of him.

[IBleedRed]

The people attacking Stalin might do well to suggest alternative courses of action that were feasible at the time.

If SIOC is impossible, then it doesn't really matter who was leading the Soviet Union, socialism was not going to happen. The question, then, shifts from whether or not Stalin's policies were socialist to whether or not they were appropriate or beneficial in general to the Soviet Union. Another way of looking at it: if socialism was impossible, what should the revolutionaries have done? Hand the state back over to the Tzar or bourgeois liberals?

From an economic perspective, the Soviet Union under Stalin was a smashing success. This isn't debatable. Productivity in just about every sector increased, consumption increased after the first Five-Year Plan, employment increased...and so on (source: Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen)

In retrospect, collectivization was a disaster, but a continuation of the peasant-agriculture system was out of the question. Imperial Russia did not have many commercial farmers. It is easy for us today, especially those of us who live in countries that lack a peasantry, to think that the peasants of the early Soviet Union were commercial farmers or rural working class. They were peasants: they were subsistence farmers and, in many ways, removed from the capitalist system. Many of them did not market any surplus food to the cities.

Growing cities need food. Lenin recognized that larger farms were more efficient and (here's the important bit) marketed a larger percentage of their produce to the cities. In addition, there was an excess of labor in the countryside as Russian agriculture modernized. So consolidation in the rural sector was an important step, but collectivization antagonized the peasants who responded by sabotaging their own crops and farm animals...leading to the famine.

The famine was not an intentional campaign to murder millions of people for shits and giggles.

[IBleedRed]

Stalin was a corrupted, murderous individual who betrayed the revolution and the Communism. He was a lying tyrant who destroyed what Lenin struggled to achieve. He played a minor role in the revolution and when he was in power often removed people from photos (Trotsky) and put himself in place and used his propaganda machine to persuade the people into believing he was right next to Lenin leading the revolution. Stalin used bully methods to get his ideas and will fulfilled. If anyone even criticized Stalin on his horrible ideas (forced collectivization) then he would have them killed, even if they were an initial supporter, or close friend, trying to help (Just look at Nikolai Bukharin. "Koba, why do you need me to die?") All Stalin was, was a paranoid power-monger who destroyed what could have been a successful Communist country. Lenin knew that Stalin would use the power the wrong way and in his will, he wrote that Stalin shouldn't get control of the Soviet Union.

All in all I do not view Stalin with any shred of decency. I was just trying to provide a balanced, unbiased view of him.

Oh dear:rolleyes:

Dictators are not simply "power-mongers"...power is a means to an end. They represent a class or, otherwise, particular material interests. You also didn't explain why forced collectivization was "horrible", although I don't disagree with you that it was a bad policy.

[Prometeo liberado]

My favorite take on Stalin was from of Bob Avakian.
"As Jefferson and Madison had a foot planted in the past, even in relation to the bourgeois revolution of their era; so did Stalin in relation to the era of proletarian revolution"

The kid had baggage. Let the dead bury the dead.

[Geiseric]

My favorite take on Stain was from of Bob Avakian.
"As Jefferson and Madison had a foot planted in the past, even in relation to the revolution of their; so did Stalin in relation to the era of proletarian revolution"

The kid had baggage.

That's a good analogy seeing as Jefferson owned people at a time when there were revolutions against that kind of thing presently going on.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

"Stalin was a good leader in general, he just murdered several million people, but that's okay--LOOK! USSR STEEL PRODUCTION SKYROCKETED UNDER STALIN! FUCK TROTSKY!" seems to be the basic mode of thought of many folks on this forum.:laugh:

[Queen Mab]

Stalin was the personification of the bureaucratisation of the USSR that happened under Lenin after the failure of the revolution. Not really any more complicated than that.

[reb]

The people attacking Stalin might do well to suggest alternative courses of action that were feasible at the time.

If SIOC is impossible, then it doesn't really matter who was leading the Soviet Union, socialism was not going to happen. The question, then, shifts from whether or not Stalin's policies were socialist to whether or not they were appropriate or beneficial in general to the Soviet Union. Another way of looking at it: if socialism was impossible, what should the revolutionaries have done? Hand the state back over to the Tzar or bourgeois liberals?

From an economic perspective, the Soviet Union under Stalin was a smashing success. This isn't debatable. Productivity in just about every sector increased, consumption increased after the first Five-Year Plan, employment increased...and so on (source: Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen)

In retrospect, collectivization was a disaster, but a continuation of the peasant-agriculture system was out of the question. Imperial Russia did not have many commercial farmers. It is easy for us today, especially those of us who live in countries that lack a peasantry, to think that the peasants of the early Soviet Union were commercial farmers or rural working class. They were peasants: they were subsistence farmers and, in many ways, removed from the capitalist system. Many of them did not market any surplus food to the cities.

Growing cities need food. Lenin recognized that larger farms were more efficient and (here's the important bit) marketed a larger percentage of their produce to the cities. In addition, there was an excess of labor in the countryside as Russian agriculture modernized. So consolidation in the rural sector was an important step, but collectivization antagonized the peasants who responded by sabotaging their own crops and farm animals...leading to the famine.

The famine was not an intentional campaign to murder millions of people for shits and giggles.

Basically, you're jettisoning all communist principles and are now just praising someone for increasing capitalist development in a bourgeois state? Bravo. You do know that during the first five year plans the population experienced the greatest drop in living conditions during peace time in history resulting in the death of millions by famine and at least a million by execution? All vestiges of proletarian power were smashed, labor discipline enforced and eventually a collapse of the pretty basic and backward welfare state? Yeah, this is totally something that revolutionaries should be slapping their backs about and saying how good job they did with what they had. You know, it's not surprising that the CPUSA supports the democrats, or the CP in the UK supports the Labor Party, which was a policy of Stalin btw.

