Trotskyism vs. Stalinism

[American_Trotskyist]

The Stalinist have hid them selves with the 20th congress of the USSR and slandered the Trotskyism. They have betrayed the Proletariat Revolution of 1917 and entered into class-collaborationism, Menshevikism. Or did they? It is necessary to debate which system will be the correct one in the future, which will be the true successor of Marx, Lenin. This is the most important discussion possible at this time.

[Monty Cantsin]

Who said Lenin was the ture sucessor of Marx? tell me why we should worry if the political ideas we hold should "hook up" with Marx's ideas?

[redstar2000]

Museum stuff--moved to History Forum.

:redstar2000:

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

[American_Trotskyist]

OK, lets look at things logically. Marx said society is dynamic. Marx also said that we cannot set one program to exist throughout history, see "Ruthless Criticism of Everything in Existence". So, because of the situation and the rise of Imperialism we needed a new program to be relevant to it. Lenin said that Communism could come into a country were the national bourgeoisie couldn't liberate themselves from the foreign Bourgeoisie, who used the country for it's resources what ever they maybe. So, now we have a situation where social progress has stopped, if we use the out dated idea that communism can only happen in country where the bourgeoisie has arisen. However, the proletariat can take power and Lenin showed that we could take power, and with the help of the West, and revolutionize the means of production, thus leading to a communist utopia. Trotsky came up with the plan that we could skip the bourgeois revolution, only in countries that meet the criteria above, if we could revolutionize the means of production, which is the only need for that revolution.

[ComradeRed]

Lenin took what he thought was marxism and "added on" to it...like how taking the breaks off a car makes it go faster(an "add on").

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

From an old post of mine, concerning the Maoist position on Stalin:

Josef Stalin is a figure that really needs to be analyzed by Communists.

For Communists today, Stalin is upheld as a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist who carried forward the world revolutionary banner after the death of Lenin (albeit with many serious errors). Stalin did not, however, make any major theoretical additions to Marxism-Leninism, and so thus "Stalinism" does not exist in the real world (except as a mudslinging term used by capitalists).

However, there are many things that we uphold about Stalin...

Stalin was the leader of the International Communist Movement for 40 years and helped solidify much of Communism's advances during that time.

In that time, the Soviet Union developed the worlds first socialist economy. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union developed the first planned economy, and struggled to develop the first collectivized mechanized agriculture (in the place of an extremely backward peasant society). In this they succeeded with great results.

The Red Army met and defeated the most powerful army in the world. 3.5 MILLION highly mechanized Nazi trooops invaded -- confident of conquering the first socialist country. And these (previously invincible) armies were hurled back to defeat.

It was the troops of Joseph Stalin that took the Nazi capital Berlin, and drove Hitler to suicide!

Under Stalin the communist movement became truly international -- with the ComIntern (and its fraternal parties) appearing all over the world.

While Stalin led the world movement, there were new seizures of power. When he died 1953, the communist forces were in power in a third of the world.

And in his time at the leadership of the CPSU he led a series of important line struggles to uphold and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and forge a road forward toward socialism. His struggles with the rightist, state-capitalist line of Bukharin, and the defeatist line of Leon Trotsky were important and historic contributions to communist practice (and theory). He also led an important post-WWII struggle with Tito-ite revisionism (which I have discussed before) -- which was the worlds first experience with "capitalist roaders in power" -- i.e. political forces claiming to be communist but in reality establishing capitalism.

Any one of the things listed above would be major achievements. All are important to uphold. And often those who paint Stalin in a mainly negative light are often intending precisely to reverse verdicts on some of these positive accomplishments I'm listing here.

As Mao once said "I think there are two 'swords': one is Lenin and the other Stalin", once the sword of Stalin has been discarded "once this gate is opened, by and large Leninism is thrown away." And I think history has shown the truth of this, again and again.

Stalin's accomplishments exist with some major problems. And the "socialist camp" and international communist movement that emerged after World War II was ripe with revisionism, and faced widespread capitalist restoration in the 1950s.

But it is worth pointing out that Stalin himself was NOT a revisionist (or capitalist roader) -- and that it was only AFTER his death that Krushchevite capitalist roaders could make their coup in the Soviet Union.

Mao said to make a distinction "between Sian and Yenan." Meaning: don't confuse our side and their side. (Sian was the center of chinese counterrevolution and yenan was mao's headquarters.) When criticizing stalin (which is necessary) let's not be confused: Stalin's errors are, for better or worse, errors of the international communist movement. They were errors made in the course of attempting to make revolution -- they are not like the crimes of those who attempt to suppress revolution.

Marxists and progressives from around the world, at the time, loved the guy and perhaps were willing to overlook his shortcomings. He was the leader of the only socialist state in the world for a long time. It would have been natural to give him unconditional support especially in light of the hostility the USSR was subject to which culminated in the Nazi invasion.

Few forces have been attacked like the Soviet Union of 1917-1956 was. Few figures have been slandered like Stalin was (and still is). And yet millions of fighters all over the world went into battle with his name on their lips.

70% is significant positive assessment. But 30% as an assessment of his errors is no small thing. These were significant problems (which I have discussed before as well).

In 1984, in its founding Declaration, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement wrote: "Today, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, together with other Maoist forces, are the inheritors of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and they must firmly base themselves on this heritage. But they must also, on the basis of this heritage, dare to criticise its shortcomings. There are experiences which people should praise and there are experiences which should make people grieve. Communists and revolutionaries in all countries should ponder and seriously study these experiences of success and failure so as to draw correct conclusions and useful lessons from them."

Now about them Purges...

1) Maoists think that Comrade Stalin and the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were grappling with something new: how to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and how to deal with reactionary lines that emerge at the highest level of the Communist Party itself.

No Communist had ever held state power before. No one had ever seen revisionist lines emerge within the party like this. And Marxists generally had thought the transition from capitalism to communism was going to be quicker and easier than it has proven to be.

2) Overall, among the post-Lenin leadership of the CPSU, Stalin had the best line, and he waged a correct struggle with Trotsky (who believed that the USSR should have just "given up" because the revolutions in Germany and Hungary had been crushed) and with Bukharin (whose line on agriculture and slowing social change was a de-facto program for restoring capitalism).

