Stalinism [Archive]

Donnie

19th January 2005, 11:38

"Stalinism" was much about what he did as what he said, as stalin was no great interlectual:

* Moved away from Lenins emphasis on internationalism and favoured a policy of "Socialism in one country"-thus socialism was linked to Russian nationalism.

*Created a centrally managed economy based on the Five Year Plans drawn up by Moscow after 1928. The capitalist market was obolished.

*Forced rate of industrialisation plus forced collectivisation of agriculture, using violence if necessary.

*Delibrately encouraged cult of the individual around himself-Stalin image was everywhere and he hailed in the media, schools and society as the great and wise leader.

There was also internal developments within the CP could also be seen as a break with lennism.

*Opponents were driven into exile (eg Trotsky) or in the 1930s "Liquidated". Millions were purged

*Party positions held by those loyal to stalin-no meaningful debate allowed.

These polices created a totalitarian state, but also allowed the USSR to industrialise at break neck speed and resist the NAZI invation of 1941.

PS: Stalinist are bad guys.. naught naughty they deserve a good spank!!

Sabrina

19th January 2005, 14:08

Essentially the key works are "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels, "State and the Revolution" and "What is to be Done" by Lenin and if you are going to read anything by Stalin, I suggest you read "Trotskyism or Leninism" and "Foundations of Leninism". A good biography on Josef Stalin is "Another View of Stalin".

These polices created a totalitarian state, but also allowed the USSR to industrialise at break neck speed and resist the NAZI invation of 1941.

Thank you very much to both of you. I'll be heading over to the bookstore or on the web to look for these as well.

Vinny Rafarino

19th January 2005, 15:59

hank you comrade, but i was looking for info. directly on Stalinism, or am i missing another name for it?

"Stalinism" is simply Marxism. Thus if you want to know about it, read Marx.

"Stalinism" was much about what he did as what he said, as stalin was no great interlectual (sic):

I see you have never bothered to read any of his works.

Typical.

Moved away from Lenins emphasis on internationalism and favoured a policy of "Socialism in one country"-thus socialism was linked to Russian nationalism.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your opinion.

The USSR fully supported many global attempts at producing socialism.

Socialism is also "linked" with "the devil" according to the west. Does that mean it was Stalin's fault? Of course not.

It appears that you have forgotten that at one point half of the world became socialist during the period of Stalin.

Typical.

Forced rate of industrialisation plus forced collectivisation of agriculture, using violence if necessary.

Yes, the former ruling class was oppressed using violence. Do you disagree with the use of violence during a revolution? :lol:

*Delibrately encouraged cult of the individual around himself-Stalin image was everywhere and he hailed in the media, schools and society as the great and wise leader.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, Stalin was quoted in public denouncing the "cult of personality" phenomenon.

You really need to check your facts.

Opponents were driven into exile (eg Trotsky) or in the 1930s "Liquidated". Millions were purged

Once again your facts are not straight.

To begin with "millions" were never "purged" as you say.

As far as "driving" your "opponents" into exile I have to ask:

Do you disagree with the oppression of counter revolutionaries and the former ruling class during a revolution?

Party positions held by those loyal to stalin-no meaningful debate allowed.

Lie.

Perhaps you can provide some empirical evidence to support this absurd claim.

PS: Stalinist are bad guys.. naught naughty they deserve a good spank!!

Considering how little you know about the history of socialist revolutions, I would have to say you are not in a position to give anyone a "good spank".

The Garbage Disposal Unit

19th January 2005, 20:40

"Stalinism" is an innacurate term, since Stalin made little theoretical contribution to Marxism. Stalinists, rather, are the idiots who play appologist for Stalin and defend his practical application of quai-Leninist ideas in establishment of the imperialist, bureacratic-capitalist, police state.

Don't listen to the ****s that say "Stalinism IS Marxism-Leninism" - it refers to the application of Marxist-Leninist thought under Stalin's quasi-dictatorship, but that is not one and the same. Most modern Marxist-Leninists (Some reactionary dinosaurs excluded) reject Soviet imperialism/hegemony in Eastern Europe, mass-imprisonment of party-enemies, gulags, secret police, and so on . . .

"Stalinism" is simply Marxism. Thus if you want to know about it, read Marx.

On the contrary, I'd recomend NOT listening to Comrade RAF. Most of the folk on this site reckon reading and applying Marx can lead to something better than party-dictatorship and banned books.

Vinny Rafarino

20th January 2005, 00:13

On the contrary, I'd recomend NOT listening to Comrade RAF.

Let me guess, you would prefer everyone listen to you, oh holy one?

What a joke.

