STALINISM=NAZISM?

[prettyred]

I have come to the understanding that Stalin believed very much in the state (USSR) and making it stronger, therefore he cannot be a communist as he believed in nationalism, therefore stalin was a national socialist. wait a minuite that rings a bell, a national socialist is a nazi. Correct? maybe this is obvious but i am puzzled at the hypocrisy.

[Bolshevist]

I think you have misunderstood quite a bit. You can read Stalin's writings on marx2mao.com to see what he thought about issues such as the state, ideology, philosophy and such.

[amusing foibles]

Nationalism + Socialism != "National Socialism"

National socialism is a specific ideology that invovles the elevating of the "volk" (the people or traditional culture) to mythic proportions, and extreme racism (to preserve the purity of such). It's not just a nationalistic socialist person (they'd probably just be a social democrat).

[Abstrakt]

Um. Can you even compare Stalin and Hitler?

[Monty Cantsin]

Well I think that equation holds some weight….Trotsky once wrote something along the lines of “Stalinism is to socialism what fascism is to capitalism” (which is even more on the ball).

[Abstrakt]

True. I'll see what others have to say.

[amusing foibles]

Even if Stalin was a crazy authoritarian dictator, which many (including myself) would say, that doesn't mean that he's a "Nazi"- that's a specific and often misused term.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:55 PM
Um. Can you even compare Stalin and Hitler?
They both allowed the deaths of millions under their leaderships (I think Stalin actually had Hitler beat in the per capita annually).

Both sent political opponents to concentration camps.

Both claimed to be National socialists...at least someone quoted Stalin as saying that. As to whether Hitler actually said it...well he was in the party.

Both had purges of their own parties.

Both were hardline authoritarians.

I think there's enough to get a general idea.

[Abstrakt]

..Speechless

[BeginnerRevolutionary]

Wouldn't nationalism already be included in the Stalinism ideal? Or am I wrong in saying this....

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:31 PM
Wouldn't nationalism already be included in the Stalinism ideal? Or am I wrong in saying this....
Yes he believed in isolated socialism (hence National Socialism). Hitler incorrectly used the term. Socialism allows some small businesses while the government takes control of the large ones. Hitler allowed private ownership of large businesses (provided you were an Aryan) and abolished small business (as you can see with the case of many Jewish residents).

Also satelite states under Stalin (and some of his successors; but not so much, they became increasingly less fascist as time progressed) were basically stripped of resourses strictly for Russia, and hardly given anything in return. That's probably why places like Hungary and Czech wanted to revolt so badly.

[Citzen Smith]

Comrade Chris is right, Hitler used National Socialism as the name for his twisted regime, whilst the Nazis did hav some national socialist tendencies, they were in no way an accurate representation of this. as for Hitler in Stalin, depends. There economic views were vastly diffrent, but there ways of acheiving there goals and there politics were very similar. I myself in no way agree wif the messages of Stalinism or Nazism or National Socialism, all should be confined to the grave of history. None of it was gud for humanity or communism, so, really, theres not much point in comparing them.

[seraphim]

I myself in no way agree wif the messages of Stalinism or Nazism or National Socialism, all should be confined to the grave of history.

Ill second that nuff said.

[Abstrakt]

Damn..I assumed that Stalin wanted all nations to convert to Communism. That would mean he wasn't Nationalist? Right? But, I guess he didn't want other Nations to convert. Can someone help please?

[Outlaw289]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:50 AM
"Also satelite states under Stalin (and some of his successors; but not so much, they became increasingly less fascist as time progressed) were basically stripped of resourses strictly for Russia, and hardly given anything in return. That's probably why places like Hungary and Czech wanted to revolt so badly."


hence making Soviet Russia little more than a mercantilist pseudo communist state

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 10:04 PM
Damn..I assumed that Stalin wanted all nations to convert to Communism. That would mean he wasn't Nationalist? Right? But, I guess he didn't want other Nations to convert. Can someone help please?
I'm sure he would have wanted other nations to convert to a rule like his. He installed many of the leaders to the countries who were members of the Warsaw pact. I honestly believe that all Stalin wanted was power; and I think there is vast ground for that to be a valid belief.



hence making Soviet Russia little more than a mercantilist pseudo communist state

I still have been meaning to get this book called, "Stalin: The Red Czar." It basically describes how under Stalin they basically went back to a monarchial system so to speak.

I've heard people refer to the USSR as a corrupt workers state. I think under Lenin would have been the closest to communist. But seeing Stalin directly preceeded Lenin, he made short work of that.

[Abstrakt]

Thanks for answering my question.

[prettyred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:07 AM

hence making Soviet Russia little more than a mercantilist pseudo communist state
communist STATE?

sorry im fussy, workers state!"

[Abstrakt]

..Confusion.

[prettyred]

how can you call a country a communist state when communism is stateless

[Abstrakt]

...Smoted.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:55 PM
Um. Can you even compare Stalin and Hitler?
Certainly you can, several major parallels can be drawn. The use of nationalist rhetoric, suppression of political opponents, military state, authoritarian absolutist government, genocide on a huge scale, imperialistic expansion policies and the excessive use of propaganda.

[Abstrakt]

Stalin used genocide? I know there were many murders, but genocide?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

STALINISM=NAZISM?


Nope.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:04 PM

STALINISM=NAZISM?


Nope.
Technically it was....it was Nationally implimented Socialism. And if you use the Nazi abbreviation you get Nazis. I'll admit the "actually Nazis" misused the ideological term.

[Abstrakt]

But..Stalinism didn't point out other races and religions to massacre....Correct?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:10 PM
But..Stalinism didn't point out other races and religions to massacre....Correct?
I've heard views about him being a tad anti-semitic. But I don't know the truth about that. He seemed more like an equal opportunity killer.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:57 PM
Stalin used genocide? I know there were many murders, but genocide?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

[Kaan]

Um... Stalin was one of the first people to back the creation of Jewish homeland and as I recall his first wife was Jewish. Making anti-semitism a tad bit difficult.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

This site never really makes a case for genocide. Why are you not mentioning that there was a famine going on at the time? What about the class struggle between the Kulaks and the peasants? This was not a case of Stalin being crazy and wanting to kill everybody, these deaths happened because of real world problems that the USSR faced.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:18 PM
Um... Stalin was one of the first people to back the creation of Jewish homeland and as I recall his first wife was Jewish. Making anti-semitism a tad bit difficult.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

This site never really makes a case for genocide. Why are you not mentioning that there was a famine going on at the time? What about the class struggle between the Kulaks and the peasants? This was not a case of Stalin being crazy and wanting to kill everybody, these deaths happened because of real world problems that the USSR faced.
I am forced to assume that you did not read that site: -

From Rummel: -

1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine

gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

If you care to argue that Stalin did not exterminate his political enemies on a massive scale then your naivity knows no bounds.

