Stalin - Good or Bad Guy

[Orange Juche]

In the description of the Opposing Ideologies forum, it lists "stalinists" as misguided? Im just interested in hearing all your opinions on Stalin and why he was good/bad.

[Hampton]

History here we come.

[elijahcraig]

Instead of starting a whole other argument here again, you might just want to look at the ten thousand other times we've debated this for 15 pages or more.

[Purple]

i suppose a better question would be to ask if his intentsions were good or bad....

[Salvador Allende]

The reason "Stalinists" is listed on opposing ideologies is because this board apparently takes a Trotskyist approach and thus to them, "Stalinism" or true Marxism-Leninism is an opposing ideology, however oddly enough....Maoism which is essentially the same as Marxism-Leninism is not an opposing ideology.

[Louis Pio]

Now Stalin was the one who started the ism thing by refering to the opposition as Trotskyist. Even some of his faithfull stooges was labelled that before he killed them.

just to get things straight...


Maoism which is essentially the same as Marxism-Leninism is not an opposing ideology.


Even though you guys says that all the time it doesn't make an argument.

[elijahcraig]

Stalin started this because Trotskyism is a new ideology--whereas "Stalin-ism" is merely the faithful carrying on of Marxism-Leninism, thus not needing a new "ism" to describe it.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:31 AM
Stalin started this because Trotskyism is a new ideology--whereas "Stalin-ism" is merely the faithful carrying on of Marxism-Leninism, thus not needing a new "ism" to describe it.
:rolleyes:

Stalinsim is an ideology based on murder and oppression. Im sure you would have loved the gulags... ohh wait they didn't exist right?
There already is an "ism" for that kind of crap, Fascism.

[elijahcraig]

Yeah, Ok. I understand the ultra-left position on "Stalinism" etc. It's been debated hundreds of times here, and frankly I'm tired of debating the subject.

If anyone would like to see the pro-Stalin position, you can look to many of the threads here, where the pro-Stalin position is usually represented.

[ZeroPain]

My personal thought is Stalin was an asshole who gave capitalists the ability to point the finger at the dirty so-of-a-***** and say facism and communism = same thing

Stalin screwed up everything and ruined the U.S.S.R

Without him things would be alot different thats why i add him to my historical hit list and get him before he could start his vile infection, to bad he would be honored no one ever knowing what an asshole he was

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 12 2004, 12:38 AM
"Stalinism" or true Marxism-Leninism is an opposing ideology, however oddly enough....Maoism which is essentially the same as Marxism-Leninism is not an opposing ideology.
Stalinism is "true" marxism leninism? Dont you think thats a tad bit religous, I mean the Trotskyists can say the same thing!

I think both Stalin and Trotsky had their good ideas, and cool moustaches, and should both have their ideas considered, because both of them have their times for making valid points. Yes we need to focus on world revolution, and yes, we need to focus on the strenghth of the nations we already have.

[elijahcraig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:50 AM
Stalinism is "true" marxism leninism? Dont you think thats a tad bit religous, I mean the Trotskyists can say the same thing!

I think both Stalin and Trotsky had their good ideas, and cool moustaches, and should both have their ideas considered, because both of them have their times for making valid points. Yes we need to focus on world revolution, and yes, we need to focus on the strenghth of the nations we already have.
I agree very much that both have good ideas. When a "Stalinist" says Stalinism is "true" Marxism-Leninism, he really isn't debating the contributions of Stalin/Trotsky as much as he is saying that Stalin held the path on which the USSR should have been going, and didn't drastically revise the theories of working class liberation.

[Hate Is Art]

yeeeessss, I think you should get your tongue out of Stalins arse for a second!


I agree very much that both have good ideas. When a "Stalinist" says Stalinism is "true" Marxism-Leninism, he really isn't debating the contributions of Stalin/Trotsky as much as he is saying that Stalin held the path on which the USSR should have been going, and didn't drastically revise the theories of working class liberation.

Stalinism doesn't exist!! Stalin read Marx and Lenin's theorys, then took them all to some kind of strange level where the best way to remove classes is to kill and imprison lots of people who don't fit into your way of thinking.

Killing over 1,000,000 party members and army generals because they were "counter-revolutionary" and "traitors"
Face it, Stalin was a paranoid idiot who was though everyone was out to get him, he is hardly some kind of person to base your political ideology on.

The other Stalinist on this board who are educated and know what there talking about would be ashamed of you!

[elijahcraig]

yeeeessss, I think you should get your tongue out of Stalins arse for a second!

But it tastes so good.

If having my tongue down Stalin’s ass is wrong…well, …I don’t want to be right.


Stalinism doesn't exist!! Stalin read Marx and Lenin's theorys, then took them all to some kind of strange level where the best way to remove classes is to kill and imprison lots of people who don't fit into your way of thinking.

NO, if that happened there would be a thing such as Stalinism. But, seeing as it did not occur, there is only Marxism-Leninism which he followed, and the Trots who attempt to say he didn’t by calling him a Stalinist.


Killing over 1,000,000 party members and army generals because they were "counter-revolutionary" and "traitors"
Face it, Stalin was a paranoid idiot who was though everyone was out to get him, he is hardly some kind of person to base your political ideology on.

That sounds like something a Rand-follower would say.

Where did you get this information from?


The other Stalinist on this board who are educated and know what there talking about would be ashamed of you!

RAF, are you ashamed of me?