Salvador Allende

20th January 2005, 00:48

I agree 100% with Comrade RAF, he is correct in recognizing the extremely simple concept that Marxism-Leninism is not a betrayel of Marxism. Stalin never made claims to be inventing a new ideology and none of the people who support the USSR (until 1956) have ever claimed "Stalinism" as an ideology, Stalin wrote many good things defending Leninism against Anarchism and Trotskyism and despite the huge efforts by the West and Anarchists to dismiss him, everyone at the time saw him as a hero and Che Guevara as well as many others looked to him as an example of the path to follow.

The Industrialization has never been duplicated and is considered the fastest and greatest industrialization in history, according to the memoirs of Zhukov and the memoirs of Molotov he personally commanded many of the battles in World War II including the defense of Moscow when the Germans were mere miles from it. I do criticize Stalin for 3 major errors, but seeing as he had no precedant to look back to, they can easily be forgiven, especially in the light of his monumental accomplishments in the USSR.

sanpal

20th January 2005, 09:01

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2005, 03:59 PM
"Stalinism" is simply Marxism.
You are not quite correct. Stalinism might be a terminological word in marxism if Marx and Engels could live so long till Stalin. According to marxism it could be a ... "duhringism" i.e. the model of utopian socialism proposed by Eugene Duhring and which was criticized by Marx and Engels in Engels' work "Anti-Duhring". But "duhringism" was a theoretical model and Marx and Engels had doubted that once someone could try to realize this utopian model into life. But they made mistake. Such "brilliant marxist" was found. He was Stalin. Thus "stalinism" is the practical realization of "duhringism" and I suppose stalinism will take a proper place in science marxism as a brilliant practical confirmation of prediction of Marx - Engels.

Forward Union

20th January 2005, 14:55

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2005, 03:59 PM
"Stalinism" is simply Marxism. Thus if you want to know about it, read Marx.

Rubbish. Marx wrote about the Dictatorship of the proletarian not a dictator of the proletarian. The Murderous Rich class ( :o ) tyrant has a lot to answer for. Its not even worth suggesting that he didn't make purges, the evidence is all around you, mainly found in Soviet Archives, and families stories.

I declare a Stalin bashing thread :P

Donnie

20th January 2005, 15:10

*Delibrately encouraged cult of the individual around himself-Stalin image was everywhere and he hailed in the media, schools and society as the great and wise leader.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, Stalin was quoted in public denouncing the "cult of personality" phenomenon.

Also of course he used the cult of the individul, why do you think there are so many pictures of him? There were pictures of him with children and him in great poses.

Vinny Rafarino

20th January 2005, 16:23

I declare a Stalin bashing thread

Bash away, no one cares.

Also of course he used the cult of the individul, why do you think there are so many pictures of him? There were pictures of him with children and him in great poses.

Who said there weren't?

Are you suggesting that Stalin was responsible for the actions of the people?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

21st January 2005, 05:22

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2005, 12:13 AM

On the contrary, I'd recomend NOT listening to Comrade RAF.

Let me guess, you would prefer everyone listen to you, oh holy one?

What a joke.
Listen to me? Not in particular. Just not to somebody who is going to defend "Stalinism" as a natural manifestation of Marxist ideology. On the contrary, I imagine most of the Marxists on the board would denoince Stalin as a nasty deviation.
At the very least, Marx's description of proletarian dictatorship didn't appear, to me, to have much in common with the practices of the Soviet Union under Stalin.
As such, when you tell a n00b that:

"Stalinism" is simply Marxism.

You're beind intellectually dishonest.

Now are you going to purge me from the party?

Salvador Allende

21st January 2005, 20:52

Cocktail, you keep spouting words, but you show no evidence. Why don't you actually explain or show why Stalin wasn't simply following the precedent set by Lenin. Most everyone from Havana to Pyongyang accepts Stalin simply carried on the work set into motion by Lenin, even those that do not support either of them. By not recognizing Socialism when it exists you and all like you effectively side with the Capitalists in their rhetoric of Anti-Socialism.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

22nd January 2005, 04:19

Socialism.In.One.Country.Idiot.

You know, just for example. The whole practice is kinda suspect.

Forward Union

22nd January 2005, 09:18

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 21 2005, 08:52 PM
Cocktail, you keep spouting words, but you show no evidence. Why don't you actually explain or show why Stalin wasn't simply following the precedent set by Lenin. Most everyone from Havana to Pyongyang accepts Stalin simply carried on the work set into motion by Lenin, even those that do not support either of them. By not recognizing Socialism when it exists you and all like you effectively side with the Capitalists in their rhetoric of Anti-Socialism.

Heres some evidence ...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSgulags.htm

Or, even better than that...

Why stalin Hated, Murdered Jews (http://washingtontimes.com/books/20030816-105043-6895r.htm)

I don't remember the destruction of the Jews mentioned in The Communist ideology, or the socialist one for that matter.

octovia

22nd January 2005, 10:49

you should read "the dictators"

Salvador Allende

22nd January 2005, 22:38

I see nothing but bourgeois sources, the same bourgeois who continue to praise Trotsky and denounce Stalin as a dictator and the same bourgeois that this place claims to want to overthrow.

