Stalin's Motives

[Redistribute the Rep]

Some people say he was power hungry, but that doesn't really make sense to me, why would he join the Bolsheviks and be exiled for many years just to have a small possibility of being in power 20 years later? So was he actually committed to the revolutionary cause at first? But then what was the motivation for the theorizing of the "socialism in one country" and the purges and everything?

[Creative Destruction]

You can be a committed revolutionary and still have horrible tendencies toward abusing power, especially if the institutions set up allow for something like that to happen.

[RedWorker]

Stalin was merely the living expression of a real phenomena. If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. That someone else may not have been so brutal, or may have pursued different policies. But the degeneration of the revolution would be the same.

[consuming negativity]

stalin was a victim of severe physical and emotional abuse as a very young child at the hands of his father. also, in the last 10-20 years of his life, there is evidence that he had developed a degenerative brain disease that could have amplified the paranoia and other PTSD-like symptoms/personality traits and significantly altered his ability to make decisions.

there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that he really did have the revolution and humankind in his heart and that he was prepared to make unimaginable sacrifices to these ends. for example, i know that at the time of his death, a personal letter from Bukharin was found in Stalin's desk, which to me suggests that they actually genuinely cared about each other. he also was very wary of allowing his daughter to be anywhere near serial rapist Lavrentiy Beria alone, and warned her against it several times.

but then, he also allowed Beria to stay in the party and free well aware of what he was doing to the women of Moscow, was less-than-pleased when his daughter wanted to marry a Jewish man, and I can't remember what he did but he either killed or abandoned his own son, in addition to his masterful politicking in the CPSU which suggests that he had little if any loyalty to actual ideas.

i, personally, do not think that stalin was a sociopath, but then i wouldn't be surprised to find out he was. really, what annoys me is that i feel he is dismissed as a sociopath rather than attempted to be understood as one, and also, i do not feel it is necessary for him to be a sociopath considering that any real sociopath will try to emulate to the best of their ability real emotions. good manipulation is indistinguishable from genuine thoughts and feelings, which is why it's so terrible, and in truth i'm not sure we'll ever be sure if we still haven't figured it out by now.

[motion denied]

Stalin was a marxist and a communist. His collaborators, many of which would perish under the regime they helped to consolidate, were committed to socialism (or what they believed was to path towards it). Socialism in One Country comes as an ideological justification for the failure of world revolution and the degeneration of the Russian revolution masqueraded with some mystification: making "socialism" synonymous with "DotP"; equating whatever was going on in the USSR from 1924 onwards with a DotP; considerable revision and ultimate perversion of Marxian (critical) theory (for one, 'the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries.'[Concerning Questions of Leninism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm)], that is, there would be no class antagonisms in the USSR, but the state would still exist because the 'land of socialism' is threatened by foreign capitalist powers).

Stalin and his clique, astute pragmatists (overall opportunists), coming out victorious of the clash of factions, it'd be only natural they'd purge oppositional elements to assure their rule. However, I think some of them genuinely believed the likes of Bukharin, Antonov-Ovseenko, Trotsky and so many others were reactionaries (or fascist/imperialist collaborators), despite the fake "proofs" and so on.

Again, him and his clique are part of the Marxist tradition, developed from inside the Communist movement, that are highly influential to this day, for bad and for worse. At the time it was reactionary, today it is, well, smelly shit.

[motion denied]

oh look at that, it's xmas and I spent it writing a post on santa-damned stalin

my life rules

[Redistribute the Rep]

Stalin was merely the living expression of a real phenomena. If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. That someone else may not have been so brutal, or may have pursued different policies. But the degeneration of the revolution would be the same.

Not really asking about the degeneration of the revolution, but his personal motives. Why did he act the way he did in response to the breakdown of the revolution.

I mean if he was a committed socialist, why didn't he just give up and go home after it failed? Why did he make up some contradictory "socialism in one country" to justify his rule. The power hungry argument just seems kind of odd given what I mentioned in my first post.

[Sabot Cat]

Not really asking about the degeneration of the revolution, but his personal motives. Why did he act the way he did in response to the breakdown of the revolution.

I mean if he was a committed socialist, why didn't he just give up and go home after it failed? Why did he make up some contradictory "socialism in one country" to justify his rule.