[Kaan]

I thought you were referring to the deaths in the Ukraine as a genocide, not the purges, misunderstanding. I was also unaware that killing a political group was considered a genocide, by definition doesn't that make all communists advocates of genocide? Being that we want to end the existence of the bourgeouisie class and all?

[Abstrakt]

Yeah, I understand that. I was confused on why anyone would call it that.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:51 PM
I thought you were referring to the deaths in the Ukraine as a genocide, not the purges, misunderstanding. I was also unaware that killing a political group was considered a genocide, by definition doesn't that make all communists advocates of genocide? Being that we want to end the existence of the bourgeouisie class and all?
No real communists support the murder of class, they support its over throw. You do not need guillotines to do that.

[LSD]

Um... Stalin was one of the first people to back the creation of Jewish homeland

Yes... and the mass deportation of all Soviet Jews to that "homeland".


and as I recall his first wife was Jewish. Making anti-semitism a tad bit difficult.[

Not really, I'm sure he loved his wife, but if you look at some of his later actions, espcially between '48 and '53, not to mention his anti-jewish moves in the early '20s as a part of his condemnations of Tortsky et al.,


Technically it was....it was Nationally implimented Socialism.

Technically... it was Nationally implemented state-capitalism and besides, "National Socialism" has a specific ideological meaning which is spereate from its apparent component parts.

"National Socialism" is not "Nationalism" + "Socialism", it is the particular ideology and set of policies of the German National-Sozialiste deutsche Arbeiter Partei bewteen 1920 and 1945.

[Domingo]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 09:32 PM

"National Socialism" is not "Nationalism" + "Socialism", it is the particular ideology and set of policies of the German National-Sozialiste deutsche Arbeiter Partei bewteen 1920 and 1945.
So what you are saying is that is has a different name and place. It has the same concepts.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:18 PM
Um... Stalin was one of the first people to back the creation of Jewish homeland and as I recall his first wife was Jewish. Making anti-semitism a tad bit difficult.
Yeah I was going to say that why would he be for the creation of a Jewish homeland, rather than incorporate them into his socialist society.

But Lysergic Acid Diethylamide beat me to the point:

Yes... and the mass deportation of all Soviet Jews to that "homeland".

Are you referring to the actual Nazis Or Stalin's Soviet Union when you say this?:

Technically... it was Nationally implemented state-capitalism and besides, "National Socialism" has a specific ideological meaning which is spereate from its apparent component parts.


"National Socialism" is not "Nationalism" + "Socialism", it is the particular ideology and set of policies of the German National-Sozialiste deutsche Arbeiter Partei bewteen 1920 and 1945.

Like I said...the Nazis (As described by the German party in the 1930's and '40's under Hitlers leadership) misused the grass-roots term. I heard someone here quote Stalin as actually claiming to be National Socialistic.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:32 PM
I have come to the understanding that Stalin believed very much in the state (USSR) and making it stronger, therefore he cannot be a communist as he believed in nationalism, therefore stalin was a national socialist. wait a minuite that rings a bell, a national socialist is a nazi. Correct? maybe this is obvious but i am puzzled at the hypocrisy.
i dont like stalin
but how is it the national socialist party if they wanted to kill socialists

[LSD]

Are you referring to the actual Nazis Or Stalin's Soviet Union when you say this?:

"Technically... it was Nationally implemented state-capitalism" was in reference to the Soviet Union.

Sorry for the confusion.


So what you are saying is that is has a different name and place. It has the same concepts.

No!

They had decidely different concepts.

The "concepts" that made up "National Socialism were not Nationalism and Socialism, they were unique racial/ideological ideas which were unrelated to either classical nationalism or classical socialism.

Certainly Naziism contained elements of Nationalism, as did it contain some elements of Socialism, but it was not an amalgamation of the two.

It was a radically different ideology which just happened to use the words for political purposes.


but how is it the national socialist party if they wanted to kill socialists

Again, they just used the words.

The National Socialist party was not socialist!

...whew... aren't politics fun! :lol:

[Hiero]

STALINISM=NAZISM?

No and don't be so foolish to believe it.

[Salvador Allende]

Wow, this is really sad. Stalinism doesn't even exist, it was first used by Trotskyists to try and disassociate Stalin with Marxism-Leninism. Stalin merely applied Marxism-Leninism to the Soviet Union, he did not invent any new theories of his own, but merely followed Lenin. In no way is a rather nationalistic form of Socialism such as Cuba or the USSR in Stalin's day Nazi. I always find it amusing that people will look to Ho Chi Minh, Ernesto Guevara, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung and other Communists as models and at the same time denounce the man they all looked up to and tried to model themselves after, Stalin. To denounce Stalin and to recognize none of his accomplishments (at the same time, it is also bad to recognize none of his errors) is to begin to abandon Marxism-Leninism and the next step is to abandon Lenin and then Marx and Engels. Even the WWP realized this.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 07:53 PM

Are you referring to the actual Nazis Or Stalin's Soviet Union when you say this?:

"Technically... it was Nationally implemented state-capitalism" was in reference to the Soviet Union.

Sorry for the confusion.
No worries. I wouldn't say that the Soviet Union (under Stalin) was capitalist, but in no way do I agree with it; I'm probably just as opposed to Stalin as capitalism (well maybe not that far, but I didn't live under his "iron" thumb). It was still collectivized, but it seems more like the Ancient Minoans, who had a redistributive monarchy. Just the way Stalin was basically like the Czars the Revolution eliminated.

[Hiero]

Just the way Stalin was basically like the Czars the Revolution eliminated.

That was really retarded.

[Wiesty]

maybe you guys should open your eyes and see some of these points

that guy had a point, The USSR, was not a Communist, Not even a Socialist country, if anything they were a facist fuedal system. Anyone who opposed was executed, stalin being the stupid leader he was, killed almost all of his party members and had trotsky assissinated, because he was a paranoid nutjob, who did not have a clear vision of Communism.

If anything Russia was a right wing country, and therefor communism was not possible, until 1956, but there had already been to much damage done

[Domingo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:00 AM

STALINISM=NAZISM?

No and don't be so foolish to believe it.
I dont get you.