Red_Rich

23rd January 2005, 14:41

Stalin ruined the USSR. Ruined the enonomy with his unachievable 5 year plan, Killed an estimated 60million people and left communism with a bad name forever.

Why defend him? Even if im wrong about what i said, he has still given communism a bad name and im sure would have made karl marx stir in his grave!

octovia

23rd January 2005, 20:17

i've never understood why so many mourned his death,if he was that bad i'm sure they would have been glad to see him dead.

Red_Rich

23rd January 2005, 21:48

Many poeple in russia didnt know of all the bad things he was doing. They only new about the good he was doing. Its known as propaganda.

amusing foibles

24th January 2005, 02:31

The Industrialization has never been duplicated and is considered the fastest and greatest industrialization in history

So?

I've heard a lot of prattling about the need for "proof" of Stalin's crimes from the pro-Stalin forces (and denoucing of those sources used as "bourgeois"), but as the general status-quo (rightly or wrongly) is that Stalin carried out frequent purges and various atrocities, the burden of proff is on [quote] you to show that he didn't. It's great to say that the bourgeois forces of the Trokskites and Anarchists are besmirching Stalin's good name and perverting the truth, but I could claim that for anything. Let's have some proof from your side.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th January 2005, 03:05

I do criticize Stalin for 3 major errors, but seeing as he had no precedant to look back to, they can easily be forgiven, especially in the light of his monumental accomplishments in the USSR.

What 3 major errors?

So?

When someone says "The Industrialization has never been duplicated and is considered the fastest and greatest industrialization in history", you just answer..... "So?"????

Doesn't political and economic progression mean anything to you?

amusing foibles

24th January 2005, 03:19

When someone says "The Industrialization has never been duplicated and is considered the fastest and greatest industrialization in history", you just answer..... "So?"????

Yes, because I fail to see what a high rate of industrialization (implimented in order to catch up with capitalist countries) has to do with Stalin's effectiveness as socialist leader. Did the high rate of industrialization abolish class distinctions? Did it put the workers in control of the factories?

Vinny Rafarino

24th January 2005, 05:17

Ruined the enonomy with his unachievable 5 year plan, Killed an estimated 60million people.

You are in dire need of actually doing some research as these claims are absurd.

Stalin carried out frequent purges and various atrocities, the burden of proff is on you to show that he didn't.

Gulity until proven innocent...A completely rejectable "philosophy".

It appears you are confused regarding trial, debate and logic.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

Considering that no one has been able to scrounge up even the slightest bit of evidence to support the theories that "Stalin killed millions", and an assortment of colourful but ridiculous claims since Stalin's death, it's safe to say no one ever will.

There is a reason for that.

You dig jack?

In any case, I really don't care if most of you are confused about the facts regarding Stalin.

The policies of the post revolution era in the USSR are completely irrelevant to creating the conditions necessary for a Communist revolution in the modern era.

Just not to somebody who is going to defend "Stalinism" as a natural manifestation of Marxist ideology.

There is no such thing as "Stalinism".

You're beind intellectually dishonest. [regarding "Stalinism" being Marxism]

Refer to my previous statement.

Why stalin Hated, Murdered Jews

"Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times."

:lol:

You probably don't even know what the Hoover Insitution is, who funds it or what class it's "members" belong to.

Sabrina

24th January 2005, 10:48

It appears that you have forgotten that at one point half of the world became socialist during the period of Stalin.

Comrade RAF, I personally am keeping a very open mind about Stalin and that's why I was looking for a biography that wasn't biased but just gave the facts.

I love Stalin's quote that I had read on one of your post and I adopted it as one of my quotes a while ago too. Thanks for the point of view (which obviously seems to different from most other people on this post) and I would definately like to look into it further. Please provide me with some good titles RE: Stalin that I should read to be able to see this point of view.

Besides, Che is one of my heroes and, from all the things I've read on Che, he seems to have looked up to Stalin so I would imagine, after I find out more, there is a good chance that I will see his point of view.

Thanks

Red_Rich

24th January 2005, 22:29

You are in dire need of actually doing some research as these claims are absurd.

like i said, might not be completely accurate, but he has given communism a bad name in which it might not recover.. isnt that bad enough?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

24th January 2005, 23:18

Originally posted by amusing [email protected] 24 2005, 03:19 AM

When someone says "The Industrialization has never been duplicated and is considered the fastest and greatest industrialization in history", you just answer..... "So?"????

