USSR-Era : Was Stalin good after all ?

[Nicco]

Good afternoon, fellow Comrades!
I'm new to this site and I quickly saw that a lot of people spoke about Stalin like he was a very good guy. I mean he did push the economy of the state, but he still was a ruthless dictator and murderer. I was just wondering how all these Stalin-supporters justify his actions.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Supporters of Stalin argue (rightly so) that the image portrayed of the Soviet Union during his time as leader is ideologically skewed by capitalist media, education, etc.

"History is written by the victors," as they say.

That said, they fall into the trap of "realism" and argue that certain actions against genuine socialists (or even just political opponents who otherwise shared many of his core ideas) were actually instances of pragmatism. This is done in the name of communism, which would arrive at some point in the future when the vanguard decides the vanguard is no longer needed.

The idea that you can have "socialism in one country" is peddled by Stalin's supporters. This started as a reflection in theory of the need for Stalin to maintain an aesthetic of "socialism" in the USSR, once the revolution failed to spread further internationally.

Rather than the harbinger's of genuine revolution, actual socialists are portrayed from this perspective as idealistic agents of discord in the "socialist State."

[ComradeAllende]

It depends on how you look at the evolution of Russian society after Stalin took power. On the one hand, Stalin's crash-industrialization programmes greatly increased productivity and made the Soviet Union an industrial superpower, without which it would have fallen victim (like so many other countries) to the Nazi Blitzkrieg. On the other hand, the Stalinist regime led to endless purges within the CCCP and the Comintern, stifling intellectual creativity and leading to the deaths of millions. In addition, Stalin's collectivization programme led to immense suffering and poverty for the peasants, most of whom were not wealthy and well-connected kulaks (despite Stalin's claims to the contrary). Indeed, his "reforms" to Soviet agriculture (including support for the pseudo-scientific banterings of Lysenko Trofim) paralleled the primitive phase of capitalist accumulation in their devastating effects on the population (starvation, cannibalism, political persecution, etc) and rivaled them only in its rapidness (due to the need for quick industrialization) and absolute number of victims.

[Pancakes Rühle]

The leader of a state capitalist nation. A member of the ruling state-bourgeois class. Not good.

[khad]

This is a passage from Sergei Kara-Murza's Soviet Civilization, a history which the author tells inflected with his own personal experience of having grown up in the 40s.



The war strengthened the so-called “moral-political unity” of Soviet society (totalitarianism), the symbol of which continued to be the cult of personality of Joseph Stalin. Since we are talking about a cult [italics used by author], i.e. something irrational, is just as pointless to try and explain it the youth of the early 21st century as it is to try and explain the sources of religious belief to an atheist. However, that generation should understand that the cult of personality really did exist half a century ago and had a huge influence on the actions of the government and the life of the people. Not only that, it appears that “mass cults” of a constant size exist in every generation (for example, in the 1940s no one believed in astrology and there wasn’t a “cult of the dollar.”).

* In response to this solidarity with the state a principle of continuous, if modest, improvement in the living standards of the population, was made in government policy for the two decades of support. This was shown, for instance, in the significant and regular decreases in prices (13 times in 6 years, from 1946 to 1950 bread prices were halved twice and meat made cheaper by a factor of 2 ½ times.) It was in this period in particular that a confidence in the future and a conviction that life could only get better became central ideas in Soviet mass consciousness and contributed to the strengthening of the Soviet government.

A magnification of the financial system, closely connected with central planning, of the state allowed this to occur. To preserve this system the USSR made the important step of the refusing to enter the IMF and the World Band of Reconstruction and Development and on March 1st, 1950 left the dollar zone entirely and began basing its valuation of the ruble on a gold standard. Large gold reserves were created in the USSR and the ruble was made unconvertible allowing a maintenance of very low internal prices and preventing inflation.

* The reestablishment of industry and cities, just like the industrialization of the 30s, came at the expense of the countryside the resources of which were being taken till the 50s. Purchasing prices on agricultural products stayed at prewar levels but prices on products for the towns and villages grew multiple times. The kholhozes supplied half of their production to the state. The war lowered by a third the number of able-bodied peasants and especially those with an education. A strengthening of the kholhozes in 1949-50 was meant to improve their administration. *

In 1946, not long after the end of the war an external factor arose that determined the main criteria for state operations in the legislative development and practice of the ideological and repressive organs, viz. the Cold War [it. CKM]. An inaccurate portrayal of the Cold War was created in society’s mind both in Soviet and present times (in the USSR due to a drive to de-escalate the situation and today in the hopes of becoming closer with the West). Now that documents out of US archives from the initial stages of the Cold War have been released it’s obvious that it really was a war [it. CKM] and with a defined goal of destroying the USSR and the Soviet state. The military doctrine prescribed the implementation of the two parallel programs: an arms race aimed at exhausting the Soviet economy and an ideological manipulation of upper members of the party-state nomenklatura.

Cabinet appointee under Kennedy and Truman, W. Foster justified the doubling of American military expenditures by saying that “this will take away a third of the very limited consumer goods at the disposal of the Russian people.” In 1965 George Keenan, the author of the Cold War concept, observed that NATO goals could not be achieved “without an absolute military defeat of the Soviet Union or a fantastic, incomprehensible, and unlikely overthrow in the political directions of its leaders.” The first program was neutralized by the USSR, the second one turned out to be successful and carried the West to victory. Vulnerable points were found in the Soviet system.