[Broviet Union]

I truly think that Stalin, Molotov, etc believed that they were the vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat of the world. And that they equally legitimately believed that the best way to aid the revolution was to crush all opposition to their own power and the power of the Soviet Union in general.

In my opinion, the problem began with Lenin who saw the Socialist revolution as essentially a "modernizing" project for Russia that eschewed any "liberating" aspects of Marxism in favor of a hyper-disciplined top down approach to capitalist development.

[IBleedRed]

"Stalin was a good leader in general, he just murdered several million people, but that's okay--LOOK! USSR STEEL PRODUCTION SKYROCKETED UNDER STALIN! FUCK TROTSKY!" seems to be the basic mode of thought of many folks on this forum.:laugh:

"Several million people" is hyperbole.


Stalin was the personification of the bureaucratisation of the USSR that happened under Lenin after the failure of the revolution. Not really any more complicated than that.
It's much more complicated than that, since your answer has zero explanatory power.

Basically, you're jettisoning all communist principles and are now just praising someone for increasing capitalist development in a bourgeois state? Bravo. You do know that during the first five year plans the population experienced the greatest drop in living conditions during peace time in history resulting in the death of millions by famine and at least a million by execution? All vestiges of proletarian power were smashed, labor discipline enforced and eventually a collapse of the pretty basic and backward welfare state? Yeah, this is totally something that revolutionaries should be slapping their backs about and saying how good job they did with what they had. You know, it's not surprising that the CPUSA supports the democrats, or the CP in the UK supports the Labor Party, which was a policy of Stalin btw.

1) And you still fail to provide any alternative courses of action that could have been undertaken in an isolated, underdeveloped, unprecedented attempt at socialism.

I already granted that my evaluation of Stalin was based on the fact that socialism had already become impossible by the time Stalin became the party leader. I don't understand how anything would have been much different if somebody else had been it: the Soviet Union was already isolated and severely underdeveloped. Since economic development is a necessary prerequisite to socialism, Stalin's policies seem to make sense. Again, what options did they have? Hand the state back over to the Tzar?

They developed because they had to develop. They had no historical experiences to follow. If they failed, we must nevertheless acknowledge their successes, especially in the economic field.

2) The standard of living did fall during the First Five-Year Plan, but the fall was expected. The USSR had a surplus of labor and a shortage of capital during Stalin's time. Consumer goods can't be produced without producer goods. So, the strategy was to invest in producer goods ("heavy industry") so that both the capital stock and consumer goods output would grow. They did. The standard of living rose dramatically after the end of the First Five-Year Plan, which was, certainly, a capital accumulation project.

The strategy of investing in heavy industry first and foremost was called the Fel'dman strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldman%E2%80%93Mahalanobis_model

3) The famine of 1932-1933 was caused by the reaction of peasants to state-imposed collectivization, not by a reduction in living standards. It was the cause of much of the reduction in living standards for the rural population. I've already addressed collectivization and the famine in my previous post.

4) You seem to believe that building socialism will be a straightforward, simple endeavor. I have no idea why. The economic development that occurred under Stalin would have had to occur anyways: capital stock needed to be expanded; agriculture needed to be consolidated and re-organized from subsistence farming to farming for marketing; etc, for socialism to even have had a chance in the first place. Doing these things, in general, in any rapid way demanded and exacted a toll on Soviet society.

[Prometeo liberado]

They developed because they had to develop. They had no historical experiences to follow. If they failed, we must nevertheless acknowledge their successes, especially in the economic field.

Christ how many times Ive tried to say just this. Bravo comrade.

[Broviet Union]

Isn't that what capitalism is for?

[Sabot Cat]

"Several million people" is hyperbole.

The Holodomor was an act of mass murder or criminal neglect wherein 2.4 to 7.5 million people died. I see no hyperbole here.

To answer your reoccurring rhetorical question, "What course of action could Stalin could have taken?", here are just a few:

1) He could have prevented the exportation of 1.8 million tonnes of grain out of the area. This is enough to feed five million people for a year.
2) He could have lifted the migration ban on the hundreds of thousands of people who were starving in the area and wanted to leave.
3) He could make sure that Western news correspondences can visit the Ukraine, instead of having the Foreign Office of the Soviet Union send them away. This would have allowed for more successful foreign relief efforts and campaigns.

In light of the above, I believe it was completely preventable from the vantage point of those involved, and as such your Stalinist apologia is wholly unfounded.


Sources:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1933.pdf
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/bread_price.htm

[IBleedRed]

The Holodomor was an act of mass murder or criminal neglect wherein 2.4 to 7.5 million people died. I see no hyperbole here.

That's a pretty broad range there, buddy.


To answer your reoccurring rhetorical question, "What course of action could Stalin could have taken?", here are just a few:Finally, something worthy of a response that isn't just another epithet.


1) He could have prevented the exportation of 1.8 million tonnes of grain out of the area. This is enough to feed five million people for a year. This would be self-defeating, since the entire point of collectivization was to feed the cities. The peasants, especially the kulaks, were the ones who burned their crops and slaughtered their livestock to "protest" collectivization, so how can that be blamed on Stalin? Yes, he enforced the quotas in place...