How cant they be the same!

Look: different names, yes.

Different method, NO!

Policy: you spoke out against me, die for it along with your family. O'yeah, if you are Jewish, o man, we are going to have a field day with you!

How can you deny the identicalness of the two?

[Wiesty]

When infact the Ukrainians suffered more than the Jews

[Domingo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:52 PM
When infact the Ukrainians suffered more than the Jews
Only for the fact that THEY ARE RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA! The Jews almost had it just as rough because there were Jews in Ukraine.

[LSD]

I dont get you.

How cant they be the same!

Look: different names, yes.

Different method, NO!

Policy: you spoke out against me, die for it along with your family. O'yeah, if you are Jewish, o man, we are going to have a field day with you!

How can you deny the identicalness of the two?

Because by that logic, every totalitarian state in history is the same.

But do you honestly believe that the Khmer Rouge and the Italian fascists were the same?
North Korea and nationalist China?
Imperial Japan and Imperial Rome?

The fact that both system contain similar elements (namely the oppression of political enemies) cannot be taken in and of itself as evidence that the two systems are identical.

They aren't.

Are they both oppressive? Yes.
Are they both brutal? Yes.

But they are not the same.

Oversimplification never helps.


Wow, this is really sad. Stalinism doesn't even exist, it was first used by Trotskyists to try and disassociate Stalin with Marxism-Leninism. Stalin merely applied Marxism-Leninism to the Soviet Union, he did not invent any new theories of his own, but merely followed Lenin.

...yes... and no.

He certainly followed Lenin's example of brutal oppression and subjugation of the workers as well as his policy of political authoritarianism and "one man" rule. But I would propose that Stalin was, simply, better at it then Lenin was. Plus Stalin had the advantage of comming in when the instruments of State power were already established, whereas Lenin had to build those coercive tools from the ground up.


I always find it amusing that people will look to Ho Chi Minh,

Never.


Mao Zedong,

Never.


Kim Il Sung

Never.


Ernesto Guevera ... and other Communists as models and at the same time denounce the man they all looked up to and tried to model themselves after, Stalin.

That's called an "appeal to authority": other communists like Stalin ... what's wrong with you!?!?

Sorry, ain't gonna fly here.


To denounce Stalin and to recognize none of his accomplishments (at the same time, it is also bad to recognize none of his errors) is to begin to abandon Marxism-Leninism and the next step is to abandon Lenin and then Marx and Engels. Even the WWP realized this.

Oh... my friend... I "abandoned Lenin" a long time ago.

As for Marx and Engels, surely you must realize that after 150 years, a little revision is a nescessary thing.

[Domingo]

But the point is that they both kill. That is all that should matter! Who cares about a few different things, they are all the same in the perspective of a person who cares about lives.

[LSD]

But the point is that they both kill. That is all that should matter! Who cares about a few different things, they are all the same in the perspective of a person who cares about lives.

No! That is not all that should matter.

The Roman Empire killed. Revolutionary France Killed.

Were they the "same"?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:41 AM

Just the way Stalin was basically like the Czars the Revolution eliminated.

That was really retarded.
What no real reply? I'm shocked....wait no I'm not...look who I'm talking to. :rolleyes:


that guy had a point, The USSR, was not a Communist, Not even a Socialist country, if anything they were a facist fuedal system.

I agree with that statement for any dictator after Lenin.

[Domingo]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2005, 06:41 PM

No! That is not all that should matter.

The Roman Empire killed. Revolutionary France Killed.

Were they the "same"?
The Romans and French may have killed, but they were not insane maniacs upsed with killing for the sake to kill, via Hitler and Stalin.

I see THOSE TWO MEN as all the same: KILLERS, MURDERS, or what have you. You see my point?

[Hiero]

maybe you guys should open your eyes and see some of these points

Maybe you should.

It's amazing how many leftist think they are open mind on the grounds they are a leftist, but when it comes to other communist like Stalin, Mao etc they are so scared to even be opening minded to put aside all the capitalist talk about Stalin.


If anything Russia was a right wing country, and therefor communism was not possible, until 1956, but there had already been to much damage done

Oh it was right wing to remove the right wing faction from the party was it? That doesn't make sense.

The right wingers were on the other side to Stalin. They criticised things like the forced collectivisation.


Policy: you spoke out against me, die for it along with your family. O'yeah, if you are Jewish, o man, we are going to have a field day with you!

There were often arguements in the Polit-buro and the rest, and espically during the war with younger generals. The book im reading now, even thought it contradicts itself saying no one argued with Stalin, dedicated paragraphs of people argueing with Stalin.

And your lie of being Jewish meant death, please at least back this one up. Kaganovich was a leading member in the Party and a Jew.


if anything they were a facist fuedal system

In Lenin's time, during Stalins time it became industrail 2nd world.

And no it wasn't Fascist. Fascism is a stage of capitalism when the ruling class are starting to crumble they install Fascism.


What no real reply? I'm shocked....wait no I'm not...look who I'm talking to.

Why would i reply to something as stupid as calling Stalin like the Czars. Are you going to back that up, dont worry i know you can't.


I see THOSE TWO MEN as all the same: KILLERS, MURDERS, or what have you. You see my point?

So you are a Pacisfist then. Everyone succeful socialist revolutionary kills. Lenin, Che, Fidel etc.

Lenin even said "how can you have a revolution without excuetions"

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Cm'n people put better arguments against Stalin then "He was against Jews", "He killed a lot of people".

The guy created a Jewish homeland in the USSR and if we carry out a succesfull revolution, we will have higher killing rates. Go figure > aprox. 5% upperclass + a further 20% middle-class, cops, etc. There is a lot of resistance to be expected among them.

Maybe you should put forward, that the USSR collapsed due to a rotten structure. Or that Stalin created a bureacracy inwhich capitalists gained the upperhand, even enough to take over after Stalin's death and to dissolve the USSR eventually.

That he didn't encourage intellectualism or free thought under the civilization. A non-intellectual workingclass can never self-govern.

His tremendous errors in the second world war.

His policy of not supporting revolutionary groups, if he didn't like them or expected them to "endanger" his foreign policy.

Above all Stalin's USSR acted more as an emperial force then an advocate and supporter of class struggle. Even to the point that many Finnish communists, socialists and leftists resisted and fought against the Soviet invasion.

Many socialists, anarchists and even communists turned against the USSR, after being betrayed. Especially Polish Communists felt extremely angery when the Soviet troops came to attack them and not defend them in `1939.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:10 AM

What no real reply? I'm shocked....wait no I'm not...look who I'm talking to.