And if the other "Stalinists" agreed with you, they probably wouldn't be called Stalinists, but Trots or Anarchists.

[Hate Is Art]

my history book! You want to scan in some sources, they are all pretty definate on the extent on the red terror!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 12 2004, 12:40 PM
my history book! You want to scan in some sources, they are all pretty definate on the extent on the red terror!
ohh dont be silly, thats all propaganda... :rolleyes:


Despite the fact that the soviet archives have many referances to the millions of people locked away in Gulags, and the conditions. but he stalinist say that the soviet archives prove that the stalin genocide did not occur.

My god EC you are a loser.

[elijahcraig]

Despite the fact that the soviet archives have many referances to the millions of people locked away in Gulags, and the conditions. but he stalinist say that the soviet archives prove that the stalin genocide did not occur.

My god EC you are a loser.

I’d like to see the soviet archives, got some to prove your assertion?

I am indeed a loser.

Maybe we should warn Enigma for his personal attack. :lol:

[ZeroPain]

<_< Its so painfully true that stalin was a asshole i cant even see how some one could support him he was vile scum - plain and simple if anything he was a counter revolutionary.

[elijahcraig]

I don&#39;t think we&#39;re debating how much of an "asshole" Stalin was--he could have been the biggest dick of all time---, what we are debating is the historical period in which he was leader of the party, what happened in that time, etc.

His level of "good" or "bad" would be dependent on how the working class was treated, how the revolution was defended, the progress the USSR made.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 11 2004, 05:38 PM
The reason "Stalinists" is listed on opposing ideologies is because this board apparently takes a Trotskyist approach and thus to them, "Stalinism" or true Marxism-Leninism is an opposing ideology
This is simply not true. The owner of the site, Malte, and one admin, Redstar2000, are non-Leninist Marxists; RedCeltic, an admin, is a member of IWW; and TAT and Che Y Marijuana are both anarchists. Canikickit, to my knowledge, does not adhere to an ideology. There is a Trotskyist admin who to my knowledge has not posted for several months.

Our mods are generally not Trotskyist, either; I can&#39;t think of one, but I&#39;m sure they&#39;re there. One of our largest forums is modded by a Stalinist.

[Salvador Allende]

by Trotskyist approach, I meant it sided with Trotskyists and said Stalinism (or the continuation of Socialism without Capitalism) is clearly wrong.

[canikickit]

So, Salvador, your word for "disagreeing with Stalin&#39;s approach to running a country" is "Trotskyism"? Very, very innaccurate. I think you should try and be more precise in what you are saying.

[Salvador Allende]

no, but apparently they don&#39;t see Trotskyism as bad as it is NOT in opposing ideologies. Anarchists, Trotskyists, Khruschovists, Capitalists, Fascists all disagree with Koba. Two of them are listed in opposing ideologies.

[Dusen]

Stalin is someone all communists should steer clear of I think. The more I read of him, the more I despise him.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 13 2004, 08:35 PM
no, but apparently they don&#39;t see Trotskyism as bad as it is NOT in opposing ideologies. Anarchists, Trotskyists, Khruschovists, Capitalists, Fascists all disagree with Koba. Two of them are listed in opposing ideologies.
Stalinists are not restricted to OI either. That&#39;s a pretty old description, I think. The OI mod is a Stalinist, as I pointed out. Neither the owner of the site nor any of the active admins are Trotskyist, so at most, you could say that Stalinists have been singled out more than Trotskyists at certain times in the past.

By the way, to my knowledge, there aren&#39;t any Kruschchevists at all here.


Stalin is someone all communists should steer clear of I think.

I don&#39;t know what your background is, but judging by Trotsky&#39;s theories, he would have been worse than Stalin. He talked about creating military conditions in the workplace and violently crushed worker&#39;s rebellions in Kronstadt, not to mention ordering the taking of hostages during the civil war.

Really, it appears to me that many Trotskyists believe what they do because they fell victim to that thinking, all-pervasive in the West, that if it doesn&#39;t associate with Stalin (or, later, Communism in general), it&#39;s the better choice for everybody.

[Pingu]

i think that you can&#39;t be that black and white to judge a man by good or bad

[Hate Is Art]

Well here goes, these are all reliable (I guess) sources from my History text book, feel free to analsye them if you wish&#33;

Firstly this source was written by two doctors working in Ufa, one of Russia&#39;s worst famine regions


Sometimes a starving family eats the body of one of it&#39;s junior members. Sometimes parents at night seize part of a body from the cemetry and feed it to their children

This one was written by a diplomat, it doesn&#39;t say where from


Stalin&#39;s face is seen everywhere. His name is spoken by everyone. His praises are sung in every speech. Every room I entered had a portrait of Stalin hanging on the wall. Is it love or fear? I do not know

This one was written by a British Dimplomat during an account of one of Stalin&#39;s Trials.


The prisoners were charged with every conceivable crime: high treason, murder, espionage and all kinds of sabotage. They have all signed written statements confessing to the crimes and incriminating themselves and each other.

. . . Yet what they said bore no relation to the truth. It became clear that the purpose of the trial was to show them not as political offenders but as common criminals, murderers and spies.

This next one is the numbers of people in the party Stalin had killed


Party Members: 1,000,000 out of 2,800,000
Delegates to the Party Congress: 1108 out of 1966
Central Commitee Members: 93 out of 139
Top Generals and Admirals: 91 out of 103
Members of the Politburo: 7 out of 8 (the only one left was Stalin


These next sources are on Stalins economic progress.