You seem to forget that socialism is not about building a country of peasants. Industrialization meant growing cities, and growing cities needed food from the countryside. Self-sufficient peasants don't market much food to the city. So, what do you suggest Stalin should have done to feed the cities?


2) He could have lifted the migration ban on the hundreds of thousands of people who were starving in the area and wanted to leave.You'll have to explain this one. Many peasants did leave. They moved to cities and became industrial workers.


3) He could make sure that Western news correspondences can visit the Ukraine, instead of having the Foreign Office of the Soviet Union send them away. This would have allowed for more successful foreign relief efforts and campaigns. Foreign relief efforts? You want "socialists" to ask for handouts from capitalist countries?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Here's the thing. Many people will claim that Stalin was one of very few who actually built socialism, I'm guessing because of his collectivization policies and land redistribution. But what we should take from Stalin's leadership is the famines. It does not matter whether he intentionally let them happen or not. Under his leadership, millions died of starvation. The entire point of Marxism is to make sure everyone receives enough to eat. Stalin massively failed to do this, to provide even basic sustenance to his people. Therefore, he should be looked upon with disgust.

If anyone disagrees, that is fine, but please specifically address the issue of starvation and why he failed to feed people. It really is simple.

[Geiseric]

Holodomor wasn't the only conflict about collectivization. Stalin supported privately owned farming until 1928, which is when the first five year plan was started. It was meant to start in 1925 meaning it would of been a slower, easier transition without the famines which started as far back as 1925 anyways.

[Sabot Cat]

That's a pretty broad range there, buddy.

Records are scarce, but either way the scientific consensus has narrowed it down to millions of people.


This would be self-defeating, since the entire point of collectivization was to feed the cities. The peasants, especially the kulaks, were the ones who burned their crops and slaughtered their livestock to "protest" collectivization, so how can that be blamed on Stalin? Yes, he enforced the quotas in place...


No, they were exported to foreign countries, not just to the cities. These crops obviously weren't burned, yet they weren't given to the starving people under the draconian Law of Spikelets.


You seem to forget that socialism is not about building a country of peasants. Industrialization meant growing cities, and growing cities needed food from the countryside. Self-sufficient peasants don't market much food to the city. So, what do you suggest Stalin should have done to feed the cities?


The cities had enough food. The grain was going abroad. Keeping the food in the country and then distributing it to the people who were literally starving to death is not that big of a task. And socialism is meant to build up the peasants and the workers, as the former are just the agricultural proletariat. What do you think the sickle even represents?


You'll have to explain this one. Many peasants did leave. They moved to cities and became industrial workers.


People in the Ukraine could not leave the Ukraine, along with other famine afflicted regions. Hundreds of people went to the border wanting to leave the country, but they were turned away by border officials. In the February of 1933 alone, 190,000 fleeing Ukrainians were caught by the NKVD and turned back, condemned to starve to death.


Foreign relief efforts? You want "socialists" to ask for handouts from capitalist countries?

Anything is preferable to millions of people being so deprived of food that they die in want of it.

[IBleedRed]

Records are scarce, but either way the scientific consensus has narrowed it down to millions of people. Millions did die, I don't disagree with that. But what we're getting at is whether the famines were caused deliberately. The answer to that question will determine whether or not Stalin murdered millions of people, as you claim.


No, they were exported to foreign countries, not just to the cities. These crops obviously weren't burned, yet they weren't given to the starving people under the draconian Law of Spikelets.

The exportation of grain was another important and necessary policy. As I said, the Soviet Union had a severe shortage of capital throughout its early history. Surplus grain was exported in order to import machinery and other equipment necessary to build up heavy industry. Y'know, economic development...without which socialism would always remain impossible.

The shortage of grain was self-imposed: rebellious peasants slaughtered their own livestock and either hoarded or destroyed their grain. Again, how was this Stalin's fault?


The cities had enough food. Wrong. Growing cities need more food. Self-sufficient peasants tend not to market very much food to the cities.


The grain was going abroad. Keeping the food in the country and then distributing it to the people who were literally starving to death is not that big of a task. The food should have been distributed to people in need, but then again, the peasants shouldn't have sabotaged the food supply.


And socialism is meant to build up the peasants and the workers, as the former are just the agricultural proletariat. What do you think the sickle even represents?
How wrong you are! No wonder you don't get it.

Peasants are not agricultural proletariat. Peasants are subsistence farmers. They produced and consumed their own food and raw materials. Some of them owned land, others did not, but after the equalization of land holdings that followed the Russian Revolution, most of them were self-sufficient. Self-sufficient peasants don't market much food to the cities. Self-sufficient peasants, each one an island, don't fit into the construction of socialism very well.

The commercial farms that exist today are geared towards the sale of produce, not the consumption of produce by the farmer. This is not how agriculture worked in the early Soviet Union. Lenin recognized that large-scale farming was more efficient than small-scale farming, which is why some sort of consolidation policy was needed.



People in the Ukraine could not leave the Ukraine, along with other famine afflicted regions. Hundreds of people went to the border wanting to leave the country, but they were turned away by border officials. In the February of 1933 alone, 190,000 fleeing Ukrainians were caught by the NKVD and turned back, condemned to starve to death.



Anything is preferable to millions of people being so deprived of food that they die in want of it.

Sabotaging your own food supply tends to leave you deprived of food.

[Sabot Cat]

Much of your argument relies upon the assertion that most of the peasants in the Ukraine destroyed their own food. What is your source for this?