There were also extremely sharp struggles over preparing for World War II -- carring out intense changes in society and the economy, transforming the military forces, preparing defenses, and defeating potential "fifth column" forces who might have otherwise supported the Nazi invasion when it came.

3) However, Stalin did not correctly understand the basis for the emergence of revisionist lines under socialism. He did not see that the masses needed to be mobilize to further uproot the basis for capitalist restoration, and he believed that revisionists-within-the-party-leadership must be agents of foreign powers. In short, the analysis of the Soviet revolutionaries led to treating revisionism as a police matter.

Many of the so-called "purges" in the CPSU(B) were a case of treating acute political "struggle between two lines" as if they were a police matter.

Treating major political conflicts within the party as a "police matter" left the masses as by-standers.

It successfully (and permanently... heh heh heh =/) removed some leading revisionists, but did not really expose or uproot their line -- so that those who replaced them, often picked up where they left off.

It also led to some excesses: sometimes people were removed and killed who could have been won over. Sometimes contradictions "among the people" were treated as "contradictions with the enemy."

Mao said "heads are not like leeks, they do not grow back." He meant that if you kill people, you do not give them a chance to change, and you do not have a chance to reverse any mistakes made.

Killing people over political struggles also chilled the enthusiasm of the people. People tended to "stay out" of politics thinking it was "too dangerous to risk some mistake." It led to passivity among the masses -- and that too strengthened the hands of the revisionists.

4) The Maoists (i.e. Mao and those with his line within the Chinese Communist Party) thought it was mistaken to use police methods in inner party struggle. When the large wave of purges happened in the CPSU (late 1930's) the Chinese Central Committee resolved never to use such methods in their own inner party struggle. This decision was kept by the Maoists (but not by the Chinese revisionists who have ruled China since 1976).

Mao did not have his party opponents killed, and many of his lifelong opponents were criticized but often not removed from their posts. This was an important way of underscoring that a life-and-death struggle with capitalist restoration did not mainly rest on removing or killing its leading proponents -- but on uprooting the line and the soil from which it springs.

5) As a result, the Chinese Communist Party had "rectification campaigns." They also repeatedly required their own cadre to "pass through the gate" of reevaluation and mass criticism. (Read the book Fanshen by William Hinton for an excellent look at how CCP leadership worked)

But they never used the Soviet/Stalin method of "purges." And their methods were very different from purges.

6) In particular: Mao grappled for many years for a way to involve the masses of people in the struggle to defeat restorationist tendencies.

Many of his famous mass campaigns (the Great Leap Forward, the Socialist Education Campaign and then the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) emerged from his developing and creative understanding of how to do this.

7) Mao summed up that the GPCR (and all the complex "socialist new things" it included) was a a form "to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way and from below."

http://www.awtw.org/back_issues/1996-22/gpcr_22_eng.htm

8 ) On one hand, Maoists build on the experience of Stalin, the Soviet Union and its struggle against restoration. On the other hand, Maoism is the most profound and creative CRITIQUE of the methods, weaknesses and even errors of the approach of even-the-best among the Soviet communists.

9) This area of innovation is considered the most important contribution of Mao to Marxism. It is called "the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat." It is rooted in a new analysis of where revisionism and capitalist restoration "comes from" under socialism. And it gives rise to the creative new approaches concentrated in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

It is one of the main reasons why Marxism today is called "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", and that is why I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't think anybody disagrees that the things you've described in the first section or good, but I think many of us question wether or not they're accurate. Is it true that "Under Stalin the communist movement became truly international"? I'm inclined to disagree - Stalin's "Socialism In One Country" put the breaks on world revolution. While he may have crated ComIntern, I think this organization did less to advance the cause of socialism, and more the advance the needs of Russia.
Particularly, Stalin advanced Russia at the expense of the economic interest of the rest of the Eastern bloc - the situation you describe in Cuba, reguarding sugarcane, was not dissimilar to the relationships set up under Stalin in the Eastern bloc, where legitimate communists were supressed during occupation by Soviet troops, and occupied countries were reduced to, essentially, neo-colonies.

And I'm also going to have to disagree with:


It is one of the main reasons why Marxism today is called "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism"

A lot of us just call it "Marxism," and there a few of us who are Marxist, without being either Leninist or Maoist . . .

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Your post actually contains much truth to it.

Stalin, for the most part, still saw "socialism in one country" as just one step in the world proletarian revolution. However, as Mao Tse-Tung and later Bob Avakian pointed out, the leadership of the CPSU at that time often fell into a narrow-mindedness that led to a belief that the defense and building up of the USSR was more important than supporting revolutionary struggles around the world. This led to very grievious errors that caused great damage to the International Communist Movement for years to come: Russian chauvinism was unintentionally encouraged, the ComIntern was dissolved, and the Communist parties of the world were encouraged to subordinate themselves to their own national bourgeoisie in order to defeat Fascism. This led to the Communist Party of Spain subordinating itself to the capitalists in the Republican government instead of leading a revolutionary war, the CP-USA in America falling into reformism and tailing the Democratic Party, the French Communist Party kowtowing to the French bourgeoisie, and many more terrible things that the Communist movement STILL hasn't recovered from.

On the other hand, the Communist Party of China broke completely with this line and carried on a revolution in the midst of a Japanese invasion without subordinating themselves to the Nationalist bourgeoisie (instead of the capitulationist Popular Front method promoted by the CPSU, they created a United Front under the leadership of the proletariat). After WWII, Stalin made an intense self-criticism for encouraging the CCP to subordinate themselves to the Nationalists, denounced the line of Dimitrov, and said he was glad that Mao had proved him wrong.

On the subject of the Eastern Bloc countries, the situation gets a bit more complex. Within the Red Army, there were many capitalist-roaders and revisionists that were already deeply entrenching themselves within the military, and thus much of the occupation of Eastern Europe was done along bourgeois lines and bourgeois methods. Not only this, but the socialist camp that emerged from the Second World War was never solid. Little revolutionary transformation was carried out in most of the Eastern European Peoples' Democracies, mainly because these political systems in Eastern Europe were imposed from outside, and often had only shallow roots among the people (East Germany and Yugoslavia were exceptions). It was because of this that the Eastern Bloc never truly became socialist.