It's not easy declaring or even realizing that your entire life's work was for not.

[tuwix]

Some people say he was power hungry, but that doesn't really make sense to me, why would he join the Bolsheviks and be exiled for many years just to have a small possibility of being in power 20 years later? So was he actually committed to the revolutionary cause at first? But then what was the motivation for the theorizing of the "socialism in one country" and the purges and everything?

He was a psychopath. What was his motives is the case for psychiatrists. Surely he was not Marxists nor communist during his brutal ruling. He has created a state with absolute power within own hands. He was an absolute king without a title of king only. But he has collected other titles and created an unique title for himself - the Generalissimus. It had nothing to do with communism although he was a Leninist.

I think that he was power hungry is actually very correct. Also he was obsessed by power. He's murdered many people due to his obsession of power. And he killed the last hope that Leninism can be any form of socialism at all...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Stalin's motivation for what? The brutality of the 30s Soviet regime against Ukrainian and Russian farmers? Or his executions of fellow Bolsheviks? Or having a mustache?

The theory of socialism in one country necessitates a kind of rapid development which calls for the extraction of surplus value from the workers to rapidly build up the machinery of production. Stalin might well have been a sociopath, but blaming his psychological states for his actions is naive and idealist. We don't try to understand Andrew Jackson's psychology to explain the Trail of Tears, we just look at the conditions which made the policy of Indian removal advantageous to the ruling class of the United States. The idea that "totalitarian dictators" lead to the psychological whims of one man singularly determining the fates of millions is a discourse popular in today's society, but one which ignores, I think, the more important implications of materialist philosophy.


Stalin was merely the living expression of a real phenomena. If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. That someone else may not have been so brutal, or may have pursued different policies. But the degeneration of the revolution would be the same.

I agree, but I think the point is more that someone with Stalin's type of politics was best suited to take leadership of the party. I don't think Trotsky, say, would have done the same things as Stalin if he took power, but I do think that the reasons that Stalin took power would have also made it much harder for someone with Trotsky's political program to succeed.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

It's not easy declaring or even realizing that your entire life's work was for not.

What makes you think Stalin's entire life work was for nothing? He maintained the gains of October in the Soviet Union during one of the most dangerous times in world history. Under his guidance, Soviet forces liberated millions from the terror of German Fascism and Japanese Imperialism. He even paved the way for the formation of communist governments in Eastern Europe and China.

[Comrade #138672]

oh look at that, it's xmas and I spent it writing a post on santa-damned stalin

my life rulesI liked it, though. Who cares. Revolutionaries should not be too sentimental about Christmas, anyway. :)

[socialistlawyer]

Trotsky was a failed and weak leader. One should have had predicted an early subversion of socialism in the Soviet Union had he been in power and not Stalin. Politics is the struggle for power. Don't tell me Trotsky will not murder Stalin has he been in power. I am betting my wife, ninamasji, he will do it.

[socialistlawyer]

What make's you think Stalin's entire life work was for nothing? He maintained the gains of October in the Soviet Union during one of the most dangerous times in world history. Under his guidance, Soviet forces liberated millions from the terror of German Fascism and Japanese Imperialism. He even paved the way for the formation of communist governments in Eastern Europe and China.

Stalin! Stalin! Stalin!

[Comrade #138672]

Trotsky was a failed and weak leader. One should have had predicted an early subversion of socialism in the Soviet Union had he been in power and not Stalin. Politics is the struggle for power. Don't tell me Trotsky will not murder Stalin has he been in power. I am betting my wife, ninamasji, he will do it.Well, Trotsky and Stalin had little to say about it in the end. The triumph of socialism depended on the revolution to spread, but this did not happen. Neither Stalin or Trotsky could have done anything about that. To fetishize either Stalin or Trotsky is foolish.

[Sabot Cat]

What make's you think Stalin's entire life work was for nothing? He maintained the gains of October in the Soviet Union during one of the most dangerous times in world history. Under his guidance, Soviet forces liberated millions from the terror of German Fascism and Japanese Imperialism. He even paved the way for the formation of communist governments in Eastern Europe and China.

You're absolutely correct, comrade. He is a bright, shining beacon that lead the great Soviet proletariat to victory after victory, and even now continues to guide us. It was especially clever when he sold all of those war materials to Hitler's government.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Stalin's motivation for what? The brutality of the 30s Soviet regime against Ukrainian and Russian farmers? Or his executions of fellow Bolsheviks? Or having a mustache?