Why would i reply to something as stupid as calling Stalin like the Czars. Are you going to back that up, dont worry i know you can't.
Certainly I can back it up. Firstly, it's a matter of opinion. And secondly, numerous times I've recommended reading the book, "Stalin: The Court of the Red Czar." You choose to ignore evidence that disagrees with your beliefs. Which seem to me borderline totalitarianism. You can never back up your statements when I ask you to. I have always done so upon your request. The only time I recall is defintions from admitted fascists. So look where your ideology must lie.

[alex d kid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:55 PM
Um. Can you even compare Stalin and Hitler?
Yes, you can. They were both crazy powersick dictators. Stalin only killed a lot more people than Hitler. Some communist enthusiasts that don't know their ass from their left foot claim he was a good man, but that's bullshit. Lenin didn't want Stalin to get the power of USSR, but since Trotsky didn't attend Lenin's funural, Stalin held the speech at the funural and anounced himself as the new leader of USSR. Trotsky was claimed a traitor by Stalin and imigrated to the great nation of Norway where he lived in exile. People who went against Stalin and were called Trotskyists.

[Hiero]

Firstly, it's a matter of opinion.


Exactly.


And secondly, numerous times I've recommended reading the book, "Stalin: The Court of the Red Czar."

By Simon Sebag Montefiore, i am up to part nine.


Which seem to me borderline totalitarianism

HAHA what does that mean?


Some communist enthusiasts that don't know their ass from their left foot claim he was a good man, but that's bullshit.

These communist are some of the communist that are the roots of many communist and left movements in many countries. Now you think you have the right to say "don't know their ass from their left foot". Some little punk fucking ***** who has been into leftist politics for a a couple of months is going to tell some of the veterans of the left movement whats right?


imigrated to the great nation of Norway where he lived in exile

Wrong. His first stop at the Turkish island of Prinkipo then stayed at various places until his final place of living in Mexico untill his death.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Yes he believed in isolated socialism (hence National Socialism).

He believed that socialism could be created in a single country, yes? That does not mean he was a "national socialist".


Socialism allows some small businesses while the government takes control of the large ones.

Not neccesariliy.

You can say a lot about Stalin, but to say that Stalin's thoughts and actions are based on nazism is simply wrong.


Like Lysergic Acid Diethylamide wrote:

"National Socialism" is not "Nationalism" + "Socialism", it is the particular ideology and set of policies of the German National-Sozialiste deutsche Arbeiter Partei bewteen 1920 and 1945.


For the record, Stalin supported the establishment of Israel.



ComradeChris, Guevara was responsible for several executions. He killed people, with his own hands.

Just because Nazi Germany was responsible for killings and executions, does that mean that Hitler and Guevara had the same beliefs?

[ComradeChris]

He believed that socialism could be created in a single country, yes. That does not mean he was a "national socialist".

If he created it in one country, is that not a very NATIONALIST way of looking at socialism. THe ideals of Socialism were meant to spread until global communism is acheived. So it goes against regular socialism (in many ways other than that also) so requires a different or altered name.


Not neccesariliy.

You can say a lot about Stalin, but to say that Stalin's thoughts and actions are based on nazism is simply wrong.

If you abbreviate National Socialism the way the German Nazis did (although they misnamed their ideology; in no way were they socialist) you get Nazis. Not of course you don't have to abbreviate either and both Hitler and Stalin named themselves National Socialists.


For the record, Stalin supported the establishment of Israel.

Obviously he didn't care whether mass amounts of Jewish people emmigrated then. Shows the great equality Stalin presented. :rolleyes:


ComradeChris, Guevara was responsible for several executions. He killed people, with his own hands.

Just because Nazi Germany was responsible for killings and executions, does that mean that Hitler and Guevara had the same beliefs?

Good for Che. Che never actually lead a country while committed mass murders and starvations because of mismanagement. I never claimed Che and Hitler were the same people. And not that it's really on topic but I'll answer it anyway.

Hitler, like Stalin purged his own party. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac. Che, was fighting for people in other countries, helping the local people. I don't think he had any intention on running the countries into mass purges of the population. Your hypothetical comparison is laughable.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If he created it in one country, is that not a very NATIONALIST way of looking at socialism.

Why is trying to establish socialism in one country, neccesarily nationalistic?



THe ideals of Socialism were meant to spread until global communism is acheived.

Yes. And the problem?



So it goes against regular socialism (in many ways other than that also) so requires a different or altered name.

I don't see why it goes against socialism.

To try to establish socialism in one country, does not mean you are opposed to seeing socialist movements in other nations.



If you abbreviate National Socialism the way the German Nazis did (although they misnamed their ideology; in no way were they socialist) you get Nazis.

That is hardly an argument for the claim that Stalin was a nazi.


Not of course you don't have to abbreviate either and both Hitler and Stalin named themselves National Socialists.

First of all, do you have documentation on that claim?

Secondly, nationalism + socialism does not equal "German national socialism". Get it?



Obviously he didn't care whether mass amounts of Jewish people emmigrated then. Shows the great equality Stalin presented. :rolleyes:

I don't what you're trying to say. Come again?



Good for Che. Che never actually lead a country while committed mass murders and starvations because of mismanagement.

Che was responsible for the trials and executions at the Cabana fortress. An estimated 500-700 politicians loyal to Batista, war criminals etc. were executed.



Hitler, like Stalin purged his own party. Stalin was a paranoid megalomaniac. Che, was fighting for people in other countries, helping the local people. I don't think he had any intention on running the countries into mass purges of the population. Your hypothetical comparison is laughable. ¨

What you fail to understand is that "method" does not equal "ends".

The end, at least officially for Stalin, was to lead the USSR to communism.

The goal of Hitler was the survival of the Aryan race, etc.

[ComradeChris]

Why is trying to establish socialism in one country, neccesarily nationalistic?

Anything where you're just trying to improve one country is Nationalism.


Yes. And the problem?

The problem is, Stalin only implimented quasi-socialist regimes in the satelite states for the benefit of the USSR. Or they wouldn't have been termed satelite states, but rather allies or something different. Socialism is supposed to be about mutual benefit for all workers, whereas Stalin was only looking out for his own.


I don't see why it goes against socialism.

To try to establish socialism in one country, does not mean you are opposed to seeing socialist movements in other nations.

Unless a country, surrounded by capitalist countries, is self-sufficient that socialist country will just eventually sufficate. Stalin needed the satelite countries and took lots from them, and gave back very little. It was a VERY nationalistic form of socialism, don't you think?