However, should we say that Stalin was wrong for at least TRYING to bring socialism to Eastern Europe? When the Red Army was driving the Nazis out of the Soviet Union during WWII, should they have just stopped at their own borders and ceased in their driving back of the Nazis? Absolutely not! It would have been even worse if Stalin had done that. However, Communists have learned since then that you cannot impose socialism in that way, and so we are able to sum up the lessons we have gained from that experience.

So, while we Maoists uphold Stalin to the extent that he helped continue on with building socialism and proletarian democracy in the USSR after Lenin's death and defended the Soviet Union from revisionism within and invasion from without. We also realize that this mistakes were bound to happen- considering that this was the first socialist state ever and the CPSU had no prior experience to go with, but we do not consider ourselves "Stalinists" in any way whatsoever and realize that Stalin made terrible errors that should NEVER be repeated. As Chairman Avakian said, we do not need a repeat of the Stalin experience- we need something much more.

[bolshevik butcher]

what socialist econemy? It was state capitalist. Unless starving people in the Ukraine to feed urself is socialist.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Yes, there was a socialist economy in the USSR until 1956. It wasn't really until the XXth Congress of the CPSU that capitalist reforms were put into place- and solidified with the Kosygin Reforms of 1965- that capitalism was restored in the USSR completely. An essay I did about the USSR's transformation from socialism to capitalism can be found here: http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=32496

As for the Ukrainian Famine, well, even a lot of anti-Stalin people have come forward to change their opinions on that, as shown here: http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/sov-hol.html

[YKTMX]

Overall, among the post-Lenin leadership of the CPSU, Stalin had the best line, and he waged a correct struggle with Trotsky (who believed that the USSR should have just "given up" because the revolutions in Germany and Hungary had been crushed)

Sorry, I don't really want to get into another Stalin debate but I can't let that slide. Trotsky's position was not just to "give up", it was exactly the opposite. Trotsky thought (correctly) that the survival of the revolution depended upon spreading the revolution to the advanced imperialist countries. It was also the view of Lenin that the workers state would be "crushed" if it was isolated.

Stalin represents this isolation. Stalinism is a expression of the backwardness of the Russian state and the ravages of the civil war, especially on the numbers and conditions of the Russian proletariat.

[bolshevik butcher]

YouknowtheymurderedX is right, the whole basis of Stalin's USSR was that it was a lone "socialist" country and needed a strong army, so inevitably he just used it 2 take power.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Well, I've addressed my own qualms with Stalin on the question of socialism in one country in the post above, but I have read Permanent Revolution by Trotsky. In the book, what he says may sound at first like he's upholding world revolution, it really seems that he's saying that if the capitalist regimes of the world don't "fall like dominoes", we've failed, and that we shouldn't try to advance socialism in the places we've gained- in effect, we should just settle for a post-1976-China-esque kind of thing. What a defeatist notion, if I may say so myself!

If the USSR became a kind of 1990's-China in the 1920's instead of defending what it had already gained, think of the disasters that would've befallen the world proletariat then.

[bolshevik butcher]

Stalin destroyed the soviets, (workers councils) that basically ran the Russian econemy at the time, and he made it illegal for workers 2 strike in 1929, how socialist.

[RedAnarchist]

Stalin became what his supposed idealogy was totally against - a Tsar. A reactionary, Red Tsar hiding under a facade of Communism.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Revolutionary proletarian democracy was upheld during the Stalin era, actually, and reading into CPSU documents and how the socialist state during the Stalin worked shows this. Check it:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node84.htm...500000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node84.html#SECTION00900500000000000000)
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node85.htm...600000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node85.html#SECTION00900600000000000000)

So, to say that Stalin was a "tsar" and that all the errors committed in the USSR during his administration should solely be blamed on him are both erroneous notions...

[American_Trotskyist]

That is absurd in the extreame. Ok besides the facts that he banned workers orginizations for electing people, maintain the one party dictatorship (There is no evidence that he was remotly democratic), reintroduced the death penalty (even for economic crimes), went through with reactionary policies, was friendly with Hitler, distoryed the international communist movement, and killed millions, he didn't do shit for the Revolution. I can't believe you would be so foolish to think that there was democracy within the country.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

If this is the "grand polemic of marxism" then marxism is long dead.

I however don't agree.

The grand polemic of marxism to me is: Anarchism vs The Dictatorship of the Proletariate.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:20 PM
That is absurd in the extreame. Ok besides the facts that he banned workers orginizations for electing people, maintain the one party dictatorship (There is no evidence that he was remotly democratic), reintroduced the death penalty (even for economic crimes), went through with reactionary policies, was friendly with Hitler, distoryed the international communist movement, and killed millions, he didn't do shit for the Revolution. I can't believe you would be so foolish to think that there was democracy within the country.

There is no evidence that he was remotly democratic

I would suggest that the Soviet electoral system is evidence of democracy within the USSR.


was friendly with Hitler

I assume you are referring to the non-aggression pact of the 1930s. Such a pact does not make the two parties involved friendly, it merely agrees that they will not wage war on each other. This is a useful agreement if one's army is far weaker than that of his enemy. The reason for this non-aggression pact was that it enabled Hitler to invade Poland and in enabled the Soviets to prepare for the war that was coming.


distoryed the international communist movement

Was the revolution he funded in China part of this destruction?

Have you read any of the links Andrei Mazenov used?


Unless starving people in the Ukraine to feed urself is socialist.

News of this famine in the 30s was only ever published in one newspaper in the entirity of America, Hearst's Chicago American - because no one else believed it. It was a propaganda story that was part of Hearst's support for the NSDAP in Germany, it was only resurrected in the 50s as part of the Cold War propaganda campaign.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 24 2004, 12:02 PM
Stalin destroyed the soviets, (workers councils) that basically ran the Russian econemy at the time, and he made it illegal for workers 2 strike in 1929, how socialist.
He did not destroy the Soviets Clenched Fist. I can see you are an intelligent person, but even someone such as yourself can be succeptible to a lie. Every Soviet down to the selosoviet existed under Stalin.