Milk: 1928 - 31 Million Tonnes
1932 - 20 Million Tonnes

Wheat: 1928 - 22 Million Tonnes
1932 - 20 Million Tonnes

Oats: 1928 - 18 Million Tonnes
1932 - 11 Million Tonnes

Meat: 1928 - 8 Million Tonnes
1932 - 2 Million Tonnes

These are on industrial Progress



Electricity (milliard kWh) Target for 1932: 17.0
Actual Production: 13.4

Coal (Million Tonnes) Target for 1932: 68.0
Actual Production: 64.3

Oil (Million Tonnes) Target for 1932: 19.0
Actual Production: 21.4

Steel (Million Tonnes)Target for 1932: 8.3
Actual Production: 5.9

This is an account of a Russian Peasent Girl who&#39;s whole family died of famine because of Stalin&#39;s economic policys


Stock was slaughtered every night. As soon as dusk fell the muffled, short bleats of sheep, the death squeals of pigs or the lowing of calves could be heard. Bulls, sheep, pigs, even cows were slaughtered as well as cattle for breeding . . .

"Kill, it&#39;s not ours any more ... Kill, they&#39;ll take it away anyway ... Kill, you won&#39;t get meat on the collective farm ..."

Hope thats enough to disprove the monster for what he is&#33;

[Orange Juche]

Bad. He was a murderer.

[Hate Is Art]

and thos economic reports do enough to dis-prove him as the master economist Stalinist&#39;s would lead you to believe&#33;

[Salvador Allende]

Funny, because according to my sources the output for heavy industry went up 103% in the first four years with other industry going up 93.7%. By 1936 the USSR was an industrial giant. The first five-year plan had become a success in only four years. This policy is considered the greatest economic work in history, the greatest industrial growth in history and the fastest economic growth in history. Koba was clearly an economic genius.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 14 2004, 09:03 PM
Funny, because according to my sources the output for heavy industry went up 103% in the first four years with other industry going up 93.7%. By 1936 the USSR was an industrial giant. The first five-year plan had become a success in only four years. This policy is considered the greatest economic work in history, the greatest industrial growth in history and the fastest economic growth in history. Koba was clearly an economic genius.
Did you actually read the post? Clearly not, I will highlight the important parts, because I hate to see you do this to your self: -


Electricity (milliard kWh) Target for 1932: 17.0
Actual Production: 13.4


It makes no referance to how much the increase was, all it does was show that the "targets" were not reached.

I do so dispise when people do that, critisise before reading.

[Salvador Allende]

Funny Enig, Those statistics are wrong&#33; His first five-year plan exceeded expectations in 4 years. That is agreed upon by most everyone except apparently wherever he got his statistics.

[Hate Is Art]

My history book, yes industrial output was up, but it didn&#39;t meet the 5 year plans target&#33; All those sources are 100% reliable&#33;&#33; You can&#39;t argue with facts and first hand accounts&#33;

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 14 2004, 09:06 PM
My history book, yes industrial output was up, but it didn&#39;t meet the 5 year plans target&#33; All those sources are 100% reliable&#33;&#33; You can&#39;t argue with facts and first hand accounts&#33;
You can&#39;t argue with facts, but you could question whether the above post is full of facts. Also, accounts are often retold by a second, third or fourth (and so on) person. Since there are so many blatent lies surrounding Stalin and western historian tend not to view socialist history favourably one would do well to question the validity.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 14 2004, 09:35 PM
Funny Enig, Those statistics are wrong&#33; His first five-year plan exceeded expectations in 4 years. That is agreed upon by most everyone except apparently wherever he got his statistics.
My point was that you failed t oread his statement, not whether his facts are correct.

As to the accuracy of his facts i dont pretend to know.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 14 2004, 04:03 PM
Funny, because according to my sources the output for heavy industry went up 103% in the first four years with other industry going up 93.7%. By 1936 the USSR was an industrial giant. The first five-year plan had become a success in only four years. This policy is considered the greatest economic work in history, the greatest industrial growth in history and the fastest economic growth in history. Koba was clearly an economic genius.
Honestly, that shouldn&#39;t matter. Pinochet was an economic genius. Chile&#39;s economy is prospering today because of his actions. However, that does not justify Pinochet&#39;s other actions. People say that Hitler did wonders for the German economy. Does that make Hitler a hero? Absolutely not.

[DaCuBaN]

It makes no referance to how much the increase was, all it does was show that the "targets" were not reached

Indeed... thus it makes it a misleading article, and throws the rest of it into disrepute. The fact is that it&#39;s widely known that the targets set in Stalinist Russia were absurdly beyond what the country should have been capable of shows what a good job he did on that front.


Party Members: 1,000,000 out of 2,800,000
Delegates to the Party Congress: 1108 out of 1966
Central Commitee Members: 93 out of 139
Top Generals and Admirals: 91 out of 103
Members of the Politburo: 7 out of 8 (the only one left was Stalin)

From where were these figures taken? You cite no source...


Hope thats enough to disprove the monster for what he is&#33;

No man is a monster, but simply a man. Their actions may seem monstrous from your subjective perspective, but as we cannot see into the mans head we cannot make a judgement on him. I am also highly disinclined to take your statistical sources as fact, as when I did research into this field myself a number of years ago there were wildly different claims as to the figures.