Yes, because I fail to see what a high rate of industrialization (implimented in order to catch up with capitalist countries) has to do with Stalin's effectiveness as socialist leader. Did the high rate of industrialization abolish class distinctions? Did it put the workers in control of the factories?
This has yet to be refuted. Ten points to Foibles.

Regaurding StalinISM, I say again that it is not Marxism - because it refers to a practice, unique to Stalin/Stalinists, not followed by other Marxists. It is generally associated with a) a tightly controlled comand-economy, b) "Socialism i none country", c) Stricly enforced party disciplene d) vicious censorship of the media, and especially of criticism of the ruling party.
I could keep going if you'd like, but I have no doubt that you see my point by now - there is a distict set of practices, alienable from Marxism-in-general.

Directive 280

24th January 2005, 23:49

:hammer: I agree with RAF, basically the Comandante was closer to Stalin's practice of Marxist-leninism than the traditional local pactists (latinamerican) communists and "leftist" reformists way to reconcile with the burgeouise political parties-(in fact many "communists" and other progressive parties always seemed to criticize armed struggle, or even direct civic confrontations in the form of strikes, and/or student marches. Colombia, Venezuela(which actually sided with the traitorous counterrevolutionary opposition), Bolivia and Nicaragua are sad examples of the traditional left's double standard when it comes to the-Combination of all forms of struggle-which is crucial without any room for concessions, nor revisions-in order for true social change to take form. SIMPLY, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!

Communism is a system, a socially structured movement, not just a simple political party to be switched or overthrown every 4 or 8 years, and until we all can come to finally accept and realize what it means to be a communist than it will be a first step in uniting the revolutionary left.-Otherwise of it there is only one alternative: Revisionism+Pactism=Counterrevolution & Capitalism.

After all who ever heard of a "capitalist party" ? :ph34r:

The Garbage Disposal Unit

24th January 2005, 23:54

You mean like the sorts of strikes and actions Stalin suppressed to sustain bureacratic capitalism?
Bull. Shit.

Vinny Rafarino

25th January 2005, 03:21

Comrade RAF, I personally am keeping a very open mind about Stalin and that's why I was looking for a biography that wasn't biased but just gave the facts.

Why?

There is absolutely no reason to even pay attention to former Communist figures such as Stalin and Lenin.

Regardless of how many lies there are about Stalin that exist in modern bourgeois society, the fact of the matter is that the policies that were created to advance a fuedalistic society into the industrial age are now socially and politically archaic.

Unless you just dig the history.

Please provide me with some good titles RE: Stalin that I should read to be able to see this point of view.

I would first suggest reading Stalin's own works. Anna Louise Strong is another good "Stalinist" author.

The majority of what you will find however will be absurd "red scare" era yanqui propaganda.

Guest1

25th January 2005, 04:09

Agreed.

While I have my own personal opinions on Stalin, I think our tasks are quite different from the tasks the Soviets faced after the revolution.

That being said, this is what the thread is about, so I'll throw in my two cents. History is not about small groups of men, it is about material conditions. Stalin was not solely responsible for anything, and he was not a rando occurrance from nowhere. What occurred under Stalin (which was neither as humane as the centralized left claims, nor as brutal as the bourgeoisie claims, but rather somewhere in between) was the result of material conditions existant in russia and the communist party for some years before.

Blaming this all on one man misses the point.

Oh... and this should be in history.

minusthebear

25th January 2005, 20:42

Originally posted by amusing [email protected] 24 2005, 02:31 AM

The Industrialization has never been duplicated and is considered the fastest and greatest industrialization in history

So?

I've heard a lot of prattling about the need for "proof" of Stalin's crimes from the pro-Stalin forces (and denoucing of those sources used as "bourgeois"), but as the general status-quo (rightly or wrongly) is that Stalin carried out frequent purges and various atrocities, the burden of proff is on you to show that he didn't. It's great to say that the bourgeois forces of the Trokskites and Anarchists are besmirching Stalin's good name and perverting the truth, but I could claim that for anything. Let's have some proof from your side.
Good point!

Also what proof, besisdes the concentration camps, do we need that Hitler committed the Holocaust?

OF COURSE HE FUCKING DID IT!!!

Its a case of my love is bigger than your love, and a case of ignorance is bliss.

The Nazis deny the holocaust, the Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinists/Maoist/Castroists deny the shit things their heroes did.

Vinny Rafarino

25th January 2005, 21:13

Also what proof, besisdes the concentration camps, do we need that Hitler committed the Holocaust?

OF COURSE HE FUCKING DID IT!!!

The difference with Stalin and the Nazi atrocites is this:

Proof actually exists in regard to the Nazis.

I'm happy that you feel that empirical evidence to support an accusation of genocide is not required as long as your capitalist leaders "say it's so".

Do me a favour, if the revolution comes in our lifetime, don't stand next to me.