[American_Trotskyist]

I would suggest that the Soviet electoral system is evidence of democracy within the USSR.

The soviet electoral system is brilliant, but there was no democracy. There were no elections held under Stalin there was one party and those in opposition were killed when they criticized Stalin and the dictatorship. I understand the one party during Lenin's time because the revolution was in danger, extreme danger. However, under Stalin they had a more stable Russia and it could be changed. The Party, the soviets, the workers councils, and the unions never had any elections or oppositional leaders because they were murdered.


I assume you are referring to the non-aggression pact of the 1930s. Such a pact does not make the two parties involved friendly; it merely agrees that they will not wage war on each other. This is a useful agreement if one's army is far weaker than that of his enemy. The reason for this non-aggression pact was that it enabled Hitler to invade Poland and in enabled the Soviets to prepare for the war that was coming.

That is class collaborationism, the worst of all. There can be no surrender to the capitalist and no negotiations with them, Jesus Leninism 101. The Soviet Union had damned good intelligence; they knew the atrocities done against the communist, socialist, gays and Jews. The soviet union had the most powerful military in the world until Stalin killed all his officers, but they still had the most manpower and numbers in the world. The two were very friendly, the Red and NAZI armies had programs where they trained together, they had trade agreements, and Stalin evidently didn't think that there was any reason to fear Hitler and did nothing to prepare for it, which is probably the reason for him hiding for a week during Barbarossa. He told his Generals many times that they had nothing to fear from Hitler, too. The invasion of Eastern Europe was a clear-cut example of imperialism. Stalin need the materials from these countries and invaded with out democratic support from the people.

Oh yeah Stalin supported the Chinese Communist movement, after he had destroyed it. In 1925 he sold out the communist party of China, he refused to support their revolutionary action and allied himself with Chang. He even supported Chang after the massacres. He betrayed the Spanish revolution by re instating the bourgeois police and government, please read a The Spanish Revolution, it is available on Marxist.com. In 1923 he voted against the helping the Germans, saying they need to have the people of Germany united against fascism.

"News of this famine in the 30s was only ever published in one newspaper in the entirity of America, Hearst's Chicago American - because no one else believed it. It was a propaganda story that was part of Hearst's support for the NSDAP in Germany, it was only resurrected in the 50s as part of the Cold War propaganda campaign. " That is a lie. There was not knowledge of it true, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have never heard such a lie in all of my life, and I went to Catholic School. The population of the USSR dived, the food production was barely enough to feed the country of Russia and Stalin shipped it out, that is probably why no one believed it. The people are dead, even the later Stalinists don't deny it.

[Saint-Just]

The soviet electoral system is brilliant, but there was no democracy. There were no elections held under Stalin there was one party and those in opposition were killed when they criticized Stalin and the dictatorship. I understand the one party during Lenin's time because the revolution was in danger, extreme danger. However, under Stalin they had a more stable Russia and it could be changed. The Party, the soviets, the workers councils, and the unions never had any elections or oppositional leaders because they were murdered.

If you believe in a multi-party system perhaps you should start calling yourself a democratic socialist. Do you also mean to say that there was a Soviet system in the USSR with no elections - then how did the Soviet system work? Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, leaders of th Fabien society, travelled to the USSR twice in the 1930s and recorded elections taking place. They recorded the presence of opposition to the government in worker's councils. No one could be a member of a party other than the communist party, however, one could stand as an independent candidate.


The Soviet Union had damned good intelligence; they knew the atrocities done against the communist, socialist, gays and Jews. The soviet union had the most powerful military in the world until Stalin killed all his officers, but they still had the most manpower and numbers in the world.

If the Soviet Union was apparently so strong and had nothing to fear from the Germans then why were the Germans able to travel so far into Russia during World War II?

You also seem to accuse Stalin of anti-Semitism. These are points from various Che-Lives users, generally anti-Stalin members.
-Stalin was married to a jewish woman (whether it was his 1st or 2nd marriage I don't know)
-One of the first orders Stalin gave to the Red Army was that Jews who wanted to should be evacuated East into the safety of the Soviet rear, out of the reach of the advancing Nazi army. A considerable portion of the Soviet railroad capacity, which otherwise would have been used to transport troops and material to the front, was allocated for this purpose.
-"Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death."
Stalin, January 12, 1931, to an inquiry made by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America"


Oh yeah Stalin supported the Chinese Communist movement, after he had destroyed it. In 1925 he sold out the communist party of China, he refused to support their revolutionary action and allied himself with Chang.

In China, Stalin had many of the top CPC members educated in Russia. He also sent advisers to aid the revolutionary struggle, such as Otto Braun. Braun's revolutionary experience became embellished in the Chinese proletrian struggle. He became friends with Mao and married a Chinese woman.

Stalin had Mao sent to Paris. The place of the original Paris Commune, Mao was able to complete his study of Marxism, and there he married too.

You are right that the Communist in China did collaborate with a class other than the working-class. Marxism is a social science, and to best see how to apply Marxism one must look at each situation scientifically. Collaboration with the KMT had many cadres killed in the short term. However, they were able to defeat the Japanese imperialists, who if had taken power in China would attempt to eliminate the entire Red Army. The Soviet policy was a big success, and the Japanese were defeated and after the Communists took power.


That is a lie. There was not knowledge of it true, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have never heard such a lie in all of my life, and I went to Catholic School. The population of the USSR dived, the food production was barely enough to feed the country of Russia and Stalin shipped it out, that is probably why no one believed it. The people are dead, even the later Stalinists don't deny it.

I did not say there was not knowledge of the famine in the Ukraine. I explicitly noted that there was.

Here are a number of links on it. Are you talking about people like Robert Conquest, people who don't deny it. Robert Conquest does not deny it because, despite his claims to the contrary, he is not a communist. He worked for British Intelligence and for Ronald Reagan.

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam2.html

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

This one is from the same site and has many links, there are 5 or 6 links to PLP articles on the issue:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr...ics.html#STALIN

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american...f_the_europ.htm

http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/fraud_fam.htm


I went to Catholic School

Perhaps this explains your rabid anti-communism?