Even in the immediate postwar Reconstruction period the first program (arms race) was already requiring a reworking of the type of work done in state agencies to deal with two contradictory issues: 1) a conversion of the massive military-industrial complex built up in the war to achieve the quickest modernization of the economy; 2) the creation of two principally new weapons systems that would guarantee national security of the country: nuclear weapons and invulnerable means for their delivery (ballistic missiles). The work of a large number of institutions started to coalesce in inter-branched earmarked programs. This was a qualitatively new type of state administration, although it wasn’t so much the structure of the separate organs changing as their functions. These changes had a more structural effect that was less noticeable, but the state is a system and process within it not any less important than its structure. [ital. SKM]

Having raised the technical level of civilian sectors military industry was rapidly converted and also able to then itself move on to creating new military production. The People’s Commissariat [PC here on] of military reserves was remade into the PC for agricultural machinery. The PC for mine weaponry into the PC for machinery and equipment, the PC for tank production into one of transport machinery, and so on (in 1946 the PC were renamed as Ministries). For the administration of reconstruction work over several years special ministries (including a branching off from the NKVD’s building organizations) were created: a PC for the building of heavy enterprise firms, a PC for the creation of fuel and energy firms, and others. In 1950 the USSR founded Gosstroi.

The economic geography of the country was radically altered as a result of the wartime industrial evacuation eastward and the destruction of 32 thousand industrial enterprises in the occupation and fighting in the European part of the USSR. Immediately after the war there was a corresponding reorganization in economic administration such that along with a sectoral principle of planning a territorial one began. It was aimed at making the administrative organs closer to the enterprises and pursuant of this the ministries were divided: during the war there were 25, in 1947 there were 34. For instance, coal-mining was divided between eastern and western PCs for coal production. The PCs for the oil industry were similarly divided.

At the end of the first period a reversal occurred and the ministries were re-strengthened (out of 24, 11 remained). In so far as production and the technology for production was advancing across more sectors of the economy, the distribution of the economy’s resources to administrative “branches” was becoming all the more difficult. The 1953 reorganization failed to produce an effect, and at the beginning of 1954 the ministries were again divided (in 1954 there were 11).

Some of the changes were connected with the new international situation. A world socialist system composed of the 13 countries had emerged. In 1949 an intergovernmental economic organization of socialist countries was created: the Council for Economic Mutual Aid. The state apparatus of the USSR began fulfilling a totally new function of coordinating work of the international system, both in the civilian, as in the military sector (in 1949 NATO was formed, in 1955 the Warsaw Pact). *

The emergence of a bipolar system massively influenced the falling apart of the colonial system. On October 1st, 1949 the People’s Republic of China was formed. More and more non-aligned countries were emerging and many of them declared a socialist orientation and sought cooperation with the USSR. This markedly expanded the international activity of the Soviet state. The State Committee for foreign economic relations created in 1957 became very significant.

Maintaining the arms race seemed pointless (in the West the USSR was being called a “nation of widows and invalids” at that time) and the most important part of the governing ideology became the struggle for peace. This was reflected in the area of civil rights as well. In 1951 the law “In defense of the peace” was enacted which declared any pro-war propaganda to be a serious crime and anyone convicted of violating this law would be handed over to the court to be considered as dangerous criminals. In 1965 an additional law was added to this affect, viz. the order “On the punishment of individuals guilty of crimes against the peace and humanity and war crimes irrespective of the time they were committed.”

The experience of state-building from 1945 to 1953 demonstrated how difficult a problem it was to move away from program of mobilization and totalitarian ordering of society. Inside the organs of state and the administrative departments there were some simple changes made—the ranks established for the war were abolished and the class warfare and revolutionary symbols were taken away. In the same vein right after the war the State Defense Committee and the General Headquarters of the Supreme High Command were discontinued. 8.5 million people were demobilized from the army and its numbers reduced to 2.8 million. In 1946 the Red Army was renamed the Soviet Army.

There were even special organs created for dealing with issues specifically incurred from the war. That’s how the Presiding Administration of the SNK USSR on repatriation was created. During the war 5.6 million people were forcefully taken to Germany for work. 2.8 million of them died there and 2.6 million were repatriated. One of the first clashes of the “Cold War” occurred with the violation of the agreement on repatriation by the governments of the US, England, and France. They detained (and not only with anti-Soviet propaganda but with force as well) 45l.5 thousand “non-returners” who made up the “second emigration” from the USSR.

However, the structural and procedural order of the governing system did not change in appearance. Its reconstruction under the influence of changes in the political situation and the general culture moved slowly and gradually without noisy effects. Major repressions were no longer occurring and actually it wasn’t possible for them to occur but there were regressions (“the Leningrad Affair,” “the Doctors’ Plot,” etc.). The range of “alternative thought” permitted began to be cautiously expanded. An important moment of this was the appearance of Stalin’s work “Marxism and Linguistics.” The main point of the work was that the ideas of N.Ya. Marr, who was the leading Marxist theoretician of linguistics, did not possess a monopoly on the truth. This process of liberalization was accompanied by ideological conflicts that the state got pulled into as well (e.g. the defeat of T.D. Lysenko’s molecular genetics group and other weaker attempts to repress opponents in different scientific fields.)

The judicial organs were reoriented for working in peacetime conditions with the usual procedural policies. In 1948-1949 the first direct elections for people’s courts and jurors were held. In the field of criminal law those years saw a harshening of sentences being given in connection with the increase in crime that was taking place in the conditions of postwar disorder and with the difficulties of adjusting to normal life and work. In 1947, for the third time in Soviet history the death penalty was abolished (it was replaced by a 25 year sentence in corrective labor camps), although, in 1950 it was reinstituted in connection with traitors to the homeland, spies, and espionage agents. The laws “On criminal responsibility for the making and selling of moonshine,” on the increased criminal responsibility for rape, and for premeditated murder were passed in 1948 (the first 2) and 1954.

[Han]

"The idea that you can have "socialism in one country" is peddled by Stalin's supporters. This started as a reflection in theory of the need for Stalin to maintain an aesthetic of "socialism" in the USSR, once the revolution failed to spread further internationally."

As I understand the issue for the socialists in USSR at the time the question was rather if they were going to build socialism with what they had, or wait for the main capitalist nations to fall. Most in the USSR wanted to build socialism as best as they could. I do not agree with this being "aesthetics" at all, it was yes or no to the question of building socialism or keep capitalism until whenever. They did choose to build socialism with some luck and some fails.