By the way, the "concentration camps" you are referring to are, in the real world, known as prisons.

"Concentration camps". :lol:

ComradeChris

25th January 2005, 21:39

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2005, 05:13 PM

Also what proof, besisdes the concentration camps, do we need that Hitler committed the Holocaust?

OF COURSE HE FUCKING DID IT!!!

The difference with Stalin and the Nazi atrocites is this:

Proof actually exists in regard to the Nazis.

I'm happy that you feel that empirical evidence to support an accusation of genocide is not required as long as your capitalist leaders "say it's so".

Do me a favour, if the revolution comes in our lifetime, don't stand next to me.

By the way, the "concentration camps" you are referring to are, in the real world, known as prisons.

"Concentration camps". :lol:
Along the lines of atributing horrific events to one man; there's actually no evidence that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jewish people. He wanted them out of state, which is why the trians went East. He probably heard casualty reports, but anybody in a concentration camp at that time really wasn't expected to live. He was on the front lines, not ordering the execution of the Jewish people. There's no recorded evidence of it. Whether the Nazis did a wonderful job hiding their paper trail or what, or whether he actually never said it (I lean towards the prior).

The holocaust was big business as well. Even if Hitler wanted to stop it, he probably couldn't have. I never heard these ideas until university. That's one good thing about furthering your education, there's always two sides to every story.

ZeroPain

26th January 2005, 02:11

In the end Stalinists are counter revolutionary and deserve to be shot along with the capitalists, authoritarianism must not be allowed to take root again.
Comrade RAF's fascist ideologies no longer represent communism and are as different from us as the capitalists are, Stalinists used to be restricted to the opposing ideologies board for a reason.

Vinny Rafarino

26th January 2005, 03:18

Comrade RAF's fascist ideologies no longer represent communism and are as different from us as the capitalists are

Another kid confused as to what "fascist" means.

It's okay son, that line of absurd rhetoric has been tried many, many times before and it always failed.

Miserably.

Stalinists used to be restricted to the opposing ideologies board for a reason

Considering that you are not familiar with what fascism is, it does not surprise me to
see that you are also confused about "Stalinism".

I would suggest changing your moniker esse, "Zero Pain" is just not the case at all; at least for those that have read your posts.

RagsToRevolution

26th January 2005, 14:27

I am not going to get in the argument of this. I will just state what I believe.

I believe that Stalinism is Marxist-Leninism that is operated differently with a different mindset and different situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I oppose the sorts of measures Stalin had used for opposition, even if they are exaggerated, some of it is true.

I am not a Leninist, or a Trotskyite, or a Maoist. I right now consider myself a politically agnostic Marxist. So I cannot really give a perpestive from within.

I do have respect in different degrees for people outside my political sphere of thought, such as Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin (I don't think Joseph Stalin contributed much outside the sphere of Leninism that isn't covered by Vladimir in purpose.)

Now, I would also like to request that the flame war that is kidnling here to please stop. We are all tired of this constant schism between us. This should be a meaningful debate about the policies enacted in the Stalinist model of Leninism. Even if we are biased, we should not be throwing insults at each other, for either side. That makes us little better than the capitalist partisans and their squabbling.

Even if you don't want to listen to me, I just wanted to pitch in.

ZeroPain

26th January 2005, 23:20

Raf i just hope you see the light one day.

Stancel

26th January 2005, 23:27

Stalinism was a dictatorship. You may argue otherwise, but Stalin was a madman. Many Russians were put in gulags (death camps). I don't think Stalin was true to the ideals of Marxism. I think he twisted and used Marx's ideas to justify his own authoritarian dictatorship.

ComradeChris

28th January 2005, 03:37

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2005, 11:18 PM

Comrade RAF's fascist ideologies no longer represent communism and are as different from us as the capitalists are

Another kid confused as to what "fascist" means.

It's okay son, that line of absurd rhetoric has been tried many, many times before and it always failed.

Miserably.

Could YOU enlighten us as to what YOUR highness' definition of fascism is? I have two sources that define it as such that would place Stalin, and Stalinists under its banner. But you don't like those sources because they prove you incorrect :rolleyes: . So I say we hear your version. Afterall there are two sides to every story.

Vinny Rafarino

28th January 2005, 04:27

Raf i just hope you see the light one day.

What "light" is there to see?

As it sits right now I don't feel that many, if any, policies of the USSR are even remotely applicable to creating a Communist society in the modern era.

From a historical perspective, if I choose to formulate my opinion of that history based on actual facts rather than propaganda that has been debunked for decades what the hell is it to you?

You cats can go on about these senseless accusations until you're blue in the face; I really don't care.

Occasionally I will step in to correct your mistakes, just for kicks.

refuse_resist

28th January 2005, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:41 PM
Stalin ruined the USSR. Ruined the enonomy with his unachievable 5 year plan, Killed an estimated 60million people and left communism with a bad name forever.