[IBleedRed]

Here are some bourgeois sources, for good measure:


Peasant resistance to collectivization took many forms: wanton slaughter of livestock, women's riots (bab'i bunty), theft and destruction of collective farm property, and, perhaps most widely spread, an intentionally slow pace in carrying out directives of the kolkhoz administration. The tremendous loss of livestock through slaughter, inadequate fodder, and simple neglect made it virtually impossible for kolkhozes to fulfill their procurement quotas for meat and dairy products. Failure of collective farms to meet procurement quotas had dire consequences for their members. It meant that no matter how many labordays (the unit of accounting according to which collective farmers were paid) kolkhozniks worked, there was nothing to pay them. During 1929-31, procurement quotas were set at levels that exceeded the capacity of most farms. In 1932, farms in Ukraine, the Lower Volga and the North Caucasus were hit by a poor harvest, leading to famine conditions. Blaming shortages on kulak sabotage, authorities favored urban areas and the army in distributing what supplies of food had been collected. The resulting loss of life is estimated as at least five million. To escape from starvation, large numbers of peasants abandoned collective farms for the cities. http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1929collectivization&Year=19..

In addition:


Peasant resistance [to collectivization] took many forms...Passive resistance was widespread, including the slaughter of livestock and a reduction in sowing. Between 1929 and 1933, the number of horses dropped by 15.3 million, cattle by 24.7 million, sheep and goats by 69.8 million, and pigs by 9.5 million...Grain production fell in 1931-1933, but the state maintained delivery quotas. The result was famine in places like Ukraine where grain was the focus of agricultureChapter 5, Farm to Factory by Allen


The disaster that followed collectivization was not one of an inability to produce enough food. It was political, and was a consequence of a war between peasants (e.g. kulaks) and the Soviet state which sided with industry. At any rate, some form of consolidation was necessary since large-scale farms were more efficient and, in addition, collectivization enabled peasants to mechanize production by increasing access to farm equipment. The large scale migration of peasants to the cities was actually a good thing, although it should have occurred under less dire circumstances. There was a surplus of labor in the countryside and peasants moving to industrial jobs found easy employment and increased wages.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't see anywhere in your source where they destroyed crops; it appears that the only "sabotage" present was the reduction of livestock. And in those sources you quoted, it's clear that the state was culpable in maintaining the quotas and distributing the food in a manner that caused the peasants to starve. Hence, millions of people died because of policy failure or a politically motivated artificial famine, for which Stalin is responsible. These people could have been fed, but they were not. I don't care if it would have delayed industrialization or socialism or the production of capital. People are more important than any of those, and even if the peasants are not a part of the proletariat, their lives have value.

[Comrade Jacob]

Anything is preferable to millions of people being so deprived of food that they die in want of it.

And who would answer? The capitalist nations are happy to let socialism have stains on it's reputation. I'd even go as far as saying they are glad it happened because now it's an attack point and it breaks unity in the left.

[Sabot Cat]

And who would answer? The capitalist nations are happy to let socialism have stains on it's reputation. I'd even go as far as saying they are glad it happened because now it's an attack point and it breaks unity in the left.

All Stalin had to do was not export grain, not squander their foreign relief, allow migration, and not prevent news media from being able to evaluate the conditions in order to raise support. I don't care if you think it's politically advantageous to capitalist nations to acknowledge the Holodomor. It happened, Stalin was culpable in the disaster, and the apologists of mass murderers reliant upon pseudohistory are justifiably criticized.

[IBleedRed]

I don't see anywhere in your source where they destroyed crops; it appears that the only "sabotage" present was the reduction of livestock. Read more closely. Refusal to sow and deliberate obstruction of working the land meant bad harvests in time.


And in those sources you quoted, it's clear that the state was culpable in maintaining the quotas and distributing the food in a manner that caused the peasants to starve.
Yes, this is very clear. These quotas, however, were in place in order to feed the growing cities. Somewhere, somebody was going to starve given the massive damage to the countryside that had occurred.


Hence, millions of people died because of policy failure or a politically motivated artificial famine, for which Stalin is responsible. These people could have been fed, but they were not. I don't care if it would have delayed industrialization or socialism or the production of capital. People are more important than any of those, and even if the peasants are not a part of the proletariat, their lives have value.

See above. In retrospect, delaying industrialization by diverting the grain from the cities to the peasants might have had worse consequences. The USSR industrialized just in time to fight Hitler's war machine, and even then not without huge casualties.

I do understand what you are saying. In the book I cited, Farm to Factory, Allen makes the case that feeding the cities would still have been possible even without collectivization if the price of grain was allowed to increase. However, that would have presented a new series of problems.

The problem with collectivization wasn't that it wasn't a sound policy, but that its implementation antagonized the peasants who still held so much power over the food supply. Farm consolidation would have been necessary at some point.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

That's a pretty broad range there, buddy.

Finally, something worthy of a response that isn't just another epithet.

This would be self-defeating, since the entire point of collectivization was to feed the cities. The peasants, especially the kulaks, were the ones who burned their crops and slaughtered their livestock to "protest" collectivization, so how can that be blamed on Stalin? Yes, he enforced the quotas in place...

You seem to forget that socialism is not about building a country of peasants. Industrialization meant growing cities, and growing cities needed food from the countryside. Self-sufficient peasants don't market much food to the city. So, what do you suggest Stalin should have done to feed the cities?

You'll have to explain this one. Many peasants did leave. They moved to cities and became industrial workers.

Foreign relief efforts? You want "socialists" to ask for handouts from capitalist countries?


Unlike the person you responded to, you gave next to no sources for any of your arguments. Then you gave two sources that mentioned that livestock were slaughtered, but said nothing about sabotaging crops. Please elaborate.