[Saint-Just]

Only figures for the 1st Five Year Plan were cited. The first five year plan achieved a lot. But, the second was far more successful. So, to say that the economic policies of the Soviet Union failed by only looking at the firts five year plan is an incomplete analysis.

[Hate Is Art]

It doesn&#39;t say in my history book, but I assume them to do true&#33; How about the huge failures of his agricultural policies&#33; You haven&#39;t mentioned them at all?

Do you have any figures for the next five year plans targets and actual figures?

And on what JA said, Stalin commited huge attrocities, we can&#39;t support a man because he made some industrial progress, he completly destroyed Socialism in the CCCP.

[Wiesty]

read the crimes of stalin and you&#39;ll find out for yourself my comrade

[Hate Is Art]

that directed at me? or just generaly?

Wiesty whats your opinion of Stalin?

[Saint-Just]

Do you have any figures for the next five year plans targets and actual figures?

% increases from 1932 are as follows. By 1937 % increase in industrial production in the following areas:

Coal - 100%
Oil - 50%
Pig Iron - 150%
Steel - 300%

In the Germany, UK and U.S. increases were generally a few percent or so. These kind of increases in that occured in the USSR were immense. Stalin said that one of the reasons for the increases were that in a socialist economy they reduced consumption and increase investment in capital goods (e.g. machinery) more than capitalist economies could do so since in a socialist country investment is not controlled by private enterprises who need people to consume in the present to survive.


we can&#39;t support a man because he made some industrial progress, he completly destroyed Socialism in the CCCP.

Of course, socialism in the USSR is a different issue that does not totally concern industrial progress.

The atrocities of Stalin is rubbish though. The truth is that the vast majority of people in the USSR were happy to live in a socialist society where cooperation was valued over competition and the well being of one was not considered as more important than the well being of all. People did die, however executions only took place where the bourgeosie and old ideas were attacked. In capitalist society they spread the idea that the death of these people was terrible and tragic because it is the capitalists who have to fear the destruction of these ideas and the accumulation of wealth for the bourgeois class.

[Wiesty]

My opinion is and seeing how many of my ancestors lived throught the ukrainian genocide, stalin is no better then hitler because he tried getting a name for the ussr but at the cost of like 10 million lives.
I still believe he was an amazing war stradegist.
But he wasnt fit to run the country

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 14 2004, 04:32 PM
Well here goes, these are all reliable (I guess) sources from my History text book, feel free to analsye them if you wish&#33;

Firstly this source was written by two doctors working in Ufa, one of Russia&#39;s worst famine regions



This one was written by a diplomat, it doesn&#39;t say where from



This one was written by a British Dimplomat during an account of one of Stalin&#39;s Trials.



This next one is the numbers of people in the party Stalin had killed



These next sources are on Stalins economic progress.



These are on industrial Progress



This is an account of a Russian Peasent Girl who&#39;s whole family died of famine because of Stalin&#39;s economic policys



Hope thats enough to disprove the monster for what he is&#33;
Dont forget Civilians

Apprx, 11 million througout the U.S.S.R

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:48 PM
My opinion is and seeing how many of my ancestors lived throught the ukrainian genocide, stalin is no better then hitler because he tried getting a name for the ussr but at the cost of like 10 million lives.
I still believe he was an amazing war stradegist.
But he wasnt fit to run the country
I am assuming by the use of the word genocide you think that Stalin hated Ukranians and purposely orchestrated the famine to kill them rather than it being anything to do with collectivisation.

So, why would genocide make a country stronger and more popular?


Dont forget Civilians

Apprx, 11 million througout the U.S.S.R

This is a good article from MIM on deaths in the USSR.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalindeaths.html

[Hate Is Art]

I didnt post civilian numbers because they arent any hard numbers. Those are the documented death warrants signed and done by Stalin of the Party Purges&#33;

[dark fairy]

I think him as a person, he was ok he was a regular human being... but what happened was different

[Maksym]

Some of you people who hate Stalin really need to find books that are not printed by Chapters and Barnes&Nobles. Reading your figures I can tell they are from Bourgeois sources since they are grossly over-exaggerated and are based on mythology.

Stalin did not have any plans for a famine or genocide against Ukrainians. The Kulaks were responsible for the drop in production since they slaughtered their live stock and destroyed all the crops. I know this for a fact since my great grandfather was active in the destruction of property in Ukraine and counter-revolutionary activity.


"Stock was slaughtered every night. As soon as dusk fell the muffled, short bleats of sheep, the death squeals of pigs or the lowing of calves could be heard. Bulls, sheep, pigs, even cows were slaughtered as well as cattle for breeding . . .

"Kill, it&#39;s not ours any more ... Kill, they&#39;ll take it away anyway ... Kill, you won&#39;t get meat on the collective farm ..."”

Your quote is all chopped up and spat out again. This quote does not tell anything of Stalin’s actions, only the result of the deliberate sabotage taken by the Kulaks. The rich peasants, Kulaks, would rather destroy all property then have the poor take it over.

The reason why Stalin is hated in the west was since he came from the lower class and was a true revolutionary. He did not have a bourgeois back round, a man like this keeps the capitalists awake at night due to their fear.

Trotsky was an authoritarian dictator as good as any. Look at his actions against Nestor Makhno during the 1919 civil war. Trotsky wanted a socialism that could controlled by an intellectual elite that ran all aspects of society. Makhno was outside of his influence, so even though Makhno was setting up collectives, he had to be crushed.