Why defend him? Even if im wrong about what i said, he has still given communism a bad name and im sure would have made karl marx stir in his grave!
It is a capitalist lie that Stalin was "responsible" for the deaths of that many people. The only people who he went down hard on were counterrevolutionary, anti-communist forces that were waging a psychological war against the Soviet Union.

For all of you who claim Stalin was a "dictator" and is worse than Hitler, Reagan, Bush and all other capitalist/fascist leaders, I would recommend you read these.

Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union (http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm)

Another View of Stalin (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html)

Guest1

28th January 2005, 05:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:37 PM
Could YOU enlighten us as to what YOUR highness' definition of fascism is? I have two sources that define it as such that would place Stalin, and Stalinists under its banner. But you don't like those sources because they prove you incorrect :rolleyes: . So I say we hear your version. Afterall there are two sides to every story.
As I have stepped in before in the case of definitions of Anarchism, so too must I step in here in the case of Stalinism. The reality is, even the USSR under Stalin with its failings, cannot be called Fascist. You must remember who writes the dictionaries, and who writes the history books.

Don't get me wrong, alot was wrong with the USSR of the day, but it was still ahead of Capitalist societies (Fascism included) in terms of progressive policies, in terms of workers' rights, even in terms of limited democracy.

Fascism is an organized, coordinated defense of the bourgeoisie and class society, carried out by ruthless suppression of the working class and the opposing factions of the bourgeoisie who refuse to yield.

The USSR under Stalin, while bureaucratic, and definitely corrupt, was still a state that represented the interests of workers to an extent. There was still free healthcare, education, etc... Workers were still guaranteed jobs, lived better than under Capitalism, and generally were well off under the system.

In criticizing the failings of our movement of the past, one must be careful not to lose sight of our gains :)

ZeroPain

28th January 2005, 20:27

was still a state that represented the interests of workers to an extent. There was still free healthcare, education, etc... Workers were still guaranteed jobs, lived better than under Capitalism, and generally were well off under the system.

I really cant agree since I would probably be dead for criticizing Stalin if I had lived there.

ComradeChris

29th January 2005, 04:46

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Jan 28 2005, 01:54 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Jan 28 2005, 01:54 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 11:37 PM
Could YOU enlighten us as to what YOUR highness' definition of fascism is? I have two sources that define it as such that would place Stalin, and Stalinists under its banner. But you don't like those sources because they prove you incorrect :rolleyes: . So I say we hear your version. Afterall there are two sides to every story.
As I have stepped in before in the case of definitions of Anarchism, so too must I step in here in the case of Stalinism. The reality is, even the USSR under Stalin with its failings, cannot be called Fascist. You must remember who writes the dictionaries, and who writes the history books.

Don't get me wrong, alot was wrong with the USSR of the day, but it was still ahead of Capitalist societies (Fascism included) in terms of progressive policies, in terms of workers' rights, even in terms of limited democracy.

Fascism is an organized, coordinated defense of the bourgeoisie and class society, carried out by ruthless suppression of the working class and the opposing factions of the bourgeoisie who refuse to yield.

The USSR under Stalin, while bureaucratic, and definitely corrupt, was still a state that represented the interests of workers to an extent. There was still free healthcare, education, etc... Workers were still guaranteed jobs, lived better than under Capitalism, and generally were well off under the system.

In criticizing the failings of our movement of the past, one must be careful not to lose sight of our gains :) [/b]
But going along with what you said according to politicalcompass, with libertarianism being an axis...so too is fascism. And I've had very left-leaning professors claim that the Soviet Union, under Stalin primarily, could be described as hyper-fascism (so actually make that three sources for the definition of fascism of which I speak).

I agree hat the USSR, especially under Lenin, was a momentous leap for our cause; don't get me wrong either. I would have loved to live there. But I myself would have preferred Trotsky personally, which probably leads to my resentment of Stalin. But the number of deaths under his regime cannot be ignored. His constant paranoia, and his purges of his own government only add to this. I believe that Stalin(ists) have put a stain on communism/socialism, that people of the opposition will always point out to potential allies and undecideds come a revolution, that may be a powerful tool for them. In the event of a revolution, information will be a major factor, and that stain may be the bane of it.

I can certainly understand how certain leftist parties would definately want to disassociate themselves from Stalinists. The fact that he plastered his own face everywhere should be evidence enough that he wasn't a true socialist. And there's a book which describes his unequal treatment by allowing his immediate family and friends more luxury than the average person. He made classes practically by doing so; making himself higher than the masses.

Hiero

29th January 2005, 10:34

Why defend him? Even if im wrong about what i said, he has still given communism a bad name and im sure would have made karl marx stir in his grave!