It follows that those wanting to actually build socialism rather than wait would be sceptical to those "actual socialists" proposing not to build socialism yet. This went on to the point were many of the supposed "actual socialists" did work against socialism and even cooperated with hostile capitalist and fascist states like Germany and Japan, until the purges and the moscow trials. Have in mind this was in very tense times and Germany did in fact invade Soviet Union only a few year later. It also follows that many of the "actual socialists" did have good conditions for being populare in the capitalist states.

I think the defence of the soviet leadership at the time, including Stalin, and the question of "socialism in one country" is somewhere around these lines.

[GLF]

Comrade Stalin was an internationalist. The problem is that international communism cannot exist until international capitalism fall. Comrade Stalin understood this. Socialism in one country was a necessary reform, and quite logical given the circumstances of the time. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a liar, warmonger and traitor to the movement.

I don't understand why people have such a problem with Stalin. If it weren't for him, the entire world would be the "Fasci Collective", we'd all be a bunch of blond cyborgs with hive mentality speaking an electronic form of German.

[Cactus]

this website should be renamed, sjwleft.

[GLF]

this website should be renamed, sjwleft.

Are you fucking serious? Communism IS social justice, so there is no conflict here.

As for "SJW", that's a right wing snarl word. Yes, we acknowledge that capitalism has caused racial and gender inequality. That doesn't make us panderers of identity politics as your comment would imply.

SJW used as an insult on revleft. Fuck me running.

[Anthony]

Stalin was a further right wing deviation from the Leninist-Bolshevik right wing deviation. Main stream Marxism towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th devolved into vanguardism in the Russian Context because the material conditions there were ripe for revolution, but not for socialism (as Marx well knew; which is why he prophesied revolt in England and Germany, the most developed capitalist countries). When that revolution was won in a decidedly un-proletarian fashion, and other countries did not follow suit; internationalism was proceeded by Stalins feudalistic 'socialism in one country'. Stalins USSR was the natural ending point for a revolution which was from the beginning a betrayal of left wing principles.

The terror of his state was as cannibalistic as it was decimating, and often it appeared to be nothing more than a random culling. As a mass murderer his credentials are impeachable. The inherent racism of collectivisation and relocation of ethnic nations was his alone, as much as the caprice of Beria exacerbated their horrors.

I find it frustrating when people defend him as necessary against fascism: Russia has historically been a geographic bulwark against the oversized ambitions of undersized continental self-proclaimed emperors. Furthermore its military may well have been more prepared for blitzkrieg if commanded by a man who was not convinced that Hitler was a man of honour who would keep his word as well as the Molotov-Rippentropp pact.

Russia before WW1 was also experiencing an unprecedented spurt of industrial development and there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't have continued under the tutelage of the Bourgeois rather than comrade Stalin's feudalistic State-Capitalism.

[sans-culotte]

Comrade Stalin was an internationalist. The problem is that international communism cannot exist until international capitalism fall. Comrade Stalin understood this. Socialism in one country was a necessary reform, and quite logical given the circumstances of the time. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a liar, warmonger and traitor to the movement.

I've always been interested in hearing a robust defense of Stalin. I must admit that I come from a Trotskyist point of view, but I'd like to have a genuine exchange of views as opposed to a heated debate about the ghosts of the past.

I can see where your opinion that "Socialism in One Country" was a necessary shift in strategy following the failure of international revolution in Western Europe. It was apparent that there would need to be a change in order to save the Soviet Union, but I wonder if that was truly the wisest of measures? I think, ultimately, Stalin has done far more damage to the communist movement internationally and domestically than any capitalist figure in history. The purges, the repressive state, and the bureaucracy that asserted itself as the ruling class made the Soviet Union hardly a worker's state.

As to the Fascist threat, I don't think that Stalin is entirely to thank for saving the world. Had the purges not happened, the Red Army would have been a stronger organization and the Soviets would have been far more proactive against the Nazis. Similarly, I think that the Soviet contribution to the Spanish Civil War was as constructive as it was deconstructive. The sectarianism was what killed the Republic and allowed Franco to come into place.

While trying to avoid any manner of hero worship, I dare say history would have smiled upon international communism had Trotsky come into power. The legacy of the Soviet Union is the greatest example of the damage that Stalin did to the Party and the Soviet state than any exterior force. The inherent contradictions of a worker's state with a ruling bureaucratic class led to the Soviet collapse, in my opinion. Instead of organic workplace democracy, and actual communal councils, we had top-down socialism. We need only look to the Premiers of the Soviet Union to see this plain truth. There were no young leaders, there was no diversity. Merely bureaucrat after bureaucrat.

Could you elaborate why you believe Trotsky was a warmonger and a traitor? I imagine you mean the theory of Permanent Revolution, but I do find it curious that a Stalinist should decry war and violence.

[GLF]

I've always been interested in hearing a robust defense of Stalin. I must admit that I come from a Trotskyist point of view, but I'd like to have a genuine exchange of views as opposed to a heated debate about the ghosts of the past.

I can see where your opinion that "Socialism in One Country" was a necessary shift in strategy following the failure of international revolution in Western Europe. It was apparent that there would need to be a change in order to save the Soviet Union, but I wonder if that was truly the wisest of measures? I think, ultimately, Stalin has done far more damage to the communist movement internationally and domestically than any capitalist figure in history. The purges, the repressive state, and the bureaucracy that asserted itself as the ruling class made the Soviet Union hardly a worker's state.

As to the Fascist threat, I don't think that Stalin is entirely to thank for saving the world. Had the purges not happened, the Red Army would have been a stronger organization and the Soviets would have been far more proactive against the Nazis. Similarly, I think that the Soviet contribution to the Spanish Civil War was as constructive as it was deconstructive. The sectarianism was what killed the Republic and allowed Franco to come into place.