The theory of socialism in one country necessitates a kind of rapid development which calls for the extraction of surplus value from the workers to rapidly build up the machinery of production. Stalin might well have been a sociopath, but blaming his psychological states for his actions is naive and idealist. We don't try to understand Andrew Jackson's psychology to explain the Trail of Tears, we just look at the conditions which made the policy of Indian removal advantageous to the ruling class of the United States. The idea that "totalitarian dictators" lead to the psychological whims of one man singularly determining the fates of millions is a discourse popular in today's society, but one which ignores, I think, the more important implications of materialist philosophy.



OK, we all know that his regime can't be reduced down to his psychological state, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I just want to know about him as an individual (maybe this should be moved to non political?). I know it's not really important for materialists but it's something I've always wondered. Was he always latently power hungry all along? Or was that a result of a shift later on? And was he really committed to the socialist cause at first? Just some things I've always wondered.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

You're absolutely correct, comrade. He is a bright, shining beacon that lead the great Soviet proletariat to victory after victory, and even now continues to guide us. It was especially clever when he sold all of those war materials to Hitler's government.

You mean the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which morphed into the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement prior to Operation Barbarossa? I will admit in hindsight that was a mistake. However, there are a few things one must consider. First, the forces of revolution had faltered by the late 1930s. With the defeat of the Communists in the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union was politically isolated and surrounded by the forces of world reaction. Second, the Soviet Union offered to defend nations like Czechoslovakia from fascist imperialism, but capitalist democracies repeatedly rebuffed these proposals. Third, Stalin knew that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was inevitable. He needed more time to prepare for the coming struggle. Thus it made perfect sense for the Soviet Union to sign a temporary truce with Nazi Germany. These agreements put the Soviet Union in a much better position when war finally broke out in the East.

I also find your criticism of the trade agreements to be disingenuous. The resources that Stalin sold Hitler such as oil might have helped the Nazi war machine run. However, at the same time the Soviet Union received valuable technology from the Nazis which helped Stalin build the Red Army. In the long run, the Nazi-Soviet agreements probably harmed world reaction more than they helped it. Finally, how come you criticize Stalin for materially supporting Hitler, but not Henry Ford or the Rockefellers? It seems odd that you are intent on criticizing fellow Marxists more than reactionary capitalists.

[RedKobra]

I think, in a sense, the situation finds the right man.

We don't ask why the Spanish Revolutionaries degenerated into totalitarianism after its victory over Franco. Why? Because they were unable to find such a man and lost to Franco. Only in countries where a man is found who can consolidate power can we ask whether that power contributed to his totalitarianism.

To ask a question like, 'would the Soviet Union have been any different under Trotsky?' is, I think, missing the point. The Soviet Union under Trotsky would never have survived long enough to find out, not unless Trotsky had abandoned all the things he believed and wholly adopted Stalin's program. How could Trotsky have maintained 'Permanent Revolution' as Russia's allies dropped off the map? He would have had to adapt to the material circumstances or become irrelevant, disposed of and forgotten by history as a man not fit for leadership.

You can't abuse what power you haven't consolidated. Stalin wasn't extraordinary, I don't think, he was just in the right place at the right time to consolidate power when the material conditions turned against the Soviet Union. From there Consolidation becomes the norm and it can never end. If the material conditions were in your favour there would be no need to consolidate.

In the same way the Capitalists flatter themselves when they point to the "peace" of their nations under Capitalism. When they credit that "peace" to liberal democracy. The material conditions were in their favour, they had no need to consolidate in the west and so the illusion of "peace" was maintained. As the material conditions begin to shift however the mask slips and we begin to see their true nature. The more the material conditions in the capitalist west disfavour us the more the tyranny will grow.

I'm not a Stalinist but I also think its a mistake to think of Stalin as a driver of history. History doesn't remember the defeated and so only the survivors can be critiqued.

[newdayrising]

]Finally, how come you criticize Stalin for materially supporting Hitler, but not Henry Ford or the Rockefellers? It seems odd that you are intent on criticizing fellow Marxists more than reactionary capitalists.