Communism is the bad name, the ruling class trash it enough

Many poeple in russia didnt know of all the bad things he was doing. They only new about the good he was doing. Its known as propaganda.

So even though they were oppresed by him they never knew they were oppressed. If you are right about 60 million deaths, then the millions that mourned Stalin's death would have at least known someone who was murdered, why would they mourn then?

Are you calling the Russians idiots then?

But going along with what you said according to politicalcompass,

And I've had very left-leaning professors claim

Do you ever think for your self or do you always rely on internet enclyopedias and dictionaries to make your mind up for you.

Here is Benito Mussolini explanation of Fascism.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...rks/fascism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm)

ComradeChris

29th January 2005, 18:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:34 AM

But going along with what you said according to politicalcompass,

And I've had very left-leaning professors claim

Do you ever think for your self or do you always rely on internet enclyopedias and dictionaries to make your mind up for you.

Here is Benito Mussolini explanation of Fascism.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...rks/fascism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm)
Of course i do. But when Comrade RAF is asking individuals for empirical evidence, it's good to have sources. Your own opinion doesn't get one too far in this world. And why should I listen to some fascist? Do you not think for yourself? You have to post a fascists view point.

No offence...but your argument was double-edged.

Hiero

30th January 2005, 04:48

And why should I listen to some fascist? Do you not think for yourself? You have to post a fascists view point.

Because obviously a fascist would know what Fascism is.

Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.

Thats all you needed to read incase you havent read it. It clears Stalin of any beliefs of him being Fascist.

No offence...but your argument was double-edged.

No it wasn't. I gave you that link to look over to see that Stalin wasn't a Fascist by using a Fascist.

You on the other hand are just agreeing with your sources. I haven't started uni yet and i already know that if you try to write any argument using thoose tactics it won't make a pass.

ComradeChris

30th January 2005, 06:01

Because obviously a fascist would know what Fascism is.

Like I said, I wouldn't want to get my information from an admitted fascist.

No it wasn't. I gave you that link to look over to see that Stalin wasn't a Fascist by using a Fascist.

Sure it was. You asked if I thought for myself because I had references...then you posted a reference from a source. Kind of hypocritical don't you think? Wait I think I know the anwer to that one.

You on the other hand are just agreeing with your sources. I haven't started uni yet and i already know that if you try to write any argument using thoose tactics it won't make a pass.

What on Earth are you talking about? You know little about university. Humanities papers basically come down to whether or not your TA or professor likes the topic you're arguing. I wrote an essay on Trotsky last year. The only critical thing on the paper was that I wrote in the passive tense. I got a 58%. There were no other comments other than a few arbitrary spelling errors.

And in university when proposing an argument you find sources to back up your thesis. Why would you post sources that didn't agree with it. Wouldn't make a compelling argument would it :rolleyes: .

Hiero

30th January 2005, 06:59

Like I said, I wouldn't want to get my information from an admitted fascist.

Fine be stubbon and use biased sources.

ComradeChris

31st January 2005, 01:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:59 AM

Like I said, I wouldn't want to get my information from an admitted fascist.

Fine be stubbon and use biased sources.
I'm not using admittedly fascist opinion. Only those from left-leaning professors, and simple word derivatives from their origins. And that leaves a lot open to interpretation for the most part. But by all means, if you want to use "non-biased fascist" definitions go ahead. That's like asking Hitler if what he did was a good thing. :rolleyes:

Discarded Wobbly Pop

31st January 2005, 07:25

I find that totalitarian dictatorship is often the simple boregois definition of fascism. This also makes you realize why they claim that a dictatorship is needed for communism.

The fact is that Fidel Castro is not a fascist, therefore totalitarion dictatorship cannot be synonymous with fascism. A militaristic state, with a comand and control economy is not necessarily fascism. It may be undesirable, but it is certainly not fascism.

Fascism is usually an industrialized state in which social structures are rigidly controlled while the market is allowed to run "free". Of course this would be a contradiction seeing as the confined social structure under fascism allows a select few to gain control to the means of production. Meaning that the market can't truely run "free". I am not a fascist, so I'm not going to pretend that you can come up with a rational definition for it.

Anyway, although I am disturbed by the fact that a socialist state can act in a way such as Stalin or Kim Jung Ill's regime, it's just not fascism.

ComradeChris

1st February 2005, 15:09

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 31 2005, 03:25 AM
Anyway, although I am disturbed by the fact that a socialist state can act in a way such as Stalin or Kim Jung Ill's regime, it's just not fascism.
They are hard core authoritarian. At least Cuba has elections on a municipal level and Castro doesn't purge his own committees. Stalin and Kim only want power. Hence they started personal cults about themselves where people have to carry around their pictures and their pictures are plastered on billboards. If you look at the picture I posted they become more and more democratic and less hardline authoritarian/fascist. Fascist just implies dictorial control and suppression of anything opposed to them (may not even be the ideology; as we can see so often in Stalin's case) through violence and terror tactics.