While trying to avoid any manner of hero worship, I dare say history would have smiled upon international communism had Trotsky come into power. The legacy of the Soviet Union is the greatest example of the damage that Stalin did to the Party and the Soviet state than any exterior force. The inherent contradictions of a worker's state with a ruling bureaucratic class led to the Soviet collapse, in my opinion. Instead of organic workplace democracy, and actual communal councils, we had top-down socialism. We need only look to the Premiers of the Soviet Union to see this plain truth. There were no young leaders, there was no diversity. Merely bureaucrat after bureaucrat.

Could you elaborate why you believe Trotsky was a warmonger and a traitor? I imagine you mean the theory of Permanent Revolution, but I do find it curious that a Stalinist should decry war and violence.I am actually not a Stalinist. I'm not really anything, and to call myself anything would be to give myself too much credit. I still have much to learn first about communism and it's offshoots. As of now I am attracted to the ideas of Mao Zedong. I do not think I could be a Stalinist because I don't believe Stalinism is relevant. It was needed for the time but times change.

It's not just that Trotsky wanted to put Russian resources into sabotaging and waging proxy wars against the rest of the world (which would have gotten Russia destroyed in no time had they tried), but long after his falling out with Stalin, Trotsky actually suggested that Russia should attack Germany before Hitler had a chance to take the reigns. A communist should never, ever suggest going to war unless directly attacked. Our war is with the capitalist class in our own nations, not against the proles of other nations. In commenting that Russia should launch a preemptive strike against Germany he showed his true colors.

If Trotsky had his way, Russia would've rolled into Germany with tanks - before a single shot had been fired. Of course, Stalin on the other hand wouldn't attack Germany even after being attacked until he took at least a day to make sure it was a direct attack ordered by Hitler. Why? Because Comrade Stalin was a true communist and not a warmonger and traitor to the Third (and final) International!

And I still maintain that the entire world owes Stalin a debt of gratitude.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A communist should never, ever suggest going to war unless directly attacked. Our war is with the capitalist class in our own nations, not against the proles of other nations. In commenting that Russia should launch a preemptive strike against Germany he showed his true colors.


The bourgeoisie are a global force however, not one committed to the borders of a single nation.


If Trotsky had his way, Russia would've rolled into Germany with tanks - before a single shot had been fired. Of course, Stalin on the other hand wouldn't attack Germany even after being attacked until he took at least a day to make sure it was a direct attack ordered by Hitler. Why? Because Comrade Stalin was a true communist and not a warmonger and traitor to the Third (and final) International!

That's an odd argument to make, considering the millions of Russians, Jews, Roma, LGBT, Leftist, Disabled, Spaniards, Germans, Brits, Frenchmen, Italians, Americans, Ethiopians etc died in wars or genocide due to the fascist powers.

[sans-culotte]

It's not just that Trotsky wanted to put Russian resources into sabotaging and waging proxy wars against the rest of the world (which would have gotten Russia destroyed in no time had they tried), but long after his falling out with Stalin, Trotsky actually suggested that Russia should attack Germany before Hitler had a chance to take the reigns. A communist should never, ever suggest going to war unless directly attacked. Our war is with the capitalist class in our own nations, not against the proles of other nations. In commenting that Russia should launch a preemptive strike against Germany he showed his true colors.
That sounds like a very isolationist philosophy. While I agree that wars of aggression isn't something that should be aspired to, I do believe that any worker's state should be compelled to launch wars to defend the international working class. As History has shown, a more pro-active approach against Hitler and Nazism could have prevented the deaths of millions.

I think that there is wisdom in avoiding aspirations to Empire, but a genuine worker's state cannot be imperialist in nature. It's critical to support working people that choose armed revolution. Or, in certain situations, combat fascism in the only way possible.


If Trotsky had his way, Russia would've rolled into Germany with tanks - before a single shot had been fired. Of course, Stalin on the other hand wouldn't attack Germany even after being attacked until he took at least a day to make sure it was a direct attack ordered by Hitler. Why? Because Comrade Stalin was a true communist and not a warmonger and traitor to the Third (and final) International!

And I still maintain that the entire world owes Stalin a debt of gratitude.
How could Stalin be considered an internationalist with the dissolution of the Comintern? Indeed, consider all the bloodshed that could have been avoided had history taken a different turn and the Holocaust and the Great Purges never occurred. Moreover, what of this "Great Patriotic War"? To me, anyone in the Marxist tradition should abhor conflating communism and nationalism. Stalin was a chauvinist and an opportunist. Trotsky was arrogant and certainly made bad decisions, e.g. Kronstadt, but at the end of the day I think this is a situation international socialism must confront before we can ever truly have a United Front or real stake in the fate of the West.

[GLF]

The bourgeoisie are a global force however, not one committed to the borders of a single nation.

That's a good point. Unfortunately, when waging war against another State, those who pay the price are not the bourgeoisie but those forced to take up arms and fight. And I believe with all my heart that revolution can only come about in individual nations one at a time. When you attack another nation, the workers, still bound to god and country by the various social institutions, are alienated against their "liberators". As communists I believe it's our duty to work within our own nations. Capitalism will eventually fall to an ever growing communist bloc. You cannot force it, it happens on it's own, and as communists we should encourage it and fan the flames. Not pick up guns and go shooting at the proles of other nations because that's insanity.


That sounds like a very isolationist philosophy. While I agree that wars of aggression isn't something that should be aspired to, I do believe that any worker's state should be compelled to launch wars to defend the international working class. As History has shown, a more pro-active approach against Hitler and Nazism could have prevented the deaths of millions.

I think that there is wisdom in avoiding aspirations to Empire, but a genuine worker's state cannot be imperialist in nature. It's critical to support working people that choose armed revolution. Or, in certain situations, combat fascism in the only way possible.