Stalin on the other hand allowed 32 million workers to take part in the drafting of the 1936 constitution. Stalin created collective farms and co-operatives that were democratic. Stalin created the greatest democracy known to man kind. This is why the Plutocrats in west hate Stalin since he created a democracy that was not controlled by rich, but by the workers. Trots set back the spread of Marxism by their jealousy and fantasy theories. They cannot understand everything does not run smoothly and you must adapt. Also the purges were a heroic act. Maybe Yuri Andropov should have purged the Communist party in the 1980’s of Gorbichev and Yelstin.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Maybe Yuri Andropov should have purged the Communist party in the 1980’s of Gorbichev and Yelstin.



I fear it would have been too little, too late, no matter how justified.

It would have been fitting however.

[Jesus Christ]

good god
i come back for 5 minutes to the board and there is already one of these stupid retarded threads
trash it


MOD EDIT

If you have nothing too add to the thread, please either ignore them all together or just don&#39;t bother posting.

[kami888]

Well, I actually lived in USSR for a while before it collapsed.

Two good things about Stalin:
1. He made great economic progress in Russia
2. He won the eastern front of world war 2

That&#39;s probably the only 2 good things you can find about him. Both the economic progress and the victory on the eastern front were achieved at the cost of millions of soviet peoples.

Soviet peoples did both, fear and love him. When Khruschev began criticizing Stalin for his actions and his policy, many people actually argued and protested.



good god
i come back for 5 minutes to the board and there is already one of these stupid retarded threads
trash it

MOD EDIT

If you have nothing too add to the thread, please either ignore them all together or just don&#39;t bother posting.

Please jesus, either ignore them all together or just don&#39;t bother posting because you added exactly nothing to this thread.


BTW, digital, your statistics is just WRONG. :P nothing wlse to say about it.

[Hate Is Art]

You lived in the USSR so I would be willing to listen to you alot more then any of these other Stalinist pretenders.

What is so wrong with my figures?

Btw, the source maksym quoted was from a girls diary, the .. ... ... is called punctuation. People were more willing to kill their cattle and die of starvation then participate in the stupidity of collective farming. What does that say about Stalin&#33;

[Revolt!]

Whatever good Stalin did, i think the vast amount of people he had sent off to the Gulags and purged in general kind of make him a bad person.

[kami888]

stupidity of collective farming.
Why do you consider it such a stupidity?

Here&#39;s a quote:


In 1928 Stalin began attacking kulaks for not supplying enough food for industrial workers. He also advocated the setting up of collective farms. The proposal involved small farmers joining forces to form large-scale units. In this way, it was argued, they would be in a position to afford the latest machinery. Stalin believed this policy would lead to increased production. However, the peasants liked farming their own land and were reluctant to form themselves into state collectives.


Stalin was furious that the peasants were putting their own welfare before that of the Soviet Union.

Here is some statistics:


111% increase in coal production, 200% increase in iron production and 335% increase in electric power.

[cccpcommie]

seriously..good,bad and, stupid mistakes

[Lietuva]

Yah any moron can get results when you threaten your workers with Death. If you&#39;re a stalinist you&#39;re also a sadist, also if you&#39;re a stalinist you&#39;re sure as hell not representing the opinion of the people who lived in the USSR.

[Salvador Allende]

Koba only killed the bourgeois who had oppressed the proletariat for years and those corrupt politicians that murdered Kirov and plotted with Trotsky to destroy Socialism in the USSR. Trotsky or Bukharin would have murdered USSR Socialism with their policies of ultra-leftist revisionism and ultra-rightist revisionism respectively. Koba saved Socialism in the USSR by achieving Lenin&#39;s dreams of a Socialist USSR. Everything Koba did was what Lenin wrote about and imagined. If you attack Koba, you attack Lenin. Marxism-Leninism was spread under the watchful eye of Koba and by his death over a billion more people were in Socialism than had been when Lenin died. He expanded the movement into a truly global one and represented the people at all times.

[Louis Pio]

Koba only killed the bourgeois who had oppressed the proletariat for years and those corrupt politicians that murdered Kirov and plotted with Trotsky to destroy Socialism in the USSR. Trotsky or Bukharin would have murdered USSR Socialism with their policies of ultra-leftist revisionism and ultra-rightist revisionism respectively.

You guys are absurd. You seem to close your eyes by choice.
What you are saying is that all of the old cc was traitors...
Quite patetic since they archieved more than you ever will. It&#39;s funny how in your eyes there only existed one true revolutionary ie Stalin. Even though the man was first against the revolution and never played any important part in taking power.


Koba saved Socialism in the USSR by achieving Lenin&#39;s dreams of a Socialist USSR. Everything Koba did was what Lenin wrote about and imagined.

No.
Stalin went quite far away from Lenin&#39;s ideas. He even adopted the old menshevic theory of 2 stages. A theory Lenin always fought against. Lenin&#39;s policy had always been that of internationalism, that means using the 3. international as a revolutionary tool and not changing it into a tool for Soviet foreign politics. In the end Stalin even gave it up to make the imperialists happy.


If you attack Koba, you attack Lenin. Marxism-Leninism was spread under the watchful eye of Koba and by his death over a billion more people were in Socialism than had been when Lenin died. He expanded the movement into a truly global one and represented the people at all times.

Degnenerated workers states. States that failed too continue. This was exactly because of their nature and not because of some mythical thing called revisionism. Those revisionists you talk about were just the same beurucrats keeping themselves in power. Those were the people Stalin build his powerbase on.

Now Salvador if you don&#39;t have anything to add other than those fairytales of yours I suggest you don&#39;t.

[Salvador Allende]

Teis, your arrogance and absurdity never fails to provide amusement&#33; I never said all the old Bolshevik were traitors. Kalinin, Molotov, Kirov were just a few that remained true and did not fall into ultra-right or ultra-left revisionism.

Lenin was for internationalism, but not blind internationalism that would make you ignore your own people&#33; Koba helped billions of people by helping to spread the movement. He continued what Lenin started, unlike Trotsky, who managed to split the movement with his ideas of a "betrayed revolution".

The fallen "Socialist" nations fell into revisionism in 1953 and so on. They became "Social-Imperialists". Mythical? I believe what you accuse Koba of is revisionism&#33; You see, Khruschev, Xiaoping and Brezhnev were all revisionists who changed the balance of power and created a new class. They betrayed the ideas of fighting capitalism with acceptance for it within Socialism and even got the absurd idea of peaceful co-existance&#33; You should stop accusing others of having no argument when all you do is shout about how everything I say is a myth.

[Scottish_Militant]

Salvador, if you could stop foaming at the mouth and declaring your undying love for "Koba" for a second

Why do you think Stalin was initialy against socialist revolution in Russia? The answer is likely that he was a very confused person, hard then to describe him in such glorious ways as you do now is it not??

I&#39;d also like you to explain what "blind internationalism" means, I&#39;d do it myself only my guide dog has ran off

[Louis Pio]

Well the point is you always make the same posts salvador without having anything to back them up. Yes im arrogant, because it&#39;s boring listening to you ernesto guevarra folks saying the same things over and over again without having a clue.


I never said all the old Bolshevik were traitors.

Since you support the purges and killings of revolutionaries you must belive that the cc that was during the revolution was counterevolutionary except from Stalin and one or 2 more.


Kalinin, Molotov, Kirov were just a few that remained true and did not fall into ultra-right or ultra-left revisionism.

No, they were a part of the clique coming to power after the killing off of the old cc.


Lenin was for internationalism, but not blind internationalism that would make you ignore your own people&#33; Koba helped billions of people by helping to spread the movement. He continued what Lenin started, unlike Trotsky, who managed to split the movement with his ideas of a "betrayed revolution".

The first part makes no sense at all. Secondly I see we have a different view on internationalism. You seem to think that it is helping people when working with the bourgiosie and getting thousands of cadres killed in the process as happened in China, Poland etc. And your claims on splitting the movement is patethic, just say it as it is. You don&#39;t want democratic centralism and different ideas to be discussed, in your eyes that is splitting, you would much prefer we get one strong leader and just follow his word blindly.


The fallen "Socialist" nations fell into revisionism in 1953 and so on. They became "Social-Imperialists". Mythical? I believe what you accuse Koba of is revisionism&#33; You see, Khruschev, Xiaoping and Brezhnev were all revisionists who changed the balance of power and created a new class.

If you see them as a class you must tie big knots on yourself not to see the berucrats before as a class. Salvador this explains nothing, since nothing fundamentally changed with Krustov.


They betrayed the ideas of fighting capitalism with acceptance for it within Socialism and even got the absurd idea of peaceful co-existance&#33; You should stop accusing others of having no argument when all you do is shout about how everything I say is a myth.

Class collaboration had long been a part of soviet foreign policy. After ww2 Stalin even sold off the communists in Greece, the ELAS guerillas. Because he carved the world up together with Britain and USA. Also your heroes took over the 2 stage theory from the menshevics. A theory that is aimed at stalling colonial revolutions into a bufferzone. Both the russian and the chinese revolution proved that theory wrong.
So yes you are telling fairytales.

[PRC-UTE]

Trotsky was an authoritarian dictator as good as any. Look at his actions against Nestor Makhno during the 1919 civil war. Trotsky wanted a socialism that could controlled by an intellectual elite that ran all aspects of society. Makhno was outside of his influence, so even though Makhno was setting up collectives, he had to be crushed.

Stalin on the other hand allowed 32 million workers to take part in the drafting of the 1936 constitution. Stalin created collective farms and co-operatives that were democratic. Stalin created the greatest democracy known to man kind. This is why the Plutocrats in west hate Stalin since he created a democracy that was not controlled by rich, but by the workers. Trots set back the spread of Marxism by their jealousy and fantasy theories.

This I never thought I would see. . . pro Makhnovista and pro-Stalin. :D

to each his/her own.

[che's long lost daughter]

Bad guy...no doubt about it.

[1949]

Also your heroes took over the 2 stage theory from the menshevics.

Our heroes took the two-stage revolution in feudal, peasant countries from Lenin&#39;s Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Lenin/TT05.html). The Mensheviks and other revisionists had the reactionary idea of two-stage revolutions in developed, non-peasant countries, which Lenin, Stalin, etc., did not have.

Mr. Miyagi/Teiso, I responded to "Why Trotskyism abhors revolution" at E-G-- I don&#39;t know if you saw that or not.


Bad guy...no doubt about it.

A general book recommendation to anyone who wants to diss Stalin... The Stalin Era (http://www.plp.org/books/strong_stalin_era.pdf).