Oh, and about the foreign relief thing, here's my response:

You think it's okay for people to die en masse in the name of ideological purity?:rolleyes:

[Sabot Cat]

Read more closely. Refusal to sow and deliberate obstruction of working the land meant bad harvests in time.

This didn't happen on the scale alleged, and I find any claims of sabotage dubious considering the Soviet Union's usual way of handling mistakes or failures was to label them as sabotage or "wrecking" (вредительство).



Yes, this is very clear. These quotas, however, were in place in order to feed the growing cities. Somewhere, somebody was going to starve given the massive damage to the countryside that had occurred.


The material reality of the situation does not match your rhetoric, and millions did not have to die.


See above. In retrospect, delaying industrialization by diverting the grain from the cities to the peasants might have had worse consequences. The USSR industrialized just in time to fight Hitler's war machine, and even then not without huge casualties.


The Holodomor happened in 1932 and 1933, while Hitler did not invade Poland until 1939, and he didn't invade the USSR until 1941. Furthermore, he wouldn't have been nearly as successfully belligerent if the USSR didn't ship him so many supplies to fuel that war machine, and foreclosed the possibility of a two-front war with the non-aggression pact.


I do understand what you are saying. In the book I cited, Farm to Factory, Allen makes the case that feeding the cities would still have been possible even without collectivization if the price of grain was allowed to increase. However, that would have presented a new series of problems.

The problem with collectivization wasn't that it wasn't a sound policy, but that its implementation antagonized the peasants who still held so much power over the food supply. Farm consolidation would have been necessary at some point.

The Holodomor was not an unfortunate yet necessary step to collectivization and industrialization. It was an artificial famine that starved 2.4 to 7.5 million people to death, that could have been prevented if Stalin and his cronies did not pursue the policies that they did.

[IBleedRed]

Unlike the person you responded to, you gave no sources for any of your arguments. Please elaborate.


(source: Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen)




Here are some bourgeois sources, for good measure:

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1929collectivization&Year=19..

In addition:

Chapter 5, Farm to Factory by Allen



Learn to read. Of course, it doesn't matter that you were wrong, your lackies will thumb you up all the same even when you provide bring nothing to the discussion.


This didn't happen on the scale alleged, and I find any claims of sabotage dubious considering the Soviet Union's usual way of handling mistakes or failures was to label them as sabotage or "wrecking" (вредительство). Okay. I guess since you find it dubious, it must be a lie. And you didn't substantiate your claim that it "didn't happen on the scale alleged"...are just going to be asserting things from now on?


The material reality of the situation does not match your rhetoric, and millions did not have to die. I guess we are just going to be asserting things. Tell me, where was the extra food going to come from? "The material reality" is just a bunch of words unless you explain.


The Holodomor happened in 1932 and 1933, while Hitler did not invade Poland until 1939, and he didn't invade the USSR until 1941. Furthermore, he wouldn't have been nearly as successfully belligerent if the USSR didn't ship him so many supplies to fuel that war machine, and foreclosed the possibility of a two-front war with the non-aggression pact. You missed the entire point. The industrialization of the 1930's came just in time for the Soviet Union to have barely defeated the Nazi forces a decade later.


The Holodomor was not an unfortunate yet necessary step to collectivization and industrialization. It was an artificial famine that starved 2.4 to 7.5 million people to death, that could have been prevented if Stalin and his cronies did not pursue the policies that they did.If 'Stalin and his cronies' did not pursue the policies that they did, the USSR would have remained a backwards peasant country that would have probably been defeated in WW2 and you would be singing a different tune.

I've given you explanation after explanation as to how the peasants' obstruction of collectivization had as much to do with the famine as anything Stalin did, and you refuse to listen. I'm done.

[Sabot Cat]

Learn to read. Of course, it doesn't matter that you were wrong, your lackies will thumb you up all the same even when you provide bring nothing to the discussion.

I wasn't aware I was a lackey. Furthermore, I found his point about not sacrificing people in the name of ideological purity an insightful point that you need to learn.


Okay. I guess since you find it dubious, it must be a lie. And you didn't substantiate your claim that it "didn't happen on the scale alleged"...are just going to be asserting things from now on?


In your sources, there is no proof that this self-sabotage happened on such a scale that the Holodomor would occur, and the burden of evidence is on you to prove such widespread disruption as the principle cause of the event.


I guess we are just going to be asserting things. Tell me, where was the extra food going to come from? "The material reality" is just a bunch of words unless you explain.


All of the grain that was exported abroad; I already cited the source for this one and the relevant figures.


You missed the entire point. The industrialization of the 1930's came just in time for the Soviet Union to have barely defeated the Nazi forces a decade later.


There would have been no effective Nazi war machine without Soviet oil and supplies. You would have just had a repeat of the English blockade in the Great War against Germany. [1]


If 'Stalin and his cronies' did not pursue the policies that they did, the USSR would have remained a backwards peasant country that would have probably been defeated in WW2 and you would be singing a different tune.


If not for Stalin, there probably would not have been a World War II as we know it. [2] Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of countries that industrialized without an equivalent to the Holodomor.


I've given you explanation after explanation as to how the peasants' obstruction of collectivization had as much to do with the famine as anything Stalin did, and you refuse to listen. I'm done.

I think the claim that I'm refusing to listen is disingenuous. I'm engaging you on each and every point, repeatedly, and consistently trying to use empirical evidence as a basis. have not substantiated your claims that the Holodomor was the fault of the peasants sufficiently enough in the face of countervailing explanations from the scientific consensus on the subject, which cite the continued exports, draconian quotes, prohibition of travel, etc. as the principle factors behind it.