How could Stalin be considered an internationalist with the dissolution of the Comintern? Indeed, consider all the bloodshed that could have been avoided had history taken a different turn and the Holocaust and the Great Purges never occurred. Moreover, what of this "Great Patriotic War"? To me, anyone in the Marxist tradition should abhor conflating communism and nationalism. Stalin was a chauvinist and an opportunist. Trotsky was arrogant and certainly made bad decisions, e.g. Kronstadt, but at the end of the day I think this is a situation international socialism must confront before we can ever truly have a United Front or real stake in the fate of the West.

You make some good points. And in retrospect it's always easy to look back and say what could or could not have been prevented. Let me again say that I am not a Stalinist. I don't agree with Stalinism but I do understand and am sympathetic to the position he was forced into. Trotsky I believe was wrong in his approach, but who knows, maybe I will change my mind as I continue to read and learn. It just seems to me that people on the outside looking in have a luxury that people in positions of responsibility do not have. It's very easy to say what should or should not be done. In the end I believe Russia was better off because of the actions of Comrade Stalin. Trotsky wasn't as concerned with Russia as much as the idea of some international revolution that just did not exist or was even close to existing at that time. Sometimes one in the hand is worth more than several in the bush. Stalin understood it, Trotsky didn't. That's my understanding but I could be wrong. I'm just throwing my ideas out there and trying to learn.

[sans-culotte]

That's a good point. Unfortunately, when waging war against another State, those who pay the price are not the bourgeoisie but those forced to take up arms and fight. And I believe with all my heart that revolution can only come about in individual nations one at a time. When you attack another nation, the workers, still bound to god and country by the various social institutions, are alienated against their "liberators". As communists I believe it's our duty to work within our own nations. Capitalism will eventually fall to an ever growing communist bloc. You can force it, it happens on it's own, and as communists we should encourage it and fan the flames. Not pick up guns and go shooting at the proles of other nations because that's insanity.
I will say that your heart is in the right place. I totally agree that wars of aggression are something that even a worker's state should engage in only carefully and when it is of the utmost importance. In the case of Nazi Germany or Daesh this is entirely justified. Moreover, look to the end result of Socialism in One Country, the Soviet Union is dead and even Maoist China is a distant memory. International revolution is critical and should be priority number one for any worker's state.



You make some good points. And in retrospect it's always easy to look back and say what could or could not have been prevented. Let me again say that I am not a Stalinist. I don't agree with Stalinism but I do understand and am sympathetic to the position he was forced into. Trotsky I believe was wrong in his approach, but who knows, maybe I will change my mind as I continue to read and learn. It just seems to me that people on the outside looking in have a luxury that people in positions of responsibility do not have. It's very easy to say what should or should not be done. In the end I believe Russia was better off because of the actions of Comrade Stalin. Trotsky wasn't as concerned with Russia as much as the idea of some international revolution that just did not exist or was even close to existing at that time. Sometimes one in the hand is worth more than several in the bush. Stalin understood it, Trotsky didn't. That's my understanding but I could be wrong. I'm just throwing my ideas out there and trying to learn.
I understand where you're coming from when you say that you're sympathetic to Stalin, but I believe it's our duty to learn the lessons of history. I don't blame our forefathers for their mistakes, and I can see how I could have found myself supporting Socialism in One Country if I had been alive at the time.

I will say that I think the view you have of Stalin is a symptom of the Russian chauvinism that Stalin exploited and fostered. No nationality should be upheld or defended any more than the next. Looking through the lens of history, does Trotsky not stand vindicated? One must remember that socialism can only exist on a global scale and indeed without a revolutionary western Europe to aid the USSR it did indeed revert back to capitalism.

I think you've got a very analytical mind and it's great that we can have a genuine exchange of ideas instead of just arguing to prove a point. What has your reading experience been so far? I've been a Marxist going on 10 years now and I have a lot of recommendations for you if you'd like. Go check out the Marxists Internet Archive and see what Trotsky had to say.

[GLF]

Thanks. I agree that you make some very good points. I will always carefully consider my positions and it's good that we can have a conversation that's constructive - something unfortunately rare on political discussion boards. I also think you might be right about how I can be influenced by the wrong things...such as finding aesthetics of Soviet Russia intoxicating. Not to the point of losing sight of the bigger picture, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't there, so I do find it interesting you'd bring that up.

As for my reading. Not nearly enough, sadly. Aside from the obvious works by Marx/Engels (which are hard reads for me), most of my reading consists of articles and periodicals. Here is a really good site with a lot of resources that you can get lost in for hours (every now and then you can find some pretty interesting stuff):

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/periodicals/archive/

And if you have any recommendations, I'm all ears.

[sans-culotte]

Thanks. I agree that you make some very good points. I will always carefully consider my positions and it's good that we can have a conversation that's constructive - something unfortunately rare on political discussion boards. I also think you might be right about how I can be influenced by the wrong things...such as finding aesthetics of Soviet Russia intoxicating. Not to the point of losing sight of the bigger picture, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't there, so I do find it interesting you'd bring that up.
Constructive dialogue is something that's lacking in Marxist circles generally speaking, in my experience. Sectarianism, more than anything else, is anathema to the worker's struggle.


As for my reading. Not nearly enough, sadly. Aside from the obvious works by Marx/Engels (which are hard reads for me), most of my reading consists of articles and periodicals. Here is a really good site with a lot of resources that you can get lost in for hours:


And if you have any recommendations, I'm all ears.

I understand that Marx and Engels can be a bit hard to read, my girlfriend has the same issue. Now, what I'll give a list of recommendations that have proved central to my understanding of Marxist theory.

Lenin's The State and Revolution was absolutely central to my development as a Marxist and the most influential book I've ever read. Following that I'd recommend you read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed and The Permanent Revolution. Following those two, look through the Selected Works section for both Lenin and Trotsky. I also recommend Jacobin magazine's ABCs of Socialism. Absolutely free online and a much easier read than any of the aforementioned.

Sorry for not hyperlinking, apparently I need to post 25 times before I can include links in my posts!

[GLF]

Wow, thanks a lot. Already familiar with The State and Revolution but I'll give it a second look. I'll also check out the ABCs of socialism even though Jacobin are, I believe, democratic socialists and support Corbyn and Sanders. In any case, thank you!

[Sea]

Are you fucking serious? Communism IS social justice, so there is no conflict here.

As for "SJW", that's a right wing snarl word. Yes, we acknowledge that capitalism has caused racial and gender inequality. That doesn't make us panderers of identity politics as your comment would imply.

SJW used as an insult on revleft. Fuck me running.I use it too and so does one of my anarchist friends. The ban witch-hunt against racists, fascists, homophones etc. justifies the categorization, I think.

[sans-culotte]

While I'm not particularly fond of censorship of ideas, I must confess to a certain degree that censorship of ideas is not only sensible, but necessary. There is no purpose in giving fascism or Nazism a podium, there can be no value in that which we know is rotten to the core and will cause only misery. Having said that, I don't agree with drowning out all voices of opposition. Ultimately, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone on the left to use it as it empowers the creators of the word and it will have a rightist connotation for the foreseeable future.

[GLF]

Absolutely. "SJW" is used by the far-right to mock their opponents.

I do find it kind of odd that I've never once been called that anywhere, and I've been in a lot of arguments with right wingers (and left-wingers too). I am probably going to shock a lot of you with what I'm about to say, but the truth is that many of you would be amazed at how a few of the people on the "far-right" seem to be open to our ideas once you put down the identity politics and browbeating buzz words and relate to them along economical lines. Now obviously there should never be any tolerance for what these people believe and some are genuinely beyond all hope of reaching, but I've had some engaging conversations with a few of them in the past and they came to respect me as a person and as a socialist.

I guess my point is that we are letting the centre-left define the national conversation on these social issues and it's costing us big time. There are a ton of ways people of color and other minorities are harmed by capitalism. But the answer is not in reforming a system that's inherently unfixable and the centre-left only do more damage in the long run with solutions that only push people further apart.

[Ben Weissman]

Comrade Stalin was an internationalist. The problem is that international communism cannot exist until international capitalism fall. Comrade Stalin understood this. Socialism in one country was a necessary reform, and quite logical given the circumstances of the time. Trotsky, on the other hand, was a liar, warmonger and traitor to the movement.

I don't understand why people have such a problem with Stalin. If it weren't for him, the entire world would be the "Fasci Collective", we'd all be a bunch of blond cyborgs with hive mentality speaking an electronic form of German.

People take issue with Stalin because he killed millions, put people in labor camps, killed political opponents and abolished basic freedoms.

[(A)]

I am probably going to shock a lot of you with what I'm about to say, but the truth is that many of you would be amazed at how a few of the people on the "far-right" seem to be open to our ideas once you put down the identity politics and browbeating buzz words and relate to them along economical lines. Now obviously there should never be any tolerance for what these people believe and some are genuinely beyond all hope of reaching, but I've had some engaging conversations with a few of them in the past and they came to respect me as a person and as a socialist.

A LOT of people on the far right... are working class whites who are on the wrong side because of the system and not because they are intrinsically evil.
The term red neck used to be a slang term for the White working class left. Literally the red on their neck was from working the field or the red socialist bandanas they wore.
The state turned the white working class against the colored working class in an effort to breed division. The Nationalist movements in America was taught to the white working poor.

How you ask. Power. See POC where not the only "slaves" in america. There where white slaves and indentured servants as well. To prevent Left Unity they gave the white workers land and freedom and tasked them to
police and brutalize the POC. They where made to be cops and capitalists themselves (Petty) so that they would serve the state and its interests and not revolt. Years later the left again unified for a brief time when revolts and Riots where replaced by
Strikes (the labor movement) and again concessions where made; to the white workers to again divide the left.

All workers left and right share a common interest in their liberation but we are constantly being preyed upon by the state and forced to fight each other like some sick game.

[CatTrap]

I think Stalin did a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things. We cannot deny the gains of the USSR, neither should we deny the major atrocities committed by Stalin.

[(A)]

Are the gains of the USSR any different then the gains of the U.S.A?

[Kamaradas]

The Soviet Union was a society which was forced into an urgent conflict with little security while having to build a new state, and had to do this while in adversity to many other nations. In this, they needed to safeguard their socialist form. Hence, plunged into this situation with little guidance on building such a society or what it should look like, they opted for a means similar to that of most other major nations, major domestic attacks and employment along with military conflict. Policies like the NEP had strengthened capitalist elements while international capital opposed them, and they were thus led to a crossroads where the only means of resisting these external forces at all was a highly exaggerated consolidation. While you may disapprove of this exact form, it was not that divergent for a new and rising nation, and allowed for them to at least display a socialist social form. They were however already highly compromised, and could not fight other nations with enough force to allow them to take on international capitalism or resist its requests, which led to alliance and eventually dissolution.

Even if they were 'state capitalist,' capitalism is not inherently public in nature, rather the opposite. Clearly they were doing something divergent, then, which is associated with socialism and not private property.

It's true that the gains of the Soviet Union were not always that much more than other nations, but they relied on similar means for their gains. Capitalist nations can make gains as well as the Soviet Union, so the change in social order is more drastic. Many new ideas end up with strict regimes, including with France: you can't just hold up an imaginary template of 'revolution' as a standard, you have to look at the aim and why it ran into limitations.

[Exterminatus]

The biggest sin of Stalinism is that it subordinated the interests of worldwide communist movement to the geopolitical interests of the Soviet Union. Let's remember Germany, Greece, Italy, France and many other important countries on the brink of revolution from 30's to 50's. Of course, if this could be the case, one has to face the question to which extent could the Soviet Union during this period be called the proletarian dictatorship? Were the interests of the Soviet state and interests of the global Communist movement compatible at that particular point? Was it even possible for Stalin to take another route (i.e. no "peaceful coexistence", more aggressive revolutionary approach etc..) without endangering the existence of the Soviet state itself (rife with it's own internal antagonisms)?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The biggest sin of Stalinism is that it subordinated the interests of worldwide communist movement to the geopolitical interests of the Soviet Union. Let's remember Germany, Greece, Italy, France and many other important countries on the brink of revolution from 30's to 50's. Of course, if this could be the case, one has to face the question to which extent could the Soviet Union during this period be called the proletarian dictatorship? Were the interests of the Soviet state and interests of the global Communist movement compatible at that particular point? Was it even possible for Stalin to take another route (i.e. no "peaceful coexistence", more aggressive revolutionary approach etc..) without endangering the existence of the Soviet state itself (rife with it's own internal antagonisms)?

It also subordinated the needs of Russian communist party members, workers and peasants to the geopolitical interests of the Soviet state. The wanton use of collective punishment as a means for social control and accumulation, for instance, which is something which was then adopted by various Soviet bloc states well after Stalin's death.

[Comrade Baugher]

I reject Stalin and see him as a traitor to the Bolsheviks. Instead of ruling in favor of the party and in favor of the people, he had his political rivals within the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, killed off. He also shared praises with Hitler. He is a traitor and ruled the USSR with fear rather than diplomacy. That is no way to lead a workers' state. A workers' state should be democratically ruled by the proletariat rather than Stalin's authoritarianism.

[(A)]

I reject Stalin and see him as a traitor to the Bolsheviks. Instead of ruling in favor of the party and in favor of the people, he had his political rivals within the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, killed off. He also shared praises with Hitler. He is a traitor and ruled the USSR with fear rather than diplomacy. That is no way to lead a workers' state. A workers' state should be democratically ruled by the proletariat rather than Stalin's authoritarianism.

The question is whether the proletariat had democratic rule over the workers state at all and even if they did... would the liberalist rule of the Worker be any better then the Liberalist rule of the Majority in the capitalistic world.

[GLF]

Everyone always bashes Stalin but no one walked in his shoes. It's so easy to call him a traitor or a Fascist masquerading as a commie but no one has had the responsibilities that he had. Until you have millions of starving people counting on you and threats both foreign and domestic conspiring against you at every turn, perhaps you should lighten up a little on Joe Steel. He may not have done the things that will cause him to be remembered fondly, but he did do that which was required. And you know what? I'm not speaking German right now, so for that I'm grateful.


I reject Stalin and see him as a traitor to the Bolsheviks. Instead of ruling in favor of the party and in favor of the people, he had his political rivals within the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, killed off. He also shared praises with Hitler. He is a traitor and ruled the USSR with fear rather than diplomacy. That is no way to lead a workers' state. A workers' state should be democratically ruled by the proletariat rather than Stalin's authoritarianism.

Those are just words. Just useless prater and self-righteous posturing.

Reality works a little bit differently. Talk of diplomacy and democracy are for revisionists and theorists with too much time on their hands. In the mean time there's a State that has to be run, and hard choices that have to be made.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Everyone always bashes Stalin but no one walked in his shoes. It's so easy to call him a traitor or a Fascist masquerading as a commie but no one has had the responsibilities that he had.


You could make the same argument for any petty monarch, too


He may not have done the things that will cause him to be remembered fondly, but he did do that which was required. And you know what? I'm not speaking German right now, so for that I'm grateful.

It is impossible to show with any certainty that Stalin was a necessary condition for stopping Hitler. As much as anything else, it is plausible that had the German communist party adopted different strategies it may have taken power instead of the Nazis. It is also plausible that the Nazi war machine would not have done as well in the first place without Soviet oil and other commodities sold to Germany, and without the hollowing out of the Red Army leadership (we forget that the Red Army was numerically superior and had good military technology in 1941, but was not nearly as well organized as the Wehrmacht.) The Red Army may have also done a little better if people in places like Ukraine did not feel so alienated from the Soviet leadership that many were willing to side with an enemy that effectively saw them as subhuman.

[(A)]

Ya who cares about freedom or you know.

The fact that he concentrated the power so that he was the head of a dictatorial power does not excuse him from doing exactly that and then doing a piss poor job.

If I was speaking Russian right now maybe you could say that it was worth it but he failed like every other.

[GLF]

I know this is really basic stuff but it still needs pointing out that "socialism in one country" is not opposed to "communism of the world". The fact of the matter is that the capitalist class are already internationals, and capitalism is a global power. Any truly communist society must therefore also be an international society. You cannot have communism in one country. But you can and must have socialism in one country if socialism is to succeed.

We would all agree that the Soviet Union were not communist, and we would likewise agree that the long term goal of the socialist movement is an international, stateless, democratic and free communist society in which the means of production is in the hands of the productive, the workers.

But in the meantime, democracy actually compromises the workers movement, particularly as it pertains to a transitional society in which the goal is to eliminate the capitalist class. Do we give these people, who wield far more influence, the power to engage in diplomacy? What good is freedom if all it equates to is the freedom to twist the knife in the back of the workers? Democracy cannot exist alongside socialism. It can, and will, exist alongside communism, but not until international capital is firmly in the hands of the international working class.

[Sloboda]

I think most Communists have a very mixed view on Stalin. Honestly, I think one of the biggest obstacles facing modern Communism is the focus on the past. So much discussion is focused on the 40's, 50's, 60's etc etc. So many Communists appear to still be in mourning for the CCCP, Yugoslavia etc.

[willowtooth]

I think most Communists have a very mixed view on Stalin. Honestly, I think one of the biggest obstacles facing modern Communism is the focus on the past. So much discussion is focused on the 40's, 50's, 60's etc etc. So many Communists appear to still be in mourning for the CCCP, Yugoslavia etc.
we suffer from romanticism

[Sloboda]

we suffer from romanticism
And of course I must admit I am guilty of this too as I'm sure you can tell by my avatar. I also identify with political "Czechoslovakism" which is definitely romanticizing the past too.