That is hardly an argument for the claim that Stalin was a nazi.

He was a National Socialist. Someone in this forum even had quoted Stalin as saying so.


First of all, do you have documentation on that claim?

I'm only going by what someone told me on this forum. And a vast number of similarities in leadership style.


Secondly, nationalism + socialism does not equal "German national socialism". Get it?

So you stick an -ism on and it changes the complete definition of the word? As for as I'm concerned adding an -ism jsut makes it an ideology.


I don't what you're trying to say. Come again?

Hitler just wanted the Jewish community out of state. THere is no physical evidence he ordered their mass execution (although the Nazis were known to hide paper trials). Why would Stalin want them out of state? I've heard rumours he was anti-semetic, but no proof.


Che was responsible for the trials and executions at the Cabana fortress. An estimated 500-700 politicians loyal to Batista, war criminals etc. were executed.

I take it you don't like Che? Batista was their enemy and fought against leftist, egalitarian movement. Stalin had community watch programs where anyone was suspect. If two neighbours were having a dispute the first one to tattle on the authorities over some made-up claim, would most likely have had the other thrown in a concentration camp or something. He also had a better lifestyle than that of the regular people. Like I said...he was more of a monarchial figure.


What you fail to understand is that "method" does not equal "ends".

Sure I do...and Stalin's ends weren't worth his method in the slightest.


The end, at least officially for Stalin, was to lead the USSR to communism.

Do you have evidence that he claimed he would have given up his power?


The goal of Hitler was the survival of the Aryan race, etc.

Not the survival, but the betterment of living for it.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Anything where you're just trying to improve one country is Nationalism.


If there is no potential for "improvement" (that is radical leftist movements) in other countries, then you don't really have a choice of but to "just" try to impove "one country". Has it ever crossed your mind that improving one socialist nation might encourage others to join the path of overthrowing the bourgeois?

On involvement, let's take the Spanish Civil War.

Because of my limited knowledge, I will quote from various sources.


The Republicans received aid and purchased arms extensively from the Soviet Union. These arms included 1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 300 armored cars, hundreds of thousands of small arms and 30,000 tons of ammunition.


Wikipediai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war)



In the early 1930s Joseph Stalin was deeply concerned about the spread of fascism in Europe. To counteract the growing power of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, he encouraged the formation left wing coalitions. This resulted in the Popular Front government being formed in February 1936. This was followed by Popular Front government in France in May 1936.


The Soviet Union provided considerable help to the Spanish Communist Party to improve its position in the Popular Front government. This included the removal of the socialist Francisco Largo Caballero as prime minister and replacing him with the communist sympathizer, Juan Negrin.

Link (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPrussia.htm)




The problem is, Stalin only implimented quasi-socialist regimes in the satelite states for the benefit of the USSR. Or they wouldn't have been termed satelite states, but rather allies or something different. Socialism is supposed to be about mutual benefit for all workers, whereas Stalin was only looking out for his own.


I think this is perhaps a simplified view of reality.

Do you have any documentation that this was for the "sole" benefit of the USSR?



Unless a country, surrounded by capitalist countries, is self-sufficient that socialist country will just eventually sufficate. Stalin needed the satelite countries and took lots from them, and gave back very little. It was a VERY nationalistic form of socialism, don't you think?


The Soviet Union survived alone for some 20 years.

Also, just out of curiousity, do you have any information on the "draining of resources" from the so-called "sattelite states"?

Could you give any examples of this?



He was a National Socialist. Someone in this forum even had quoted Stalin as saying so.

Has it ever occured to you that describing oneself as a National Socialist at those times did not neccesarily mean being a nazi?

He was born in 1879, the "German national socialism" didn't exist at the time.


Where is the quote?



So you stick an -ism on and it changes the complete definition of the word? As for as I'm concerned adding an -ism jsut makes it an ideology.

What??

Let me give you an example.

Social democracy, a hundred years ago, is not the same as the meaning of social democracy today.

This is taken from my memory:

Along time ago, the Democrats in the US were conservative. The Republicans were liberals. A few decades ago, their role changed.

A few decades ago, the word 'socialism' was often connected to what socialism really is. Today, especially in Western Europe, socialism continually get mixed up with social democracy.

The meaning of words change through time. If he described himself a national socialist in 1902, do you really think he talked of nazism?



Hitler just wanted the Jewish community out of state. THere is no physical evidence he ordered their mass execution (although the Nazis were known to hide paper trials).

A defense for nazism?



Why would Stalin want them out of state? I've heard rumours he was anti-semetic, but no proof.

Exactly, no proof.

Who said he wanted them out of state? I said he supported the establishment of Israel. It is said that the vast majority of the Bolsheviks were Jews. Why do you think Hitler claimed that the Soviet state was led by "judeo-bolshevism", a Jewish conspiracy?



I take it you don't like Che? Batista was their enemy and fought against leftist, egalitarian movement.

I've never said "I don't like Che". I brought about facts. He was responsible for executions. Does that make him a nazi?

The Whites in Russia was their enemy and fought against leftist, egalitarian movement. Where's the difference?



Stalin had community watch programs where anyone was suspect. If two neighbours were having a dispute the first one to tattle on the authorities over some made-up claim, would most likely have had the other thrown in a concentration camp or something.

Proof?



He also had a better lifestyle than that of the regular people. Like I said...he was more of a monarchial figure.

Completely different from what I've read in the past. Documentation?



Sure I do...and Stalin's ends weren't worth his method in the slightest.

And what do you believe "Stalin's ends" were?



Do you have evidence that he claimed he would have given up his power?



I remember him saying something like "in order to get rid of the state, we first have to make it stronger".

There's no 'evidence' of what his real intentions were. I'm not a mind reader, neither are you. That is why I said "at least officially".



Not the survival, but the betterment of living for it.


Whoopdi Shit, wouldn't it be great to pose on the the cover of "Das Uber-menschen", you sexy blond.. aryan? :wub:

[Hiero]

I think Comrade Chris is confused over terms and when the are applicable to use.


He also had a better lifestyle than that of the regular people. Like I said...he was more of a monarchial figure.

The book you are reading will describe the type of room Stalin slept in and work in. It even has pcitures of the bed he slept on

[Wiesty]

no, the germans did kill alot of jews in ukraine and ukrainians also, but it wasnt just the jewish community, and when operation barbarossa went into place, alot of damage had been done to the ukrainians and ukrainian jews, but nothing, nothing even close to what stalin had done.

and for you guys who think lenin was worse, and backed stalin 100% read this
A quote from lenin


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.”