[Conghaileach]

Trotskyism vs. Stalinism is not "the Grand Polemic of Marxism". It's an endless pedantic argument that middle-class trendy-lefty teenagers and other ultra-leftists with no real ties to the working class can get themselves tied up in.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 2 2005, 11:25 PM
The grand polemic of marxism to me is: Anarchism vs The Dictatorship of the Proletariate.
So anarchism is opposed to the workers' control of society?

Personally, I disagree - but you may be misunderstanding the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism can be taken as the final stage of communism. Even Lenin said in his time that for true freedom to exist the state would have to be disposed of.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The soviet union had the most powerful military in the world until Stalin killed all his officers, but they still had the most manpower and numbers in the world.

Why do you think they had the most powerful military at the time?

Manpower and numbers does not equal "having the most powerful military in the world", much less 'success'.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by Conghaileach+Jan 4 2005, 04:48 PM--> (Conghaileach @ Jan 4 2005, 04:48 PM)
Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 2 2005, 11:25 PM
The grand polemic of marxism to me is: Anarchism vs The Dictatorship of the Proletariate.
So anarchism is opposed to the workers' control of society?

Personally, I disagree - but you may be misunderstanding the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism can be taken as the final stage of communism. Even Lenin said in his time that for true freedom to exist the state would have to be disposed of. [/b]
Yeah I know, I was really just trying to be an asshole. :P

What I meant by "Anarchism vs The dictatorship of the proletariate" is: when an uprising occurs, is it favorable to reaplace the old system with a brand new hierarchy? Or would it be better to leave power in the hands of no one.

It seems to me that considering an incident of revolution engulfing the entire world is going to be 100% impossible, it might be better lead by example rather than just hope for world revolution, while sticking to socialism.

Of cousre I am talking strictly about the advanced industrialised nations here.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It is necessary to debate which system will be the correct one in the future, which will be the true successor of Marx, Lenin. This is the most important discussion possible at this time.

Something that happened hundred years ago, which belong to history, is considered to be "the most important discussion possible at this time"? I doubt so.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Jan 2 2005, 11:18 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ Jan 2 2005, 11:18 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 24 2004, 12:02 PM
Stalin destroyed the soviets, (workers councils) that basically ran the Russian econemy at the time, and he made it illegal for workers 2 strike in 1929, how socialist.
He did not destroy the Soviets Clenched Fist. I can see you are an intelligent person, but even someone such as yourself can be succeptible to a lie. Every Soviet down to the selosoviet existed under Stalin. [/b]
Sorry about that Mao. Stalin was a dictator who used the red army and KGB to mantain control of the USSR. He was only interested in maintaining and expanding his power. As a result he as willing to negotiate with Hitler, and murder anyone who opposed him.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 6 2005, 04:33 PM
Sorry about that Mao. Stalin was a dictator who used the red army and KGB to mantain control of the USSR. He was only interested in maintaining and expanding his power. As a result he as willing to negotiate with Hitler, and murder anyone who opposed him.
Stalin was a man of compassion, interested only in human liberation, peace and socialism. The negotiations between Stalin and Hitler in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were far less significant than the kind of praise the British and American governments were giving Hitler prior to the war.

The non-aggression pact was just that, an agreement that they would not go to war with one another. Stalin knew that the Soviet Union would not be able to defeat Germany. The pact meant he would not go to war with the Germans when they invaded Poland.

10 Historical Lies:
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html#RTFToC5

I also strongly advise you to have a look at this:
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

Stalin could not eliminate any one that he wanted, and was in no position to control the country using the KGB and the army. The Red Army, as Stalin noted was not so much an army as a school in any case.

'the USSR is a country where everything is supposed to be decided on collegiums; but, on the other hand, it is known that everything is decided by single persons' Sidney and Beatrice Webb posed the question to Stalin 'who really decides' Stalin's reply was emphatic and explicit. He said: 'No; single persons cannot decide. The decisions of single persons are always, or nearly always, one sided decisions.... Everyone is able to contribute his or her experience. Were it otherwise, if decisions had been taken by individuals, we should have committed very serious mistakes in our work. But since everyone is able to correct the erros of individual persons, and since we pay heed to such corrections, we arrive at more or less correct decisions.'

Stalin: 'In the Soviet Union ... in the land where the dictatorship of the proletariat is in force, no important political or organisational problem is ever decided by our soviets and other mass organisation, without directives from our party. In this sense, we may say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is substantially the dictatorship of the party' Stalin, J.V., Leninism (1928)



You suggest Stalin was similar to Hitler. But for example, look at how Stalin defines a nation in 1913 (Marxism and the National Question):

What is a nation?

A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people.

This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

Rather different to Hitler's view that a nation is based upon a mythical volk with racial characteristics in common.

[American_Trotskyist]

If you believe in a multi-party system perhaps you should start calling yourself a democratic socialist. Do you also mean to say that there was a Soviet system in the USSR with no elections - then how did the Soviet system work? Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, leaders of th Fabien society, travelled to the USSR twice in the 1930s and recorded elections taking place. They recorded the presence of opposition to the government in worker's councils. No one could be a member of a party other than the communist party, however, one could stand as an independent candidate.

Lenin said countless times that the ban on political parties, curtailing of rights of the press and civil liberties were completely ephemeral. The USSR was in extreme danger, they had little or no military to combat the 28 different foreign armies on their soil, no money to pay for food, and they had reactionary peasants on the brink of starting a new counter revolution, it was entirely justified to do it then. However, after that and after about 1925 the USSR had fully recovered and were passing pre war production, thanks to the first NEP, they were strong enough then to allow the elections. Now how many of the independents were elected? Were any ever in the National Congress? All sources point to No. The Stalinist Soviet system didn't work, that is why the reaction happened and the eventual collapse. Even if there were elections, which there weren't, they wouldn't have changed anything on a major scale, is that democracy any different from American "democracy". Are you suggesting that we live in a democracy where you cannot vote your conscience and choose between the lesser of two evils? Are you saying a two party system, or the structure of, is democracy? Besides that fact the workers councils weren't elected. They where chosen either by the bureaucracy or the bureaucracy and elections banned. Now did the USSR follow the theory of surplus value? No it couldn’t have or it's ruling bureaucratic dictatorship wouldn't have been able to maintain its foreign trade agreements or support its army. Now the way the Soviet system was set up, democratic centralism, was brilliant. But, one party on the ballot hardly counts as democracy. Even within the party there were no disagreement with the bureaucracy, remember when they expelled 1.2 million members for disagreeing with the ruling faction? Remember the labor/concentration camps they were sent to? So even if the one party system's democracy, as you say, was done within the party during Stalin’s time the evidence shows otherwise. If the bureaucracy’s policies were so good then why did they have to expel and kill those who disagreed?
[QUOTE]If the Soviet Union was apparently so strong and had nothing to fear from the Germans then why were the Germans able to travel so far into Russia during World War II?