Eastside Revolt

2nd February 2005, 00:19

^^^^^^^^

Castro's regime is by definition totalitarian, if it wasn't don't you think they would have had a new leader by now?

Do you or don't you agree that an industrial state with rigidly controlled social structures and an economy using suposedly "free market" principles, is fascism?

Embrace a fascist definition of fascism if you like.

Hiero

2nd February 2005, 02:01

At least Cuba has elections on a municipal level

So did Stalin's USSR and so does DPRK.

Fascist just implies dictorial control and suppression of anything opposed to them

You are choosing to use the bourgiesie definition and method of thinking when it comes to Fascism, and just about everything else. So why don't you go to a bourgiesie forum

Here his something from another forum, where someone gave their requirments to qualify as a Fascist society and things notable in a fascist society

as we can see so often in Stalin's case

Quote:
exalts nation and sometimes race about the individual

No Stalin never put race above the individual. The talk about him being a anti semitic is a lie, he promoted jewish communism. He gave the Jews their first nation, and there were many Jewish artist and dancers he admired. Part of the CP commitie and Politburoe were Jews, most high was Kaganovich.

Quote:
- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

No The NKVD did all invistigations and gave trails.

There ofcourse were the personality cults but at some times Stalin condemn this. Also the russian people were use to personality cults, it was apart of their culture. Before Lenin and Stalin there was Peter the Great etc. the thing the Communist party did wrong so to change this reactionary culture.

Quote:
- engages in severe economical and social regimentation.

Yes But for the good, you are a socialist arent you?

Quote:
- fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state.

No Stalin strengthen the Dictatorship of the proleteriat by removing the Bourgeois and their collaborates, also the war on the Kulaks.

ComradeChris i don't know why i bother, you are riddled with petty bourgiesie thought.

ComradeChris

2nd February 2005, 03:38

Castro's regime is by definition totalitarian, if it wasn't don't you think they would have had a new leader by now?

You can have a leader...and still be democratic. Someone has to represent the country. Castro is by far more compassionate that his "fascist" counterparts Kim and Stalin.

Do you or don't you agree that an industrial state with rigidly controlled social structures and an economy using suposedly "free market" principles, is fascism?

Embrace a fascist definition of fascism if you like.

A fascist definition of fascism would be the link that hiero posted; a definition of fascism by a self-proclaimed fascist. Fascism can exist in any economic factor.

So did Stalin's USSR and so does DPRK.

SO did Saddam :rolleyes: .

You are choosing to use the bourgiesie definition and method of thinking when it comes to Fascism, and just about everything else. So why don't you go to a bourgiesie forum

You're choosing a fascists definition of fascist. Is there really a difference? Well...usually a fascist doubles as a bourgeois; they seem to have a much better life than their subjects...Stalin's portion was different.

ComradeChris i don't know why i bother, you are riddled with petty bourgiesie thought.

I don't know why I bother with your pettier fascist thought. I can only assume that garbage you copy and pasted was written by you as well?

Hiero

3rd February 2005, 13:32

I don't know why I bother with your pettier fascist thought

Where? When have i ever shown petty fascist thought.

I can only assume that garbage you copy and pasted was written by you as well?

Which i stated. I gave comments to the requirments for fascism as the person gave. I took a common sense approach when applying them to Stalin Russia and it seems that Fascism doesnt apply.

ComradeChris

3rd February 2005, 16:11

Where? When have i ever shown petty fascist thought.

Umm..you accused me of not ever thinking for myself, and then you posted a fascist's definition of fascism. I can only assume you agree with it if you're providing it as proof in a two-sided argument.

Which i stated. I gave comments to the requirments for fascism as the person gave. I took a common sense approach when applying them to Stalin Russia and it seems that Fascism doesnt apply.

Sure it does. According to my three sources to your one...the definition of fascism applies.

Hiero

4th February 2005, 03:19

Umm..you accused me of not ever thinking for myself, and then you posted a fascist's definition of fascism. I can only assume you agree with it if you're providing it as proof in a two-sided argument.

Your a fool.

Sure it does. According to my three sources to your one...the definition of fascism applies.

If you wish to use bourgeisie definitions and be limited to them, then keep it to yourself, people are trying to learn here and expand your mind.

You on the other hand are to scared to read a Fascist to criticise a Fascist, you are to scared to be open minded about Stalin and Mao because that may mean some fool of a leftist could call you a Fascist.

Your'e not smart, your'e not original, your not a great theorist and will never lead the workers union as you wish to. You are just self concited commie kid.

Just because you swing to the left a bit doesn't mean you are open minded and less ignorant then some right wing patriot.