And for those of you who think that he tried to help the jews read this

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/jac.html

and are you implying that forced collectivisation is a good thing?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:30 PM
I think Comrade Chris is confused over terms and when the are applicable to use.


He also had a better lifestyle than that of the regular people. Like I said...he was more of a monarchial figure.

The book you are reading will describe the type of room Stalin slept in and work in. It even has pcitures of the bed he slept on
I'm not confused over anything I'm discussing right now. Anyone who claims that Stalin was equal to his satelite states is VASTLY ignorant or seriously misinformed. He was nationalistic in his policies.

If he didn't get better treatment how come he never found difficulty receiving food (and good food at that) when millions of other people were scrounging?


If there is no potential for "improvement" (that is radical leftist movements) in other countries, then you don't really have a choice of "just" trying to impove "one country". Has it ever crossed your mind that improving one socialist nation might encourage others to join the path of overthrowing the bourgeois?

That's the idea. Not forced exploitative take-overs like Stalin did following WWII.


On involvement, let's take the Spanish Civil War.

Because of my limited knowledge, I will quote from various sources.

I've heard people say Stalin betrayed the Spanish Civil War. I think in the 'Anarchism is Bullshit' thread in this "Learning" section.

To me, and some dictionaries, fascism just means authoritive. Not to mention if he was so concerned about fighting "Fascism" (in this case I'll play along and mean only the "right-wing" term) why didn't he fight Hitler instead of making terms with him to divide up Poland? Hell, they had the same plans once again: half of Poland to each.


I think this is perhaps a simplified view of reality.

Do you have any documentation that this was for the "sole" benefit of the USSR?

Only what was taught by my professors. And if it was for the benefit of everyone why did the Soviet government stomp any mass uprisings using violence? They wouldn't let them out of the Warsaw pact even though the masses wanted it. They were obviously discontent with the agreements made under Stalin.

Also might want to gander at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country


The Soviet Union survived alone for some 20 years.

Also, just out of curiousity, do you have any information on the "draining of resources" from the so-called "sattelite states"?

Could you give any examples of this?

The VAST majority of Soviet uranium (to build up their massive arsenal) came from the USSR's satelite states.

A lot of the food worked teh same way since it is much more extreme weather in most of Russia.


Has it ever occured to you that describing oneself as a National Socialist at those times did not neccesarily mean being a nazi?

He was born in 1879, the "German national socialism" didn't exist at the time.


Where is the quote?

I don't think I ever directly said that. I said if you break it down, and Hitler misused the term...kind of like how you're misquoting me now. I'll see if I can find it. I'm not used to searching this forum so we'll see.


A defense for nazism?

Yup :rolleyes: .


Exactly, no proof.

Who said he wanted them out of state? I said he supported the establishment of Israel. It is said that the vast majority of the Bolsheviks were Jews. Why do you think Hitler claimed that the Soviet state was led by "judeo-bolshevism", a Jewish conspiracy?

But I don't know whether Trotsky was a practicing Jew, but Stalin hated him. Why would he be for the same thing the US wanted? The US were a large supporter and still are of the Jewish homeland idea. And that's even a mainly Neo-Con idea. Same line of thought maybe?

Here's a good little ditty too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...f_anti-Semitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union #Stalin_and_allegations_of_anti-Semitism)


I've never said "I don't like Che". I brought about facts. He was responsible for executions. Does that make him a nazi?

The Whites in Russia was their enemy and fought against leftist, egalitarian movement. Where's the difference?

Then why are you using him in hypothetical situations comparing him to Hitler. It was the manner of Stalin's executions. Sending them to workcamps to die. Much like Hitler did. To the best of my knowledge Che didn't do anything like that. It wasn't always the Whites who were being thrown in the concentration camps in Russia or being executed. As I've said numerous times, Stalin had old Bolsheviks and party members killed.


Proof?

Asking for proof from things I hear from professors is rather hard. And I don't feel like researching for your ignorance on this matter. I've heard this from numerous people as well, not even just my professor.


Completely different from what I've read in the past. Documentation?

There are many sources comparing Stalin to Czars and the like. Take a gander at some. I've promoted one already.


And what do you believe "Stalin's ends" were?

Definately didn't appear to be communist. He didn't give up his vast power, which would have been required to acheive communism.


I remember him saying something like "in order to get rid of the state, we first have to make it stronger".

There's no 'evidence' of what his real intentions were. I'm not a mind reader, neither are you. That is why I said "at least officially".

Sounded like he really wanted to give up his power. And he didn't...so one can naturally assume he didn't have the intention of doing so. Unless of course he planned on living forever and would do it at "some point" :rolleyes: .


Whoopdi Shit, wouldn't it be great to pose on the the cover of "Das Uber-menschen", you sexy blond.. aryan?

What the fuck?

[Hiero]

and for you guys who think lenin was worse, and backed stalin 100% read this
A quote from lenin

Everyone knows that Lenin was pissed at Stalin because Stalin was rude to his wife.

Anyway who cares what Lenin said, it was up to the Central Committie on who was to be General Secretry.


If he didn't get better treatment how come he never found difficulty receiving food (and good food at that) when millions of other people were scrounging?

Ofcourse he got better treatment. How do can a leading party lead a country if they are not at there best and healthiest.

But its ludicrous to say Stalin lived like a monarch. Stalin could of easily exlioted the system more, but rather he decided to live and work in small areas. If you turn to the last set of photos in that book on the last page there is a picture of a sofa that Stalin slept on.

The only times he ate luxuriously was when he ate formal dinners. And the only time he lived luxuriously was when he took holidays.


Only what was taught by my professors.

You worship this guy. What does he teache anyway?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

"Comrade"Chris, what is it you want to achieve?

Do you want to "prove" that Stalin was a nazi? Yes or No answer please.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:46 AM
"Comrade"Chris, what is it you want to achieve?

Do you want to "prove" that Stalin was a nazi? Yes or No answer please.
I want to show Stalin for what he was: a horrible person and who had policies not even remotely resembling communism. I consider him a fascist by the hard-core, terror tactic definition of the term provided by some definitions.

And I searched "Stalin and national socialism," "Stalin + national socialism," and another search phrase (can't recollect exactly what it was; I did it yesterday) and got nothing. You'd think it would have directed me here even. So as you can see I'm not proficient with the search on this forum as I have already stated.