That is the reason why they moved so far into Russia, because the Bureaucracy felt that another bureaucracy could be trusted, because they weren’t to goddamned different during the most oppressive time. They had no fear and thought that the Germans wouldn’t attack because they had the same interests, those of Capital and Class. The Soviet bureaucracy and the NAZI had many interests together; they need materials to expand their industries, manpower and most of all trade agreements. Stalin and Hitler played their part in tricking the masses, Hitler would make a speech denouncing the Jewish Communist Conspiracy, Stalin do the same but change to words to Fascist Trotskyites. They did what Lenin said the USSR would never do, compromise with the capitalists and create secret deals with foreign governments, but I am off the subject right now. Stalin and the bureaucracy continually denied the intelligence briefings because they felt that Hitler could be trusted! This is obvious because Stalin physically hid for a week! This is also the reason why Stalin moved the Jews, because he felt, after he had taken Eastern Europe that there was not rush to move the soldiers because they TRUSTED the fascists, this plays into that propaganda of we are fighting but are in an alliances so we will do this great humanitarian effort. Of course we will take the Jews, this makes the people believe that their leaders are seriously dealing with the Fascists, the same when Hitler imprisoned the Communist Party members this made the Germans believe the same.

-Stalin was married to a Jewish woman (whether it was his 1st or 2nd marriage I don't know)
-One of the first orders Stalin gave to the Red Army was that Jews who wanted to should be evacuated East into the safety of the Soviet rear, out of the reach of the advancing Nazi army. A considerable portion of the Soviet railroad capacity, which otherwise would have been used to transport troops and material to the front, was allocated for this purpose.
-"Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death."
Stalin, January 12, 1931, to an inquiry made by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America"


As I already explained, because you didn’t specify if that happened during Barbarosa or the invasion of Poland, was for purely propaganda. Now his wife which one was that the one who killed herself or the one he abandoned? I can’t remember, but his son tried to kill himself because he was engaged to a Jewish woman and Stalin said he would never have a son married to a Jew, he also complained frequently about his grandson having “Jew Eyes”, see Stalin a man of History for this. Now Stalin in 1949, denounced artists and Jews because, as he said, they were “un-socialistic” Then the fact that they would kill people who simply disliked Jews was completely insane. I am not saying that anti-Semitism should be tolerated, but that is murder because of belief only showing how despotic the Stalinist regime was.

QUOTE]In China, Stalin had many of the top CPC members educated in Russia. He also sent advisers to aid the revolutionary struggle, such as Otto Braun. Braun's revolutionary experience became embellished in the Chinese proletarian struggle. He became friends with Mao and married a Chinese woman.

Stalin had Mao sent to Paris. The place of the original Paris Commune, Mao was able to complete his study of Marxism, and there he married too.

You are right that the Communist in China did collaborate with a class other than the working-class. Marxism is a social science, and to best see how to apply Marxism one must look at each situation scientifically. Collaboration with the KMT had many cadres killed in the short term. However, they were able to defeat the Japanese imperialists, who if had taken power in China would attempt to eliminate the entire Red Army. The Soviet policy was a big success, and the Japanese were defeated and after the Communists took power.

Now if my memory serves me correctly it was Otto Braun was virtually the only real and Soviet advisor and only there to watch the revolution for Stalin. When the Long March came Otto Braun, said by Mao, he was out of funds and out of influence with Stalin. From a Marxian Scientific standpoint Maoism is a cheap form of Prahoundism, see the Holy Family and any of Lenin’s works to see what they say about petty bourgeois regimes of peasants, or The French Civil War by Marx about peasants in the communist revolution. The petty bourgeois revolution is not at all a Marxist or Leninist revolution; remember we are for a PROTLETARIAN revolution. But back on track. The Maoists also called otto, useless. Stalin gave them no weaponry or air support, and little funds. Mao and Stalin had an uneasy relationship because of the lack of support given during the revolution. The basic fact is that the Stalinist sold out the Chinese Revolution of 1925-27 so he could get trade deals with the Chinese markets. He used the Menshevik “Two Stage” theory to Justify it! The Stalinists destroyed the Chinese Revolution before they tried to tame Mao into their puppet.
So lets look this over. Stalin basically destroyed democracy. Fucked up the soviet economy by not allowing it to democratically planed, he trusted the fascists and dealt with them, betrayed the revolution and then killed millions in the famine and repression. By the way Mao, how did the Russian population drop by over 10 million in a few years? State capitalism doesn’t work for the record.

[American_Trotskyist]

Ok this is the most important disscussion of all for the followers of Marx and Lenin. We have found a way to take power and now we need to find a way to maintain it and keep it following Marx and Lenin. Your Menshevik times are over, they died on November 7th 1917. Leninism is the obvious contiunation of Marxism, but that isn't the topic. So go start a club to ***** about Leninism, but the way Kautsky is dead! :lol:

[American_Trotskyist]

Mao the point of communism isn't to equalize itself to Capitalism, to equalize itself with capitalist democracy or with the capitalist means of production. If that is your goal, or you lag behind the capitalists, you have major problem. We need to exceed the Capitalist in everything but repression. But the way. Kautsky is dead! :lol: :P

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Jan 6 2005, 07:04 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ Jan 6 2005, 07:04 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 6 2005, 04:33 PM
Sorry about that Mao. Stalin was a dictator who used the red army and KGB to mantain control of the USSR. He was only interested in maintaining and expanding his power. As a result he as willing to negotiate with Hitler, and murder anyone who opposed him.
Stalin was a man of compassion, interested only in human liberation, peace and socialism. The negotiations between Stalin and Hitler in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were far less significant than the kind of praise the British and American governments were giving Hitler prior to the war.