How come you criticize Henry Ford or the Rockefellers, not to mention a fellow Revleft user and not Mussolini or Goebbels?
This is an outrage!

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

How come you criticize Henry Ford or the Rockefellers, not to mention a fellow Revleft user and not Mussolini or Goebbels?
This is an outrage!

Fine. I hereby condemn Joseph Goebbels as one of the vilest men ever born. His propaganda persuaded millions of Germans to plunge the world into barbarism and bloodshed. I also criticize Benito Mussolini even though he was too pathetic to be truly evil. Then again, incompetence does not equal innocence. I also condemn Emperor Hirohito, Admiral Horthy, Vidkun Quisling, Jozef Tiso, and any other fascist leader you can think of.

However, I do not understand what this had to do with conversation between Sabot Cat and I. Sabot Cat criticized Stalin for his temporary economic support of Hitler and in turn I responded by asking her why she did not also criticize Henry Ford and the Rockefellers for also economically supporting Hitler. This despite the fact that after the war it was discovered that both Standard Oil and the Ford Motor Company helped build the Nazi war machine. I did not mention Goebbels, Mussolini, or anyone else because they did not support the Nazis in an economic fashion.

[Sabot Cat]

Fine. I hereby condemn Joseph Goebbels as one of the vilest men ever born. His propaganda persuaded millions of Germans to plunge the world into barbarism and bloodshed. I also criticize Benito Mussolini even though he was too pathetic to be truly evil. Then again, incompetence does not equal innocence. I also condemn Emperor Hirohito, Admiral Horthy, Vidkun Quisling, Jozef Tiso, and any other fascist leader you can think of.

However, I do not understand what this had to do with conversation between Sabot Cat and I. Sabot Cat criticized Stalin for his temporary economic support of Hitler and in turn I responded by asking her why she did not also criticize Henry Ford and the Rockefellers for also economically supporting Hitler. This despite the fact that after the war it was discovered that both Standard Oil and the Ford Motor Company helped build the Nazi war machine. I did not mention Goebbels, Mussolini, or anyone else because they did not support the Nazis in an economic fashion.

Your failure to mention IBM, Kodak, and Chase is something you must also account for then.

And yes capitalists, from Ford to Stalin, helped Hitler.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

And yes capitalists, from Ford to Stalin, helped Hitler.

STALIN WAS NOT A CAPITALIST! He was creating a Marxist society based on the project started by the Great Lenin. And the Soviet Union would have progressed much further if Jealous Trotsky did not constantly encourage his followers to sabotage Stalin's efforts.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Marx came down from heaven and told Stalin to purge any kind of opposition.

[Creative Destruction]

Fine. I hereby condemn Joseph Goebbels as one of the vilest men ever born. His propaganda persuaded millions of Germans to plunge the world into barbarism and bloodshed. I also criticize Benito Mussolini even though he was too pathetic to be truly evil. Then again, incompetence does not equal innocence. I also condemn Emperor Hirohito, Admiral Horthy, Vidkun Quisling, Jozef Tiso, and any other fascist leader you can think of.

However, I do not understand what this had to do with conversation between Sabot Cat and I. Sabot Cat criticized Stalin for his temporary economic support of Hitler and in turn I responded by asking her why she did not also criticize Henry Ford and the Rockefellers for also economically supporting Hitler. This despite the fact that after the war it was discovered that both Standard Oil and the Ford Motor Company helped build the Nazi war machine. I did not mention Goebbels, Mussolini, or anyone else because they did not support the Nazis in an economic fashion.

It's a red herring. We're not talking about Henry Ford or the Rockefellers. We're talking about Stalin, you dope. Ford and Rockefeller's contribution to the Nazi regime does absolutely nothing to absolve Stalin of the same thing, so there is no point in bringing it up. You're pathetically trying to dig your great leader out of a hole by, effectively, saying "Look over there!"

[Sabot Cat]

Something of a repost but, here is the amount of raw materials provided by the Soviet Union to Germany is staggering, including (Philbin 47):

900,000 tons of oil
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
500,000 tons of iron ores
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinum

They accounted for over >50% of Germany's overseas imports in August 1940 (Ericson 208).

Yes, it's true that Stalin was one of the few who stood up against Hitler in the Munich crisis, and it's true that the Soviets incurred more casualties than any other belligerent in World War II.