Ofcourse he got better treatment. How do can a leading party lead a country if they are not at there best and healthiest.

It really doesn't matter if everyone else you're leading is starving. He even reported told Churchill by the 1930's that 10 million people had died because of him. He would still cause the death of millions more until his own death.


But its ludicrous to say Stalin lived like a monarch. Stalin could of easily exlioted the system more, but rather he decided to live and work in small areas. If you turn to the last set of photos in that book on the last page there is a picture of a sofa that Stalin slept on.

He wielded the power to kill whoever he pleased, and did so in many cases. There's no doubt in my mind that it was somebody employed by Stalin (or a Stalinist) who killed Trotsky.


The only times he ate luxuriously was when he ate formal dinners. And the only time he lived luxuriously was when he took holidays.

He also gave better portions to his family and close friends (although I'm surprised he had any; it was the people who he considered friends that he was often most paranoid of, like his old party members).


You worship this guy. What does he teache anyway?

History. And I don't worship anybody, I respect him for his views. He's obviously my intellectual superior, and has never given me reason to doubt him in the past.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I want to show Stalin for what he was: a horrible person and who had policies not even remotely resembling communism.

Answer my question, please.

Do you want to "prove" that Stalin was a nazi? Yes or No answer.




I consider him a fascist by the hard-core, terror tactic definition of the term provided by some definitions.


Do you know what fascism is, and the difference between fascism and nazism, or do you use them as synonymous?



And I searched "Stalin and national socialism," "Stalin + national socialism," and another search phrase (can't recollect exactly what it was; I did it yesterday) and got nothing.


No shit, sherlock.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What is funny, or perhaps even ironic, is that you say your ideology "probably" resembles Trotsky's ideas. Trotsky was a Marxist-Leninist.

You know Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist too, don't you?

Where's the difference between Stalin and yourself!? :lol:

[Hiero]

And I searched "Stalin and national socialism," "Stalin + national socialism," and another search phrase (can't recollect exactly what it was; I did it yesterday) and got nothing. You'd think it would have directed me here even. So as you can see I'm not proficient with the search on this forum as I have already stated.

Thats because only a fool would call Stalin a National Socialist, not someone who is credited.


He even reported told Churchill by the 1930's that 10 million people had died because of him.

Quote please. I too have heard this, but never quoted


He wielded the power to kill whoever he pleased, and did so in many cases.

It was the NKVD that did most of the trials under Yezhov (a jew) at first then under Beria when they realised Yezhov abused his power.

Even some of Stalins friends were trialed and sent to the gulag or prisons at Moscow.

I bold trials as people were trialed for there crimes.


There's no doubt in my mind that it was somebody employed by Stalin (or a Stalinist) who killed Trotsky.

The man in my avator.


Answer my question, please.

Do you want to "prove" that Stalin was a nazi? Yes or No answer.


He wont answer it, he is to shallow. Basically Comrade Chirs doesn't have any balls so he is to scared to even think "hey maybe since the ruling class don't socialism they might lie about Stalin" No he wouldn't do that, that would imply being a monster Stalin worshiper.


Do you know what fascism is, and the difference between fascism and nazism, or do you use them as synonymous?

Hell comrade chris calls people Fascist for anaylsing Fascist writings. You really thing he is going to have clue

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

But you can't say that Stalin was "good". He DID kill his own people, he DID have it better than the people of Soviet Russia etc.

Wheter he directly ordered the killing and "punishment" of these people isn't relevant, just like it won't make Hitler a better man just because he directly didn't order the mass murdering of Jews.

And no, Stalin was not a National Socialist, but he was a fascist, but a so called "left-fascist" - I call them stalinists (because of Stalins position on the political compass). See the political compass:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...s/analysis2.php (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php)
(Browse down a little and you will see Stalins position. You can also take the test yourself.)

[ComradeChris]

Thats because only a fool would call Stalin a National Socialist, not someone who is credited.

Somebody quoted him as saying so. Try readin the socialism in one country link I posted earlier.


Quote please. I too have heard this, but never quoted

Professor. And it might be in my text book from last year, but I don't have it with me.


It was the NKVD that did most of the trials under Yezhov (a jew) at first then under Beria when they realised Yezhov abused his power.

Even some of Stalins friends were trialed and sent to the gulag or prisons at Moscow.

I bold trials as people were trialed for there crimes.

Many of the trials were secret. And the conviction was often made before the trial. It was the idea "Guilty until proven innocent," because anyone was suspect.

As I said, if Stalin would purge his own party members I don't think he was overly "attached" to his friends.


He wont answer it, he is to shallow. Basically Comrade Chirs doesn't have any balls so he is to scared to even think "hey maybe since the ruling class don't socialism they might lie about Stalin" No he wouldn't do that, that would imply being a monster Stalin worshiper.

I don't have balls? Anytime I propose something by a source that's very notable you just shrug it off. You can't admit when you're wrong. I don't say anything that isn't quite obvious (logically) or has been told to me. And if y ou have the nerve to insult someone on their intellectual integrity maybe you should proofread. Just a suggestion. It would make your argument more....legible?


Hell comrade chris calls people Fascist for anaylsing Fascist writings. You really thing he is going to have clue

Hey I'm not the one analyzing fascist definitions for their "intellectual honesty" as you do. And did I ever call you a fascist? Because you're the only one who proposed the Fascist definitions.

And one more thing Hiero: You're so off-topic right now, and yet you claim me for not having balls? Try to stick to things I'm actually discussing if you're going to insult me on them, and not the fan-club's unintelligent comments :rolleyes: .


What is funny, or perhaps even ironic, is that you say your ideology "probably" resembles Trotsky's ideas. Trotsky was a Marxist-Leninist.

You know Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist too, don't you?

Where's the difference between Stalin and yourself!?

So Stalin said. Trotsky had his own theories...as did Stalin. Hitler was a "socialist" too you know? Because he "claimed" so and was a member of the party. So was Mussolini because he claimed to be a socialist once too :rolleyes: . You're thick my friend. Stick to something you're good at ;) .


Answer my question, please.

Do you want to "prove" that Stalin was a nazi? Yes or No answer.

I've indirectly answered that. He was not a Nazi in the term of which YOU use. Breaking down the term itself into National Socialism, yes I believe so. Going back to the thick comment again.


Do you know what fascism is, and the difference between fascism and nazism, or do you use them as synonymous?

Both were brutal dictatorships...by this definition:

2 entries found for fascism.
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism

Grab a dictionary my friend, you certainly need it. And speaking of irony (since you brought it up) you claim I don't know what I'm referring to, yet it's obviously you who doesn't understand what you're talking about.