The non-aggression pact was just that, an agreement that they would not go to war with one another. Stalin knew that the Soviet Union would not be able to defeat Germany. The pact meant he would not go to war with the Germans when they invaded Poland.

10 Historical Lies:
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html#RTFToC5

I also strongly advise you to have a look at this:
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

Stalin could not eliminate any one that he wanted, and was in no position to control the country using the KGB and the army. The Red Army, as Stalin noted was not so much an army as a school in any case.

'the USSR is a country where everything is supposed to be decided on collegiums; but, on the other hand, it is known that everything is decided by single persons' Sidney and Beatrice Webb posed the question to Stalin 'who really decides' Stalin's reply was emphatic and explicit. He said: 'No; single persons cannot decide. The decisions of single persons are always, or nearly always, one sided decisions.... Everyone is able to contribute his or her experience. Were it otherwise, if decisions had been taken by individuals, we should have committed very serious mistakes in our work. But since everyone is able to correct the erros of individual persons, and since we pay heed to such corrections, we arrive at more or less correct decisions.'

Stalin: 'In the Soviet Union ... in the land where the dictatorship of the proletariat is in force, no important political or organisational problem is ever decided by our soviets and other mass organisation, without directives from our party. In this sense, we may say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is substantially the dictatorship of the party' Stalin, J.V., Leninism (1928)



You suggest Stalin was similar to Hitler. But for example, look at how Stalin defines a nation in 1913 (Marxism and the National Question):

What is a nation?

A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people.

This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

Rather different to Hitler's view that a nation is based upon a mythical volk with racial characteristics in common. [/b]
It was obvious Hitler was going to attack soon anyway, Stalin could have declared war with Britain and France, Hitler could never have won fighting on both fronts.

The greatest killer of all time interested in human liberation :blink:

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 7 2005, 01:35 PM
It was obvious Hitler was going to attack soon anyway, Stalin could have declared war with Britain and France, Hitler could never have won fighting on both fronts.
The USSR did go to war with Germany shortly after, on its own. Britain did little until 1942. The USSR almost defeated Germany by itself.

Did you look at the links I posted?

[American_Trotskyist]

That is incorrect. The USSR didn't decare war on Germany, Germany invaded the USSR in a sneek attack. The USSR didn't make any real progress, well any, until the capitalists started fighting in North Africa and Invaded Italy in 1943. The USSR started to make progress after D-Day when the allies had created a western front.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:00 PM
That is incorrect. The USSR didn't decare war on Germany, Germany invaded the USSR in a sneek attack. The USSR didn't make any real progress, well any, until the capitalists started fighting in North Africa and Invaded Italy in 1943. The USSR started to make progress after D-Day when the allies had created a western front.
That was my point. Stalin only attacked when he was attacked. Had he done so earlier the war could have been over much sooner. I'm not denying that the soviets didn't win ww2 by the way. 90% of German casualties were caused on the Eastern Front. Stalin was no better than Hitler though, haven't you heard about the Russian Holocaust.

[American_Trotskyist]

Oh yeah Im on your side. It is Mao over there who hasn't read a damned thing other than People's Weekly World and Pravda. Mao everything you have said is either compleatly incorrect or historically proven by socialist and capitalists alike to be false, jesus read book.

[Maksym]

American_Trokskyist, your opinion on WW2 is so distorted you have no legitimacy to insult Mao. Your incorrect opinion obviously came from some American history book that only an uneducated fool would believe.


That is incorrect. The USSR didn't decare war on Germany, Germany invaded the USSR in a sneek attack. The USSR didn't make any real progress, well any, until the capitalists started fighting in North Africa and Invaded Italy in 1943. The USSR started to make progress after D-Day when the allies had created a western front.

Are you for real? The first successful offensive launched against the Germans was in the Winter of 1941 when the USSR pushed the Nazi’s back on all fronts. The Germans had 3 divisions in North Africa and 200 on the Russian front. Western historians horribly over exaggerate the Western fronts since they are attempting to steal the victory from the Russian people. The partisans held down 20 German divisions, more then the whole Western armies. The USSR won at Stalingrad by surrounding the Germans in a pocket and won at Kursk, the largest tank battle in history. Read about Operation Bagration to see how pathetic the Normandy landing was in comparison.

http://www.militaryink.com/books/2004/march/0275982858.htm

Your opinion about the Soviets attacking Germany has to be a bad joke. The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany that expired in 1944 for a reason. As the war has shown the USSR army was a juggernaut by 1944. With the most advanced tanks in the world, the most sophisticated tactics and a competent general staff. The USSR policy, as was Lenin’s during WW1, was to let the imperialists smash each other instead of direct confrontation. This is how the Russian Revolution came about.

[American_Trotskyist]

Ok did you read that? the germans attacked in the soviets in the summer, even the intro says that. This just further proves our point that Stalin could have shortened the war by invading in 1939, Germany i mean. He just dicided to take the bonapartist rout and make deals with hittler.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:48 PM
Ok did you read that? the germans attacked in the soviets in the summer, even the intro says that. This just further proves our point that Stalin could have shortened the war by invading in 1939, Germany i mean. He just dicided to take the bonapartist rout and make deals with hittler.
Yeah, Stalin was only interested in gaining as much power as possible, no matter how many people died, on his side and on his enemie's.

[Maksym]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:48 PM
Ok did you read that? the germans attacked in the soviets in the summer, even the intro says that. This just further proves our point that Stalin could have shortened the war by invading in 1939, Germany i mean. He just dicided to take the bonapartist rout and make deals with hittler.
How do you suppose the USSR attacks Germany in 1939? Can you provide a deep incite into a proper order of battle for the USSR attack on Germany in 1939? The USSR did attack fascism in 1939. They threw out the pro-German, Fascists governments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The USSR liberated Bessarabia from Romania and secured land from Finland for the defence of Leningrad.