[DRS]

lol he was a power hungry maniac, what else more can be said lol

[1949]

lol he was a power hungry maniac, what else more can be said lol

lol you don&#39;t have anything intelligent and/or relevant to say, shut the fuck up lol

[Red Bolshevik]

IMO, he was a good guy (If you couldn&#39;t guess from the avatar). I don&#39;t think he was great but I definitely view him as an effective administrator who successfully guided the Soviet Union. But Lenin is better.

[Guerrilla22]

Stalin was indeed a guy, can we all agree upon that?

[Maksym]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 23 2004, 10:06 AM
You lived in the USSR so I would be willing to listen to you alot more then any of these other Stalinist pretenders.

What is so wrong with my figures?

Btw, the source maksym quoted was from a girls diary, the .. ... ... is called punctuation. People were more willing to kill their cattle and die of starvation then participate in the stupidity of collective farming. What does that say about Stalin&#33;
I do not usually post here for good reason but I had to respond to this idiotic message. Your figures are taken from a Capitalist source that is obviously slanted and is only focusing on one year. If you look over a period of five years then you see the benefits of the first, five year plan.

What source are you talking about? The slaughtering of cattle and destruction of property? No this is taken from a certain amount of reading I have done from a variety of different political perspectives. The source is also first hand since my family were Kulaks and did every counter-revolutionary activity Soviet sources describe. Same with every Kulak they knew across Ukraine.

“People” were not willing to slaughter their cattle since they did not own anything. All property was owned and controlled by a minority of Kulaks that had control throughout the government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Khrushchev describes this clearly in his biography. Illustrating how the leaders of the Ukrainian government were nationalists and loyal to Simon Petrula&#33;

You have just proved your true political ideology with this quote: “participate in the stupidity of collective farming” So how about get lost. You are only interested in Che since he is not a commercialized product in the USA.

[Maksym]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 9 2004, 09:35 PM


I fear it would have been too little, too late, no matter how justified.

It would have been fitting however.
I do not disagree. It was a generalization to indicate the type of scum that was liquidated.

[Louis Pio]

Our heroes took the two-stage revolution in feudal, peasant countries from Lenin&#39;s Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution. The Mensheviks and other revisionists had the reactionary idea of two-stage revolutions in developed, non-peasant countries, which Lenin, Stalin, etc., did not have.


No they took the same approach to Russia, just as the menshevics did. If you look at the theory of the permanent revolution in comparison to Lenins april theses you can see that they agree. Russia was a feudal country but that didn&#39;t mean Lenin took the same reactionary approach as Stalin or you. Fact is that the 2 stage theory is rotten to the core. In all countries it have ment subdueing the class struggle to the bourgiousie. As for exampel in Indonesia were it meant they supported Sukarhno (or suharto I always forget) resulting in the murder of millions of communists. Great "theory" eh?

[1949]

Sorry for taking so long to get around to this.

As for exampel in Indonesia were it meant they supported Sukarhno (or suharto I always forget) resulting in the murder of millions of communists. Great "theory" eh?
To blame the mistakes of the PKI on the two-stage theory is absurd, because the PKI at that time were not even endorsing a revolution. They had followed the "peaceful road" endorsed by the Soviet revisionists. The only reasons that Mao, then the leader of the international communist movement, had relations to the PKI was because they were the largest party in a non-socialist country and had a good chance of seizing power, so he tried to win them over to a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line.

The PKI later published this famous criticism: http://www.antenna.nl/wvi/eng/ic/pki/selfcrit.htm

As for the rest of your post: are you totally neglecting Two Tactics? I just started reading it yesterday, and it seems clear to me that Lenin endorsed a two-stage revolution. Here&#39;s a quote:

"Finally, we will note that by making it the task of the provisional revolutionary government to put into effect the minimum program, the resolution eliminated the absurd, semianarchist ideas about putting the maximum program into effect immediately, about the conquest of power for a socialist revolution. The degree of economic development of Russia (an objective condition) and the degree of class consciousness and organization of the broad masses of the proletariat (a subjective condition inseparably connected with the objective condition) make the immediate complete emancipation of the working class impossible. Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the democratic revolution which is now taking place; only the most naive optimists can forget how little as yet the masses of the workers are informed about the aims of Socialism and about the methods of achieving it. And we are all convinced that the emancipation of the workers can be effected only by the workers themselves; a socialist revolution is out of the question unless the masses become class conscious and organized, trained and educated in open class struggle against the entire bourgeoisie. In answer to the anarchist objections that we are putting off the socialist revolution, we say: we are not putting it off, but we are taking the first step towards it in the only possible way, along the only correct road, namely, the road of a democratic republic. Whoever wants to reach Socialism by a different road, other than that of political democracy, will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary both in the economic and the political sense. If any workers ask us at the given moment why we should not go ahead and carry out our maximum program, we shall answer by pointing out how far the masses of the democratically-minded people still are from Socialism, how undeveloped class antagonisms still are, how unorganized the proletarians still are. Organize hundreds of thousands of workers all over Russia; enlist the sympathy of millions for our program&#33; Try to do this without confining yourselves to high-sounding but hollow anarchist phrases -- and you will see at once that in order to achieve this organization, in order to spread this socialist enlightenment, we must achieve the fullest possible measure of democratic reforms."