But it is also true that Stalin directly enabled Nazi Germany to achieve their terrible victories, and his collusion with the Nazis should never be forgotten.

Sources:

Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941.

Philbin III, Tobias R. (1994), The Lure of Neptune: German–Soviet Naval Collaboration and Ambitions, 1919–1941.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Your failure to mention IBM, Kodak, and Chase is something you must also account for then.

And yes capitalists, from Ford to Stalin, helped Hitler.

STALIN WAS NOT A CAPITALIST! He was continuing the process of creating a Marxist society that had been started by the Great Lenin. Stalin did more to combat the forces of capitalism and reaction than anyone else from the 1920s to the 1950s.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

It's a red herring. We're not talking about Henry Ford or the Rockefellers. We're talking about Stalin, you dope. Ford and Rockefeller's contribution to the Nazi regime does absolutely nothing to absolve Stalin of the same thing, so there is no point in bringing it up. You're pathetically trying to dig your great leader out of a hole by, effectively, saying "Look over there!"

Fine. Stalin was responsible in part for supplying Hitler. Guess what else Stalin was responsible for. Destroying EIGHTY PERCENT of the Nazi army during World War II. The Red Army under the leadership of Stalin received the brunt of the fascist offensive and then delivering a decisive counterblow that liberated Europe from Nazi terror.

The difference between Stalin and the Rockefellers, Ford, etc. was that the former engaged in a series of strategic deals in order to buy time to prepare for the Nazi offensive. The latter, on the other hand, traded with Hitler merely to increase their own profits.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Something of a repost but, here is the amount of raw materials provided by the Soviet Union to Germany is staggering, including (Philbin 47):

900,000 tons of oil
140,000 tons of manganese
200,000 tons of phosphates
20,000 tons of chrome ore
18,000 tons of rubber
500,000 tons of iron ores
300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
2,000 kilograms of platinum

They accounted for over >50% of Germany's overseas imports in August 1940 (Ericson 208).

Yes, it's true that Stalin was one of the few who stood up against Hitler in the Munich crisis, and it's true that the Soviets incurred more casualties than any other belligerent in World War II.

But it is also true that Stalin directly enabled Nazi Germany to achieve their terrible victories, and his collusion with the Nazis should never be forgotten.

Sources:

Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941.

Philbin III, Tobias R. (1994), The Lure of Neptune: German–Soviet Naval Collaboration and Ambitions, 1919–1941.

True, but that was a small price to pay for the Soviet Union's victory over fascism. These agreements delayed Operation Barbarossa long enough for Stalin to strengthen this defensive positions against the Axis invaders. Besides, Stalin also received Nazi technology in return for Soviet resources that helped modernize the Red Army prior to the invasion.

[Creative Destruction]

the Great Lenin.

jesus christ.

two stalindroids register and post similar crap within the last couple of days. awesome.

[PhoenixAsh]

Stalin knew his motives. Whatever they were for anybody else they are speculations.

We can make a reasonably well educated guess at a psychological profile...but even that goes so far into placing certain decisions or choices within a probability context of past events. And we simply do not have enough first hand data to substantiate any of it.

Interesting, maybe. But politically useless. And it holds the danger of trying to explain perfectly rational choices away as a form of mental illness based on political grudges with the intent of discrediting an entire ideology.

Placing somebody on a good vs evil dychotomy is also subjective. There is nothing wrong with a little subjectivity. But that subjectivity should not be confused with objective analysis based on a class position.

Objectively speaking his politics led to the decline of a revolution. The question may be asked if this decline wasn't already in progress after it started. And it is even legitimate to ask the question whether it was a logical extention of the policies enacted by Bolsheviks. (I am an anarchist...so my answer to these questions are obvious). But evil as a characterization of Stalin is...crude, weird and lacking of substance beyond the personal morals and ethics.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Objectively speaking his politics led to the decline of a revolution. The question may be asked if this decline wasn't already in progress after it started. And it is even legitimate to ask the question whether it was a logical extention of the policies enacted by Bolsheviks. (I am an anarchist...so my answer to these questions are obvious). But evil as a characterization of Stalin is...crude, weird and lacking of substance beyond the personal morals and ethics.

It is interesting that you subscribe to the anarchist school of thought. Let me share with you a pertinent quote from Stalin's critique Anarchism or Socialism:

Clearly, there are two kinds of dictatorship. There is the dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a small group, the dictatorship of the Trepovs and Ignatyevs, which is directed against the people. This kind of dictatorship is usually headed by a camarilla which adopts secret decisions and tightens the noose around the neck of the majority of the people.
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists.

There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletarian majority, the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against the minority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the masses; here there is no room either for a camarilla or for secret decisions, here everything is done openly, in the streets, at meetings—because it is the dictatorship of the street, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all oppressors.

Marxists support this kind of dictatorship "with both hands"—and that is because such a dictatorship is the magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution.

Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day.

Anarchists have always wittingly or unwittingly undermined the cause of the proletariat. As Lenin stated during the suppression of the reactionary Kronstadt movement:

I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia—a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire.

I hold no ill will towards any anarchists, but they must come to accept that their politics are counterproductive if not outright counterrevolutionary.

[BIXX]

It is interesting that you subscribe to the anarchist school of thought. Let me share with you a pertinent quote from Stalin's critique Anarchism or Socialism:

Clearly, there are two kinds of dictatorship. There is the dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a small group, the dictatorship of the Trepovs and Ignatyevs, which is directed against the people. This kind of dictatorship is usually headed by a camarilla which adopts secret decisions and tightens the noose around the neck of the majority of the people.
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists.

There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletarian majority, the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against the minority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the masses; here there is no room either for a camarilla or for secret decisions, here everything is done openly, in the streets, at meetings—because it is the dictatorship of the street, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all oppressors.

Marxists support this kind of dictatorship "with both hands"—and that is because such a dictatorship is the magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution.

Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day.

Anarchists have always wittingly or unwittingly undermined the cause of the proletariat. As Lenin stated during the suppression of the reactionary Kronstadt movement:

I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia—a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire.

I hold no ill will towards any anarchists, but they must come to accept that their politics are counterproductive if not outright counterrevolutionary.
Lol

So, Stalin, who judging by your quote knew nothing of anarchism, convinced you that anarchism is counter productive and counter revolutionary? Of course you worship the ground he stepped on so this won't make a dent, but for real, that's some dumb shit.

[Sewer Socialist]

Stalin is right, because Stalin said so, you guise!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fine. Stalin was responsible in part for supplying Hitler. Guess what else Stalin was responsible for. Destroying EIGHTY PERCENT of the Nazi army during World War II. The Red Army under the leadership of Stalin received the brunt of the fascist offensive and then delivering a decisive counterblow that liberated Europe from Nazi terror.


Yes, Stalin is responsible for all that, not the millions of Soviet soldiers or the generals he undermined, or the workers who built the guns and tanks. One reactionary implication of Stalinism (and leader worship in general) is the failure to attribute political and social responsibility to class, as opposed to the "great leader"



The difference between Stalin and the Rockefellers, Ford, etc. was that the former engaged in a series of strategic deals in order to buy time to prepare for the Nazi offensive. The latter, on the other hand, traded with Hitler merely to increase their own profits.

Stalin was trying to benefit his "one state" socialism. He was a nation builder, not a principled Communist.

[PhoenixAsh]

It is interesting that you subscribe to the anarchist school of thought. Let me share with you a pertinent quote from Stalin's critique Anarchism or Socialism:

Clearly, there are two kinds of dictatorship. There is the dictatorship of the minority, the dictatorship of a small group, the dictatorship of the Trepovs and Ignatyevs, which is directed against the people. This kind of dictatorship is usually headed by a camarilla which adopts secret decisions and tightens the noose around the neck of the majority of the people.
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists.

There is another kind of dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletarian majority, the dictatorship of the masses, which is directed against the bourgeoisie, against the minority. At the head of this dictatorship stand the masses; here there is no room either for a camarilla or for secret decisions, here everything is done openly, in the streets, at meetings—because it is the dictatorship of the street, of the masses, a dictatorship directed against all oppressors.

Marxists support this kind of dictatorship "with both hands"—and that is because such a dictatorship is the magnificent beginning of the great socialist revolution.

Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day.

Anarchists have always wittingly or unwittingly undermined the cause of the proletariat. As Lenin stated during the suppression of the reactionary Kronstadt movement:

I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia—a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire.

I hold no ill will towards any anarchists, but they must come to accept that their politics are counterproductive if not outright counterrevolutionary.

Ok. Well I am of the opinion that the Bolsheviks utlimately were class traitors who worked diamterically opposed to the interests fo the working class and were instrumental in establishing a capitalist dictatorship. Now...this may be putting it a little charged...but that is basically the analysis of the development of the Bolshevik coup over the proletariat to the end to the revolution and the fall of the Soviet Union in one sentence.


Now...you do realize that the critizism of the contemporary Anarchists against the Bolsheviks is what actually also did happen...right? So the fact that you even think that you hold some higher ground to Anarchists based on a political analysis of a situation your political party willfully ran into the ground is...well...comical.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Stalin is right, because Stalin said so, you guise!

How is that any worse than the Trotsky worshippers who say Trotsky was right because Trotsky said so. At least Stalin paved the way for communist revolutions in Eastern Europe, China, and Southeast Asia. What have the Trotskyites to show for all their efforts? I know! They elected someone to the Seattle City Council. The formation of the Glorious People's Republic of Washington is literally days away.

[motion denied]

If you call disarming workers and killing communists and the stablishment of People's Democracies a "communist revolution," sure. Stalinists paved the way for eurocommunism, brat.

Anyway, you have nothing to offer for the working class today. Maybe an ideological justification for peasant revanchism and late modernization of peripheral countries. You belong in a museum, LOL.

[consuming negativity]

Anarchists have always wittingly or unwittingly undermined the cause of the proletariat. As Lenin stated during the suppression of the reactionary Kronstadt movement:

I believe that there are only two kinds of government possible in Russia—a Government by the Soviets or a Government headed by a tsar. Some fools or traitors in Kronstadt talked of a Constituent Assembly, but does any man in his senses believe for a moment that a Constituent Assembly at this critical abnormal stage would be anything but a bear garden. This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire.

wow. great analogy there, lenin

"think of us like the british empire and kronstadt like the irish [fighting back against our racism, subjugation, and exploitation]"

will do :rolleyes:

---

this thread had a lot of potential to be interesting but now you assholes are ruining it by turning it into another "ussr good vs ussr bad" thread and honestly don't you think we've had enough of those?

[Tim Redd]

...I mean if he was a committed socialist, why didn't he just give up and go home after it failed? Why did he make up some contradictory "socialism in one country" to justify his rule. The power hungry argument just seems kind of odd given what I mentioned in my first post.

I don't get why Trotsky adherents and others "think socialism in one country" is an abomination. To me it demonstrates irrational judgement to the power of 10.

Nearly every country or locale has a proletarian revolutionary movement that conceivably may have success seizing power from the capitalists. Does anyone with half a brain think that such an event can be lined up to happen simultaneously worldwide? For the most part, it's highly unlikely that the seizure of power in each country or locale can be aligned to happen at the same time.

Where seizure of power occurs in one place, or a handful of places and not in others, the successful movement(s), using various strategies, would typically attempt to facilitate and extend the seizure of power in as many places as possible.

Does anyone in their right mind think the revolution that has been successful should throw in the towel and allow capitalism to reign because proletarian movements have not occurred or have only occurred in much than the majority of other countries and locales?

Does it make sense where the proletarian movement has seized power not to implement as much of a socialist society as possible? Does it not make sense for such a society to go about the tasks of liberating the masses from oppression and exploitation? Does anyone doubt that a successful proletarian movement in one country shouldn't implement a program of ending or mitigating oppression and exploitation in the workplace, with respect to gender, with respect to race, with respect to sexual preference as well as to eliminate, or mitigate a myriad of other kinds of oppression?

How or why in the world should we fail to do these things given that the proletariat has state power in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat? When do actual events and possibilities to serve the masses and strengthen the revolutionary movement trump the religious, dogma that "socialism can't exist in on country"?

Just as the USSR did, in all kind of ways, the successful movement should be supporting the goals and activity of the other currently non-successful proletarian movements. And of course the newly successful movement should get aid and provide aid to places where the proletariat is already in power.

Maoists like me understand that the specific higher stage of communism that emerges from socialism after much class struggle can not come into being until at least a majority of the developed countries and locales have had experienced successful seizures of power by the proletariat. And again crucially they are advancing socialism via both local and global cultural revolutions that target the bourgeoisie right in the state and the party.

This is the logical, mature way to deal with the fact socialism may arise in one locale before others. Why would anyone think the proletariat should give up the opportunity advance the worldwide proletarian movement by being opposed to the existence of socialism in country or locale?

[PhoenixAsh]

except it completely failed. There was never any proletarian power. There was the power and the domination of the proletariat by the party.

[motion denied]

You're shitting on Trotsky for all the wrong reasons.

It is not a matter of want, that's just plain voluntarism. It is a matter of possibility: it can't. As Marx puts it, "Just as the workers thought they would be able to emancipate themselves side by side with the bourgeoisie, so they thought they would be able to consummate a proletarian revolution within the national walls of France, side by side with the remaining bourgeois nations. But French relations of production are conditioned by the foreign trade of France, by her position on the world market and the laws thereof; how was France to break them without a European revolutionary war, which would strike back at the despot of the world market, England?" (Class Struggles in France).

Already by 1848 Marx envisioned the objective impossiblity of socialism in one country; and think about it, today countries are much more co-dependent. There he talks only of England and France!

The seizure of power is only the beginning of the task - because it's not a political revolution, but a social one.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

I don't get why Trotsky adherents and others "think socialism in one country" is an abomination. To me it demonstrates irrational judgement to the power of 10.

Nearly every country or locale has a proletarian revolutionary movement that conceivably may have success seizing power from the capitalists. Does anyone with half a brain think that such an event can be lined up to happen simultaneously worldwide? For the most part, it's highly unlikely that the seizure of power in each country or locale can be aligned to happen at the same time.

Where seizure of power occurs in one place, or a handful of places and not in others, the successful movement(s), using various strategies, would typically attempt to facilitate and extend the seizure of power in as many places as possible.

Does anyone in their right mind think the revolution that has been successful should throw in the towel and allow capitalism to reign because proletarian movements have not occurred or have only occurred in much than the majority of other countries and locales?

Does it make sense where the proletarian movement has seized power not to implement as much of a socialist as possible? Does it not make sense for such a society to go about the tasks of liberating the masses from oppression and exploitation. Ending or mitigating oppression and exploitation in the workplace, with respect to gender, with respect to race and with respect to sexual preference as a myriad of other kinds of oppression?

How or why in the world should we fail to do these things given that the proletariat has state power in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat? When do actual events and possibilities to serve the masses and strengthen the revolutionary movement trump the religious, dogma that "socialism can't exist in on country"?

Just as the USSR did, in all kind of ways, the successful movement should be supporting the goals and activity of the other currently non-successful proletarian movements. And of course the newly successful movement should get aid and provide aid to places where the proletariat is already in power.

Maoists like me understand that the specific higher stage of communism that emerges from socialism after much class struggle can not come into being until at least a majority of the developed countries and locales have had experienced successful seizures of power by the proletariat. And again crucially they are advancing socialism via both local and global cultural revolutions that target the bourgeoisie right in the state and the party.

This is the logical, mature way to deal with the fact socialism may arise in one locale before others. Why would anyone think the proletariat should give up the opportunity advance the worldwide proletarian movement by being opposed to the existence of socialism in country or locale?

Seriously your the only one here who gets it. The Bolsheviks engineered the Russian Revolution in 1917 because there was an upswing in revolutionary fervor during that point in history. It was not their fault that the revolutions in the rest of the world failed. This whole debate about "socialism in one country" is a nonstarter, too. Stalin wanted world revolution as much as the next communist, but it was not feasibly after the Red Army's defeat at the Battle of Warsaw. What do all these clever Trotskyites think we should have done? Keep throwing men and materials into an unwinnable battle until we deplete all of our resources? Or maybe the Bolsheviks should have simply returned Russia to the bourgeoisie and said, "Sorry about that. Could you govern this country for a few years until we are really ready to stage a revolution?" Stalin had a choice between "socialism in one country" and "socialism in no countries" and he chose the latter. I say good for him.

[MundoRojo]

Since you created this thread to find some elucidation on why a longtime activist would became a visibly shitty person in power, why only always mention Stalin? Pavel Postyshev, Yagoda, (RSDLP Bolsheviks 1904 and 1907, Wiki says)etc, even Vyshinsky was an old Menshevik labor lawyer.