The USSR tried on five occasions in 1939 to make a deal with France and the UK on an alliance against Hitler. The West supported Hitler and debated about making a peace deal with the Germans after Poland was annexed. They would have loved if the USSR attacked Germany in 1939 since it would have given them the reason to join the AXIS (Anti-Comintern Pact). In case you did not realize yet France was a fascist government since 1938 and society had become demoralized. Hence the defeat of France in a few weeks.

[bolshevik butcher]

Hey, if Stalin was so keen to defeat Hitler why didn't he attack hime in 1939, when he ahd the perfect opportunity. Stalin didn't liberate the baltic countries, he invaded them, same with Finaland.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Yeah, Stalin was only interested in gaining as much power as possible, no matter how many people died, on his side and on his enemie's.

Welcome to realpolitik.

Besides, what's your point? Capitalism kills. Are you suggesting the Soviet Union should have invaded the whole planet?



Hey, if Stalin was so keen to defeat Hitler why didn't he attack hime in 1939, when he ahd the perfect opportunity.

Germany didn't invade the Soviet Union at that time, so why should they have invaded Germany?

[chebol]

Unfrotunately, American Trotskyist, both Kautsky and Bernstein, and their Economist friends, are all still very alive and kicking. The lessons of the Iskra project are still as valid as ever.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:39 PM

Yeah, Stalin was only interested in gaining as much power as possible, no matter how many people died, on his side and on his enemie's.

Welcome to realpolitik.

Besides, what's your point? Capitalism kills. Are you suggesting the Soviet Union should have invaded the whole planet?



Hey, if Stalin was so keen to defeat Hitler why didn't he attack hime in 1939, when he ahd the perfect opportunity.

Germany didn't invade the Soviet Union at that time, so why should they have invaded Germany?
Hitler clearly preparing to invade russia.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Umm, this conversation is all well and good, but, I must say, you guys seem to have had a poor history lesson. Hitler and Stalin joined a non-aggression pact in August of 1939. This we know. However, Stalin loved the idea, he not only got the easter half of Poland (Soviets invaded on September 17th, 1939) but he got other material incentives as well. Stalin liked the idea of having a strong "ally" in Hitler, who really wouldn't. Afterall, the West treated the SU with contempt and hatred for decades, then along comes a strong man who wants to form a semi- and limited alliance. Of course Stalin jumped at the opportunity.

Relationship between the two countries was cordial at best. Hitler kept his rhetoric towards "Jewish Bolshevism" down while Stalin eliminated the word "Fascist" from the nespapers and media outlets. The word was no longer used to describe pro-capitalist elements in the SU or anything, or whatever the hell he had used it for before.

It was this trust of Hitler that led to the Soviet Union's dire situation in late 1941 (Hitler invaded June 22, 1941). As the German's marched in, Stalin refused to believe his own intelligence. Several days went by, crucial days, where he did not allow commanders to counterattack, and still refused to believe anything that anyone was telling him (he was paranoid of everyone, June of 1941 was only a few years after the last of the Purges in which he killed vast porportions of Soviet officer corps, including 3 of 5 Marshals, 8 of 11 Army commands, and so on).

There was much that Stalin could have done, but didn't. He was not preparing for war. He trusted Hitler, much like Chamberlain had in Britian. War with Germany was far from Stalin's mind. He had newly acquired territories, new people to subjegate, etc. And let's not forget their Pyrric victory against the Fins (in which an officer corps might have come in handy). We have the priviledge of hindsight, so, we really can't judge many of his actions. But we can explain that he was of course, being naive and dumb, besides paranoid. Attributes of many dictators.

TGOW

[American_Trotskyist]

Anyways lets go back to Trotskyism vs Stalinism, or more accuratly, Marxism vs Stalinism.

[Hiero]

Several days went by, crucial days, where he did not allow commanders to counterattack, and still refused to believe anything that anyone was telling him

I read, late that day or the next day he had told his commanders and defence commitie not to attack as it may be a provocation.

[American_Trotskyist]

I read, late that day or the next day he had told his commanders and defence commitie not to attack as it may be a provocation

Why would he not want to provoke them? They were invading! Because the NAZI-Stalinist pact he wasn't tactical at all, it was two imperialist powers dividing up their conquests. He trusted Hittler and didn't attack because he couldn't believe that Hittler had betrayed their agreement, and he didn't want to believe that. He physically hid for 10 days and said that there should be no counter attacks.

[bolshevik butcher]

I have a reasnoble grasp of history, what i meant was that it was evident that Hitler was going ot attack the USSR.

[rebelworker]

This si crazy!!!!
:o
the soviets still functioned????

No famine in the Ukraine???

Do you people ever read anything written outside your own ideology without discarding it as Cappitalsit propoganda or social facism???
A website called Soviet-empire might be a questionable source of materials

For a working class without bosses, leaders or gods try putting yourself in the shoes of a worker. The question is not what should one great leader(or small group) have done in the name of the working class, but what each working class militant can do to build a better society. You guys are getting so locked up in de :D bating rediculous texts that you've lost sight of reality.
:D :lol: :P :ph34r:

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:08 AM
This si crazy!!!!
:o
the soviets still functioned????

No famine in the Ukraine???

Do you people ever read anything written outside your own ideology without discarding it as Cappitalsit propoganda or social facism???
A website called Soviet-empire might be a questionable source of materials

For a working class without bosses, leaders or gods try putting yourself in the shoes of a worker. The question is not what should one great leader(or small group) have done in the name of the working class, but what each working class militant can do to build a better society. You guys are getting so locked up in de :D bating rediculous texts that you've lost sight of reality.
:D :lol: :P :ph34r:
Thank you comerade, now join me on all the other threads in my crusade against stalinism.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:33 AM

Several days went by, crucial days, where he did not allow commanders to counterattack, and still refused to believe anything that anyone was telling him

I read, late that day or the next day he had told his commanders and defence commitie not to attack as it may be a provocation.
You have to love Stalin though and his immense trust in Nazi's.

First numerous of independant sources warn him of the invasion, even the exact date. He does nothing.

Then the biggest invasion in the history of mankind occures. Millions of Soviet troops are entrapped within days. 70% of the Airforce is lost. The tankforce looses thousands of tanks. The German forces progress rapidly. Stalin's orders: don't upset the Germans!!

This deserves a redstar2000 :redstar2000: