Castro: Stalinist or Leninist?

[Judas Trotskariot]

I think he has little of both.

[Individual]

Politics, notphilosophy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosophy).

:)

[elijahcraig]

A Stalinist is a Leninist.

[Guest1]

So then it should read Stalinist or just Leninist, no big deal EC, just answer his question :P

[elijahcraig]

Castro is a Marxist, therefore a Leninist, and therefore a Stalinist.

[Guest1]

Well, that's quite a spin there, maybe you can do it the other way around but I don't think you can reach the conclusion you made without being a complete sectarian.

[elijahcraig]

This is the Factor! Ain't no spin here, baby!

[Louis Pio]

Castro is a Marxist, therefore a Leninist, and therefore a Stalinist.

Good argument :rolleyes:

[Salvador Allende]

A Stalinist is simply someone who follows Marxism-Leninism and supports Koba instead of revising ideology, becoming a Trotskyist and supporting Leon Trotsky.

[Reuben]

i think supporting socialism in one country and believing that the dictatorship of a political clique cna be a surrogate for the dictatorship of the proleatariat is revising ideology

[elijahcraig]

Revised from what? Marx and Lenin BOTH agreed with the thing you just described.

[Hate Is Art]

EC you are quite misinformed if you think Stalinism is Marxism.

Leninsm is a variation of Marxism (which makes use of the vanguard)
Stalin was the 2nd Leader the Communist Party, he didn't contribute anything to the socialist cause, I wouldn't even call Stalinism a political ideology, it was just a couple of ideas that put it place due to certain circumstances in the CCCP during 1924-53.

Please call Stalin by his name! Or are you ashamed to support the mass murderer?

[elijahcraig]

EC you are quite misinformed if you think Stalinism is Marxism.

Oh, no! :lol:


Leninsm is a variation of Marxism (which makes use of the vanguard)

Marx uses a vanguard as well, it's called the Party.


Stalin was the 2nd Leader the Communist Party, he didn't contribute anything to the socialist cause, I wouldn't even call Stalinism a political ideology, it was just a couple of ideas that put it place due to certain circumstances in the CCCP during 1924-53.

I actually wouldn't call "Stalinism" an ideology either--that's what Trots do! Stalinism is merely the support of Stalin, a belief that he upheld Marxism-Leninism in the USSR, and that he was not a "traitor of the revolution" as the entire (most) Western Communist movement seems to believe.

I also don't need a history lesson.


Please call Stalin by his name! Or are you ashamed to support the mass murderer?

What do you want me to call him?

[h&s]

Castro is a Marxist, therefore a Leninist, and therefore a Stalinist.

That is not right at all.
You can be a Marxist, but not a Leninist or Stalinist.
Lenin thought that the only way to make Marxism work was by authoritarian rule, you can believe in Marxism but not Leninism.
Stalin was just a Leninist who thought it would be a good idea to be the world's biggest ever mass murderer.

[elijahcraig]

That is not right at all.
You can be a Marxist, but not a Leninist or Stalinist.

I know others have that view, I disagree.


Lenin thought that the only way to make Marxism work was by authoritarian rule, you can believe in Marxism but not Leninism.

Actually, Engels believed in this, Lenin just put it into action.


Stalin was just a Leninist who thought it would be a good idea to be the world's biggest ever mass murderer.

Yep, you said it all right there. All there is to it. Moron.

[h&s]

Yep, you said it all right there. All there is to it. Moron.
Me or Stalin?

Anyway, I believe in the priniciples of Marxism, but I am definitely not a Leninist.
I am probably half anarchist/half communist.

[elijahcraig]

Sounds like you need to actually read Lenin and Stalin more carefully before you begin to attack them. Try the site http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/ if you want to read their works. If you read them and still disagree, well, I guess you are just an informed dissenter. Which is better than an uninformed one.

[h&s]

I'm not saying I don't like Lenin - I think he was a good guy and a lot of what he said makes sense, I'm just saying I prefer an anarchaic/soviet style rule to a Leninist one.

[elijahcraig]

I'm not sure anyone prefers "authoritative" rule over the somewhat utopian ideals of anarchist rule...the problem that you are confronted with is that the revolution has to be defended, and cannot be defended in the idealized system anarchists propose.

As Engels once said, specifically in response to anarchists like Bakunin, that the revolution was the "most authoritative act" possible...and any other view of it is simply utopianistic and unscientific, or unrealistic. Mao has shown that the revolution continues throughout transition, I just posted something on it in Theory section in fact.

[h&s]

Yeah, sometimes Leinism is needed in the transition from capitalism to anarchism, but it should just be a short stage.

[elijahcraig]

The length of that stage would be determined by the conditions around which the revolution occured, world capitalist movement, etc.

[Frederick_Engles]

whats wrong with an authorative government run for the people? As long as every body is equal does it matter?

[elijahcraig]

There is nothing wrong with it. IN fact, it's necessary for socialism to succeed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:30 PM
what's wrong with an authoritative government run for the people? As long as every body is equal does it matter?
What's wrong with the idea is that it never seems to work out in practice.

Perhaps if there were really such things as "super-humans" or "space aliens" who were "truly benevolent" and "really" wanted "the best for the people", then the concept of a "benevolent despotism" would have some real-world meaning.

What we've actually seen is that humans granted despotic powers become bastards! Some are/were a great deal worse than others, of course, but so what?

Who, with any sense, wants their life run by a despotic bastard?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

RS, ah the smell of rotten aspartame...

[redstar2000]

I :wub: you too, nutrasweetie.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Roses in the Hospital]

What we've actually seen is that humans granted despotic powers become bastards! Some are/were a great deal worse than others, of course, but so what?

Not that I'm trying to support the Stalinists here, but:
Wouldn't it be better to live under a Socialist bastard that a Capatalist one?

Though I seem to remember debating this with redstar once before with little success either way...

[redstar2000]

Wouldn't it be better to live under a Socialist bastard that a Capitalist one?

Since socialist societies are class societies -- with wage labor, money, etc. -- the answer in both cases would revolve around your personal net worth.

The more money you have or can obtain, the better off you're going to be in either case. Being really poor means that socialism might be preferable and being really rich means capitalism is the obvious choice (in the latter case, you might even get to be one of the despots).

But for most of us, I don't think we stand to gain or lose that much, one way or the other.

And don't forget: it's just as hard to get socialism as it is to get communism. You have to make a revolution either way...with all the hardship and sacrifice that involves.

If you're going to risk your life, why do it for something that won't be that much different than what we have now?

Why not fight for what we really want...the abolition of wage-slavery and all forms of despotism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Roses in the Hospital]

And don't forget: it's just as hard to get socialism as it is to get communism. You have to make a revolution either way...with all the hardship and sacrifice that involves.

If you're going to risk your life, why do it for something that won't be that much different than what we have now?

In this case I'm going to submit to your superior reasoning...

[Wiesty]

Well during the revolution he did hall away and shoot people who got in his way
But thats what it takes to start a revolution.
There's pretty much gotta be some sacrifcies
so in a way that is a stalinistic view
but Castro does share many Leninist views

[Fidelbrand]

Perhaps if there were really such things as "super-humans" or "space aliens" who were "truly benevolent" and "really" wanted "the best for the people", then the concept of a "benevolent despotism" would have some [b]real-world meaning.

Bit arrogant but with true passion (and please fuck/booo me for saying this because its the good old tradition to do so ), I really want the best for my people if I were ever made a powerful leader.

.....however, i believe there are packs of people who share the above characteristics.