[Louis Pio]

To blame the mistakes of the PKI on the two-stage theory is absurd, because the PKI at that time were not even endorsing a revolution. They had followed the "peaceful road" endorsed by the Soviet revisionists. The only reasons that Mao, then the leader of the international communist movement, had relations to the PKI was because they were the largest party in a non-socialist country and had a good chance of seizing power, so he tried to win them over to a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line.


But that was exactly the same as the 2 stage theory. The 2 stage theory suggest working with "progresive bourgiosie" (even if it don&#39;t exist) and then some time in the distant furture you can build socialism. PKI did exactly the same as Mao did in the 20&#39;ies and it did have similar consequenses.
It&#39;s the same reformist line the guys at ISF take, btw I was actually wondering what your position on that were.

Btw don&#39;t you think Lenin could change oppinion? Look at the April theses they clearly explain the need to go on with socialism even in a undeveloped country like Russia. Because all their might would be used to spread the revolution to the developed countries. Also Two Tactics is from 1905 were the situation was different and the consciousness of the masses was quite backwards. You can&#39;t use this as a backing for the reformist policies taken up by communist parties in countries with a developed working class with an advanced consciousness.

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

The guy was bad no doubt about it he killed more thatn 2 million of his own people but his he eviler than hitler or pilpot

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:48 AM

lol you don&#39;t have anything intelligent and/or relevant to say, shut the fuck up lol
Neither do you, hense the above statement.

[1949]

Teis:

But that was exactly the same as the 2 stage theory. The 2 stage theory suggest working with "progresive bourgiosie" (even if it don&#39;t exist) and then some time in the distant furture you can build socialism. PKI did exactly the same as Mao did in the 20&#39;ies and it did have similar consequenses.
It&#39;s the same reformist line the guys at ISF take, btw I was actually wondering what your position on that were.
Did you read the Self-Criticism by the PKI that I linked to? You would see that their previous reformist line had nothing to do with any sort of revolutionary theory. The 2-stage theory doesn&#39;t deny the need for a violent seizure of power like the PKI did prior to Suharto&#39;s coup.

As for the people at ISF, I recognize that there are two people there who are rather reformist: thursday night, a "Democratic Socialist" ( :rolleyes: ) and nateddi/Frank, an "independent anti-imperialist" who calls Chomsky and Hugo Chavez two of his favorite political figures. I don&#39;t really see how that is relevant to the debate. It&#39;s not like I&#39;m part of the ISF "gang", because as of me writing this I&#39;ve posted on ISF a grand total of about six times.

Btw don&#39;t you think Lenin could change oppinion? Look at the April theses they clearly explain the need to go on with socialism even in a undeveloped country like Russia. Because all their might would be used to spread the revolution to the developed countries. Also Two Tactics is from 1905 were the situation was different and the consciousness of the masses was quite backwards. You can&#39;t use this as a backing for the reformist policies taken up by communist parties in countries with a developed working class with an advanced consciousness.
Pardon me. Using the example of Russia was misleading on my part, because Russia had already undergone a capitalist revolution by the time of the October Revolution, which is why the April Theses calls for a socialist revolution.

Enigma:

Neither do you, hense the above statement.
Obviously you did not read any of my other fucking posts in this thread. Now I had not seen that guy I was yelling at make any intelligent posts in this thread. If he did indeed do that somewhere, please show me and I will apologize. But all I saw him say was this:

lol he was a power hungry maniac, what else more can be said lol
which doesn&#39;t sound particularly intelligent or relevant.

Now if you go back and read any of my other posts in this thread, I don&#39;t see how you could call them not intelligent and/or not relevant for any reason other than you didn&#39;t agree with them. And that would be a stupid reason to say they are not intelligent or not relevant. I mean, I don&#39;t agree with Teis&#39; posts, but I still acknowledge them as being intelligent and, for the most part, relevant to the debate.

[Louis Pio]

Did you read the Self-Criticism by the PKI that I linked to? You would see that their previous reformist line had nothing to do with any sort of revolutionary theory. The 2-stage theory doesn&#39;t deny the need for a violent seizure of power like the PKI did prior to Suharto&#39;s coup.


My point is that it still has a base in the 2 stage theory, the later developments was just the logical consequence of the former. One degenerate theory leads to even further degeneration. Things didn&#39;t magically change with Stalins dead, they were rotten years before.


As for the people at ISF, I recognize that there are two people there who are rather reformist: thursday night, a "Democratic Socialist" ( ) and nateddi/Frank, an "independent anti-imperialist" who calls Chomsky and Hugo Chavez two of his favorite political figures. I don&#39;t really see how that is relevant to the debate. It&#39;s not like I&#39;m part of the ISF "gang", because as of me writing this I&#39;ve posted on ISF a grand total of about six times.



No no it wasn&#39;t directed against you. I was just curious, especially since other self proclaimed marxist-leninists like the not so dead Red supports their attitude.


Pardon me. Using the example of Russia was misleading on my part, because Russia had already undergone a capitalist revolution by the time of the October Revolution, which is why the April Theses calls for a socialist revolution.


Russia was still dominantly feudal. Of course there had been the first revolution, but the Stalinist line suggest they should build capitalism for a very long time. Actually Stalin was against the taking of power back then, untill Lenin gave him a theoretical beating as so many times before. In my oppinion there&#39;s a direct line from Stalin&#39;s stand there over the 2 stage theory to "peacefull co-existance" that his former followers advocated