Sources:

[1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ns120.asp
[2] Edward Ericson's Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941

[Marshal of the People]

Stalin was worse than Lenin though not by much (they were both antidemocratic, authoritarian statists though Stalin was evil).

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Learn to read. Of course, it doesn't matter that you were wrong, your lackies will thumb you up.

Looks like someone's angry.:rolleyes: I didn't know I had lackies. That's pretty cool!:laugh:

I'll admit I didn't see your sources. They were in a separate post from your claims, and I missed them. But even those gave no information about the emigration of the Ukrainian peasants, or the exportation of food to foreign countries, both of which were two important parts of the discussion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

We need to look to the future, not the failures of the past (except to learn what not to do).

[ArisVelouxiotis]

We need to look to the future, not the failures of the past (except to learn what not to do).

Then how are we going to learn if not from the failures?

[Prof. Oblivion]

This would be self-defeating, since the entire point of collectivization was to feed the cities. The peasants, especially the kulaks, were the ones who burned their crops and slaughtered their livestock to "protest" collectivization, so how can that be blamed on Stalin? Yes, he enforced the quotas in place...

I don't think I have ever come across a single peer reviewed journal article or book claiming that there was mass destruction of food by Ukrainians to such an extent that it led to the famine. Can you please provide some sources for us which document this widespread sabotage specifically relating to the Ukrainian famine? And how does this theory not conflict with the well-documented mass exportation of foodstuffs from the territory? If they were destroying all of their food, then how was it possible to export such massive amounts of food?

Further, if the "entire point of collectivization was to feed the cities" then that isn't an argument in your favor considering that Ukrainian cities also suffered through the famine.

It just sounds like you haven't read the scholarly debate surrounding this event at all, and are just trying to come up with an explanation that rationalizes your personal view.


You'll have to explain this one. Many peasants did leave. They moved to cities and became industrial workers.


In 1932 the Tsarist policy of internal passports was implemented to restrict movement, enforced by GPU units preventing movement out of regions affected by massive food shortages. This, again, is documented in the primary sources.


Foreign relief efforts? You want "socialists" to ask for handouts from capitalist countries?


Considering the amount of grain being exported at the time, aid probably wasn't even needed.



The shortage of grain was self-imposed: rebellious peasants slaughtered their own livestock and either hoarded or destroyed their grain. Again, how was this Stalin's fault?


You're just repeating yourself here. This very clearly isn't the case. You can't point to a single peer reviewed article that would make such a claim because it's blatantly ludicrous.


Here are some bourgeois sources, for good measure:


These aren't relevant to the discussion of the Holodomor...


Yes, this is very clear. These quotas, however, were in place in order to feed the growing cities. Somewhere, somebody was going to starve given the massive damage to the countryside that had occurred.


Yet it has been shown even by Davies et al. that grain stores could have significantly reduced the extent of the famine in the Ukraine without affecting the cities.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I don't like Stalin at all.....I could name a million reasons
1. 8-20 millions killed
2.totalitarian
3. Great purge
4. Assassination of Trotsky
You could say how it pushed the USSR, into a superpower, But that had nothing to do with the aspects of communism, He made state capitalism.

But i hate when people use Stalin to make socialism look bad(he is a mockery to socialism, in my opinion.) But really do some real research on socialism like Marx, Luxemburg or Trotsky for example. Everybody I talk to will tell how bad Stalin & Mao were but can't tell you squat about socialist philosophies. They probably cant even define socialism, without using their IPhones.

Which shows you how lethargic and mis-educated they are to real world problems

I think he his legacy will always give capitalists a way to TRY to prove how socialism can't work. .....Until it does.

[RedWaves]

He was a good man, he did a lot of good things for Russia.

[RedWaves]

I don't like Stalin at all.....I could name a million reasons
1. 8-20 millions killed



Prove where he killed 8-20 million people.

[Jambo]

I've been reading this thread with interest since I don't know much about Stalin other than what bourgeois history books and my capitalist sponsored education taught me i.e he was a monster, full stop. However I'm just curious is there evidence to support the fact that he intentionally withheld food from the population so that they would die or is the case that it was just down to negligence and the mishandling of the collectivization that the famine and deaths occurred?

I was just thinking, about how many millions of people in Africa and other developing nations have died as a result of starvation ( say in the last 50 years) under the capitalist world system. These deaths didn't occur as a result of a failed policy to try and improve agricultural output and improve their situation, these deaths happened as a result of callous indifference on the part of the worlds powerful nations who have it within their power ( at least monetarily, I don't have the exact figures but its only a few billion that's supposedly needed to end world hunger) to alleviate the problem but they have never made any serious efforts to do so and on the contrary continue to rape and pillage the developing world for its natural resources and even use it farm land to supply their own food needs.

I'm not trying to defend Stalin, from what I have read I get the impression he wasn't a nice bloke but I'm just trying to provide perspective. Exactly what standard are we holding him up against in order to completely vilify him? He wasn't a bad guy in a world full of good guys, but perhaps just another bad guy.

Of course those millions of people are still dead and that is a shocking tragedy and that's why this kind of discussion is important to learn about the real causes so that events like that can hopefully be avoided in future.

Jambo

[Diirez]

Prove where he killed 8-20 million people.

Ukrainian Famine and The Great Purges are just a few. Not to mention all the people he had killed with his secret service.

He tried to kill Tito, who would want Tito dead?