[General Winter]

he still was a ruthless dictator and murderer. I was just wondering how all these Stalin-supporters justify his actions.

The point is that Stalin was the leader of the revolution - the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles — authoritarian means.Of course,he was a ruthless dictator and murderer for the losing party,but a superhero for the victorious.Your opinion depends on what side you are.

Antistalinism is a hatred of the revolution.

[CatTrap]

I think Stalin was actually not a traitor to the Bolsheviks, despite my orientation toward Trotskyism. Stalin was simply more loyal to Lenin's ideas than Marx's ideas. Lenin himself began to construct the theory of Socialism in One Country in his writings, Stalin simply took it to it's extremes. He was more a Leninist than a Marxist, and as a Leninist, he believed that industrial mass production could've lead to the material forces of production which would make socialism possible.

That said, there is no doubt that we need to question his ethics and judgment especially with regards to the Great Purges where Bukharin and Trotsky, among countless others were exiled, killed and sent to labor camps. I also criticize his pro-fascist stances before Hitler broke the pact.

[General Winter]

that we need to question his ethics and judgment especially with regards to the Great Purges where Bukharin and Trotsky, among countless others were exiled, killed and sent to labor camps.

That's what I never understood:why should we question the principle of equality of all before law,why should we proclaim an immunity from persecution for a new elite,as if past endeavours can be an indult for any action.

[skygurl]

No in fact he regressed the cause and practically undid what Lenin stood for IMO.

He installed himself as a member of the elite, created a cult of personality around him and was a parasite to the working class. While I do admit that he was victorious against the Nazi cancer and was an accomplished wartime leader, he was awful in peacetime.

His authoritarian stance, installing mass secret police, Russian ethnic centrist policies, abuse of psychiatry and denial freedom of expression and liberty in the USSR made him proto-fascist.

That said the USSR had great potential sadly Stalin worked against it.

[Sea]

His authoritarian stance, installing mass secret police, Russian ethnic centrist policies, abuse of psychiatry and denial freedom of expression and liberty in the USSR made him proto-fascist.What's so wrong with that last one? Communism is not liberalism. Communists don't advocate for freedom as the basis of their programme, or as something upon which other goals are built. Freedom is situational and, in any event, a social construct. As the communist is an atheist, so the communist doesn't believe in being "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", etc.

A secret police service - an effective and brutal one at that! - was likewise present during Lenin's tenure.

[(A)]

What's so wrong with that last one? Communism is not liberalism. Communists don't advocate for freedom as the basis of their programme, or as something upon which other goals are built. Freedom is situational and, in any event, a social construct. As the communist is an atheist, so the communist doesn't believe in being "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", etc.

A secret police service - an effective and brutal one at that! - was likewise present during Lenin's tenure.

Communism is Anti-state (USSR) Anti-Class (Ruling class of stalin) and Anti-Money (Soviet ruble).

Saying Stalin or lenin or trotsky where communists is like saying Hillary Clinton, Obama or Sanders are communists.
All 6 are in fact capitalists bourgeois.
They stand against everything communism stands for and should be/have been lined up and shot by the working class militia.

[General Winter]

That's what I never understood:why should we question the principle of equality of all before law,why should we proclaim an immunity from persecution for a new elite,as if past endeavours can be an indult for any action.

I resume my thought.

What is the essence of anti-stalinism? By the way,it is a rejection of the basic principle of communism - the equility of all before the low.

What was the essence of khrushchevism in the USSR, for example? It was a wish of the bureaucracy to be above the low, the hatred of the bureaucracy to any control over it.The myth of "unjustified repressions" and "innocent victims of personality cult" was necessary for a justification of certain "security guarantees" for the bureaucracy. After a propaganda campaign of high-profile reabilitations that shocked the Soviet society,there was adopted a law wich in fact made impossible a persecution of representatives of the bureaucracy.Since this time a decay of the Soviet ruling top started wich finished in 1991 by the collapse.

It's clear why right-wingers hate stalinism - they reject the principle of equility. Why do some leftists hate stalinism? Because what ever they say,they are not leftists at all .The attitude towards stalinism is a good lacmus test.

[GLF]

Communism is Anti-state (USSR) Anti-Class (Ruling class of stalin) and Anti-Money (Soviet ruble).

Saying Stalin or lenin or trotsky where communists is like saying Hillary Clinton, Obama or Sanders are communists.
All 6 are in fact capitalists bourgeois.
They stand against everything communism stands for and should be/have been lined up and shot by the working class militia.

I almost spat Dr. Pepper® all over my computer screen Mr. Anti-capitalist. You are a real hoot!

Trotsky? TROTSKY a bourgeois capitalist? None of the ones you mentioned were anything close to capitalist either, but...Trotsky?

I'm not even a Trotskyist but even I will admit you're laughably wrong. If anything Trotsky was probably the most orthodox of all 20th century revisionist Marxists. You are moonbat crazy.

And you have railed against authoritarianism and tyrnanny ever since I've been on this forum, calling my Leninism "treason" and "statist", and yet you wanna have people lined up and shot? As a Marxist-Leninist I may be a vulgar tyrant in your eyes but at least I don't believe in killing political opponents.

[(A)]

OK I will give you that but he betrayed the working class by siding with the new ruling class and not the working peoples revolution.

[GLF]

The "working people's revolution" sat back and let Hitler come to power because for them the idea of working with social democrats was too much to stomach. Yea, why don't ya read what old Trotsky had to say about that before you start accusing him, and holding him to your own rigid, non-situational standards.

[(A)]

... The revolution is Russia was 1917 and Hitler roes to power in 1933. Please expand on your Godwin argument. What revolution are you referring to that "sat back"?

I was referring to Trotsky's opposition to Lenin prior to joining him (1917) right before the Russian revolution. What does this event have to do with Hitlers rise to power 16 years later?