"To Joseph Stalin: Stop sending people to kill me! We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send a very fast working one to Moscow and I certainly won't have to send another." - Josip Broz Tito

[Sinister Intents]

He was a good man, he did a lot of good things for Russia.

I wouldn't call him a good man personally. He may have done a few good things, but over all no. I hate Stalin and all other dictators.

[Marshal of the People]

He was a good man, he did a lot of good things for Russia.
Yes comrade Stalin was a good man for Russia, just not for the people living there.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

My personal opinion?

Stalin was a bastard.

A petty, brutal, hate-filled bastard.

Now, Stalin did manage to accomplish some good things. He helped make the Soviet Union a world power in a very short amount of time, and made the capitalist powers of the world quake in fear. He also helped to destroy the fascist menace right in its nest.

But that does not alleviate his numerous crimes against the people. The purges, the famines, the mass killings, the rapes, the imprisonments, the list goes on.

Stalin is only a hero in the same way that Vlad Tepes was a hero: Yeah, he defended the Motherland from invasion, but he crushed his enemies with a mountain of corpses.

[Future]

Lol, this thread. It never fails to astonish me when I see so much support for totalitarianism, mass murder, and anti-communist bullshit by so called "leftists". It seems to me that many of these defectors support the ideal of superpowers, not socialism. I'm sorry, but I support real socialism, not totalitarian pro-bourgeois failed states that adopted the communist label in the same way that a small child adopts a cape and thinks he's Batman. If you try to justify the policies of Joseph Stalin you cannot be labeled a revolutionary socialist of any sort. You are a traitor to socialism and the plight of the working class. You are a traitor to reason.


Fortunately, RevLeft has a horde of real socialists from multiple tendencies ready to call this bullshit out and do it so eloquently.

Go ahead Stalinist pseudo-socialists, flame me all you want. You don't deserve my response.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm pretty sure there is a whole thread dedicated to Stalin to cut down on these Stalin threads. Maybe their should be a Stalin subforum...

[IBleedRed]

Too much nonsense for me to continue ignoring this thread. I'll respond to some of the most recent bits:


Ukrainian Famine and The Great Purges are just a few. Not to mention all the people he had killed with his secret service. This isn't an answer to "prove to me where he killed 8-20 million people". You're just listing random things without elaborating on any of them or making any sort of argument.

1) We've been over the Ukrainian Famine. It wasn't murder any more than any other famine could be said to be murder.

2) The Great Purges did not kill anywhere close to 8-20 million people. In addition, only a naive fool would fail to see the purges in light of the fact that the USSR was under attack from without and from within all throughout its history, especially its early history.

3) Your line about the secret service is rubbish since you provided no explanation.



Lol, this thread. It never fails to astonish me when I see so much support for totalitarianism, mass murder, and anti-communist bullshit by so called "leftists". It seems to me that many of these defectors support the ideal of superpowers, not socialism. I'm sorry, but I support real socialism, not totalitarian pro-bourgeois failed states that adopted the communist label in the same way that a small child adopts a cape and thinks he's Batman. If you try to justify the policies of Joseph Stalin you cannot be labeled a revolutionary socialist of any sort. You are a traitor to socialism and the plight of the working class. You are a traitor to reason.


Fortunately, RevLeft has a horde of real socialists from multiple tendencies ready to call this bullshit out and do it so eloquently.

Go ahead Stalinist pseudo-socialists, flame me all you want. You don't deserve my response.

Such a childish perspective of history, as if Stalin, all by his lonesome, was just some "evil man" who wanted totalitarianism for shits and giggles! You've got a very nuanced, materialist understanding of history:rolleyes:

[Diirez]

Too much nonsense for me to continue ignoring this thread. I'll respond to some of the most recent bits:

This isn't an answer to "prove to me where he killed 8-20 million people". You're just listing random things without elaborating on any of them or making any sort of argument.

1) We've been over the Ukrainian Famine. It wasn't murder any more than any other famine could be said to be murder.

2) The Great Purges did not kill anywhere close to 8-20 million people. In addition, only a naive fool would fail to see the purges in light of the fact that the USSR was under attack from without and from within all throughout its history, especially its early history.

3) Your line about the secret service is rubbish since you provided no explanation.

The Ukrainian famine was forced by Stalin. But even if it wasn't forced (which it was) and was just the result of his collectivization going wrong, millions of people still starved to death under his rule and because of his policies. It's not like this famine was random and had nothing to do with Stalin.

I didn't mean that the purges killed 8-20 million, but the purges did add to his death toll.

[IBleedRed]

The Ukrainian famine was forced by Stalin. But even if it wasn't forced (which it was) and was just the result of his collectivization going wrong, millions of people still starved to death under his rule and because of his policies. It's not like this famine was random and had nothing to do with Stalin.


If the second scenario is true, that the famine was not deliberate but a result of poor policy or execution, then we cannot fault Stalin and the administration as murderers so much as idiots. Even then, though, I am unsurprised that such a radical policy should have had such a profound effect on a society that was so backwards and undeveloped. Unfortunately, that profound effect was negative, but inaction is not preferable to action. I'm not sure that anybody else in Stalin's shoes would have created a different outcome.

Your first suggestion, that the famine was deliberate, is so utterly ridiculous as to fail to justify a response. It's silly to think that any statesman would starve millions of people for shits and giggles. Even cartoon character villains are not that basic.

[Invader Zim]

"Several million people" is hyperbole.



How so? While relatively recent archival work, since the late 80s, has led to a downward revision of the number of victims of the Stalinist regime by an entire order of magnitude, we are still talking in the order of seven digits.

[Geiseric]

If the second scenario is true, that the famine was not deliberate but a result of poor policy or execution, then we cannot fault Stalin and the administration as murderers so much as idiots. Even then, though, I am unsurprised that such a radical policy should have had such a profound effect on a society that was so backwards and undeveloped. Unfortunately, that profound effect was negative, but inaction is not preferable to action. I'm not sure that anybody else in Stalin's shoes would have created a different outcome.

Your first suggestion, that the famine was deliberate, is so utterly ridiculous as to fail to justify a response. It's silly to think that any statesman would starve millions of people for shits and giggles. Even cartoon character villains are not that basic.

The left opposition knew that the famines would happen if the NEP continued much longer than 1925, but Stalin killed them as and after they expounded their program.

[motion denied]

What astounds me is the continuous use of "totalitarianism" by so called leftists.

I'm not even a ML.

[IBleedRed]

The left opposition knew that the famines would happen if the NEP continued much longer than 1925, but Stalin killed them as and after they expounded their program.
But...Stalin's policies were a departure from the NEP:confused:

[Dialectical Wizard]

Stalin betrayed the revolution with his show trials and paranoid anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, he abandoned the noble revolutionary values of Red October.

[Brutus]

Stalin betrayed the revolution with his show trials and paranoid anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, he abandoned the noble revolutionary values of Red October.

Eh, October was slowly destroyed as more and more concessions forge peasantry were made, which in the end just created plain capitalism as the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie were carried out by Stalin and Co. The NEP was the final blow which killed the diminished proletarian dictatorship.

[Diirez]

Your first suggestion, that the famine was deliberate, is so utterly ridiculous as to fail to justify a response. It's silly to think that any statesman would starve millions of people for shits and giggles. Even cartoon character villains are not that basic.

He didn't force it for shits and giggles, the Ukrainian's were revolting, resisting and moving away from the Soviet Union and more focused on gaining independence. Stalin had the intellectuals and leaders of the Ukraine killed and then anyone who resisted his collectivization killed. The forced famine on Ukraine was designed to weaken the Ukraine so that they couldn't revolt against or resist the Soviet Union.

[Geiseric]

Eh, October was slowly destroyed as more and more concessions forge peasantry were made, which in the end just created plain capitalism as the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie were carried out by Stalin and Co. The NEP was the final blow which killed the diminished proletarian dictatorship.

They got rid rid of the NEP you know. Things did happen after that.

[Brutus]

They got rid rid of the NEP you know. Things did happen after that.

Yes, I'm aware the NEP was abolished, and that things continued to exist after it

[Dialectical Wizard]

Eh, October was slowly destroyed as more and more concessions forge peasantry were made, which in the end just created plain capitalism as the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie were carried out by Stalin and Co. The NEP was the final blow which killed the diminished proletarian dictatorship.



Even Sergei Eisenstein saw the shift in the status of political violence from the ‘Leninist’ emancipatory violence in October: Ten Days That Shook the World to the ‘Stalinist’ obscene underside of the law which is perfectly allegorized in Ivan the Terrible.

[DOOM]

I don't see any sign of effort to accomplish communism under Stalin. As if it wasn't bad enough under Lenin, he made it even worse.

And i wanted to point out how hilarious the amount of Stalin threads on revleft is. It's like a running gag

[IBleedRed]

He didn't force it for shits and giggles, the Ukrainian's were revolting, resisting and moving away from the Soviet Union and more focused on gaining independence. Stalin had the intellectuals and leaders of the Ukraine killed and then anyone who resisted his collectivization killed. The forced famine on Ukraine was designed to weaken the Ukraine so that they couldn't revolt against or resist the Soviet Union.

I guess you're right, leaving kulaks in charge in Ukraine would have been a better option.


I don't see any sign of effort to accomplish communism under Stalin. As if it wasn't bad enough under Lenin, he made it even worse.

And i wanted to point out how hilarious the amount of Stalin threads on revleft is. It's like a running gag

Explain the bolded part.

[Diirez]

...As if it wasn't bad enough under Lenin...
What was so bad? Granted he made some mistakes, but I don't think it was bad under Lenin.

[Prometeo liberado]

Stalin betrayed the revolution with his show trials and paranoid anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, he abandoned the noble revolutionary values of Red October.

These weren't show trials, they actually happened. :grin:

[Marshal of the People]

These weren't show trials, they actually happened. :grin:
They definitely weren't real trials.

Definition of "Show Trial":
The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial in which there is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retrebutive rather than correctional justice and also conducted for propagandistic purposes. The term was first recorded in the 1930s.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial

[Prometeo liberado]

They definitely weren't real trials.

Definition of "Show Trial":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial

And all this time I thought it was like a Broadway type show trial. What torture, what agony! I was waaaay wrong!

[Marshal of the People]

And all this time I thought it was like a Broadway type show trial. What torture, what agony! I waaaay wrong!
That's okay I'm occasionally wrong as well.

[Brutus]

Even Sergei Eisenstein saw the shift in the status of political violence from the ‘Leninist’ emancipatory violence in October: Ten Days That Shook the World to the ‘Stalinist’ obscene underside of the law which is perfectly allegorized in Ivan the Terrible.

I'm talking about class relations, not violence here. Don't appeal to me on a moral basis.

[Geiseric]

But...Stalin's policies were a departure from the NEP:confused:

Stalin distorted the left oppositoons plans to suit his own agenda. He supported the NEP as there were famines happening due to Kulaks. So much for socialism.