Notice how I also don't ask you for "proof" everytime you post some asinine comment. Mainly because I trust that you wouldn't post anything intentionally false (as it is against forum policy).


No shit, sherlock.

Maybe you should do you're own research then? Just a thought. Wait...then it might compromise what little integrity you have... :rolleyes: .

[Hiero]

As I said, if Stalin would purge his own party members I don't think he was overly "attached" to his friends.


Who said pary members have to be friends.


Many of the trials were secret. And the conviction was often made before the trial. It was the idea "Guilty until proven innocent," because anyone was suspect.

See i wonder sometimes, have you really looked this up or are you just saying of assumption?


And did I ever call you a fascist?

You know you have impleid im a Fascist just attempt it.


Because you're the only one who proposed the Fascist definitions.

What Benito wrote was correct. If you had of read it and had a bit of understanding on Marxism you would understand. As have the people of marxists.org who have more credibility then you.


as did Stalin

Stalin hardly contributed to the Marxist-Leninist ideology. He just made improvements here and there. Espically in Linguitics as i found out recently.


Joseph Stalin: Stalin's linguistics articles brought an end to the "Marrist" school of linguistics, which had dominated soviet work until that time. Although anti-soviet writers such as Milan Kundera and Jerzy Kosinsky later mocked him for dabbling in a technical field in which he had no training, the overall effect of Stalin's linguistic work can probably be regarded as positive.


http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/lasersoh/famous.html (http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/lasersoh/famous.html)


Grab a dictionary my friend, you certainly need it.

I think we are all beyound primary school and no longer rely on dictionaries for our source of knowledge.


Maybe you should do you're own research then? Just a thought. Wait...then it might compromise what little integrity you have... .

What he was getting at with the "no shit sherlock" comment was that it was obvious you would find no articles.

[Wiesty]

hiero, stop giving crack pot awnsers

lenin started the revolution, and led it in the right direction, stalin just messed it up, and how do u suppose he could of exploited the working class etc. any more than he already did?

[ComradeChris]

Who said pary members have to be friends.

They were probably the only people with the same political views as he had. Hell, almost none of my friends have the same views as me. But I can persuade them otherwise in the event of a revolution or whatnot. They don't have to be his friends, afterall, the whole reason of the party purges was because he was a paranoid megalomaniac and thought they would steal his power.


See i wonder sometimes, have you really looked this up or are you just saying of assumption?

That's how it worked. Maybe you could provide sources that most of the people were put on trial? Because that contradicts everything I've ever been told, as when most people were suspect they were taken without notice and often never seen again. I don't need to look up what I've been told by intelligible sources.


You know you have impleid im a Fascist just attempt it.

Attempt what?? I've said your views seem very totalitarian. That's about the closest I've come. And only because you defend bloodthirsty brutal dictators like Stalin.


What Benito wrote was correct. If you had of read it and had a bit of understanding on Marxism you would understand. As have the people of marxists.org who have more credibility then you.

That's good political theory. I'm using an actual commonly accepted definition.


Stalin hardly contributed to the Marxist-Leninist ideology. He just made improvements here and there. Espically in Linguitics as i found out recently.

So mass murders and same-party political purges is an improvement? Well now I see where I've gone wrong being a passive communist :rolleyes: .

He also allowed more women's rights. But only because he was killing off and starving so many men. And then he started removing women's positions again in the mid-1930's (if I'm not mistaken about the date, it was in an article I read last year under the title, "Women Under Stalin's Regime," or something like that).


I think we are all beyound primary school and no longer rely on dictionaries for our source of knowledge.

It's a source of context for the word...which is more accepted than your view.


What he was getting at with the "no shit sherlock" comment was that it was obvious you would find no articles.

Firstly, why are you speaking for him? Secondly, as I said in that post, you think it would have sent me back here. Yet I got NOTHING!

I'm not normally one for just cheerleading (so it may make me sound a tad hypocritical), but I agree with Wiesty:

hiero, stop giving crack pot awnsers
Anytime I say something against your view you ask me for a source, because you can't dislodge it. I intend on speaking with my professor on Friday (since I have class with him anyway; only a different course) to try and get sources for you people who can't do your own research, and rely on the fact you think I'm lying. I'd never lie on this site, because it's against the rules, and I'm going to start asking you for sources, because you make claims which contradict very knowledgable sources on the matter.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Hey I'm not the one analyzing fascist definitions for their "intellectual honesty" as you do.

What's the problem with reading fascist writings? Is there a problem?


So Stalin said.

And you deny Stalin was a marxist-leninist? Most marxist-leninists view him as... Yes, a marxist-leninist.


Trotsky had his own theories...as did Stalin.

Yes.

That doesn't change the fact that... Trotsky was a marxist-leninist... Just as much as Stalin was.



Hitler was a "socialist" too you know?

No he wasn't.

Nationalism over internationalism, pragmatism over principle, religion over secularism, racism, capitalism, protecting the bourgeoisie are not "socialist" positions.



Because he "claimed" so and was a member of the party.

Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:
"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."

Source: Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany




You're thick my friend. Stick to something you're good at ;).

And this is coming from you. I'll take that as a compliment.



I've indirectly answered that. He was not a Nazi in the term of which YOU use. Breaking down the term itself into National Socialism, yes I believe so. Going back to the thick comment again.

Nazism is an abbreviation from the German Nationalsozialismus, "National Socialism".

If you believe Stalin was a socialist with nationalistic beliefs, you could call him a "non-internationalist socialist", or "socialism with focus on the Soviet Union".

But to call him a National Socialist... Let's just say I'm not the slightly suprised that this is coming from you.

The fact that you write National Socialist instead of national socialist, indicate either ignorance or just a perverted mentality.

Do you know the difference between a communist and a Communist?




So was Mussolini because he claimed to be a socialist once :rolleyes:


In his early years, perhaps. Was his policies socialist?

The fascism in Italy was established as a reaction against the spread of leftwing movements in Europe. Leftwings were executed.

Conclusion? Don't judge the book by the cover.

You seem to get hooked up by definitions, and solely concentrate on so-called "definitions", which leads to my point:



Both were brutal dictatorships...by this definition:

"By this definition"?! You're obsessed with definitions!

And then you move on to:


2 entries found for fascism.
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism



Now, with the personal joy of humiliating you, I will use your source: It's definition of communism:


com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat


The fact that you write "both were brutal dictatorships, by this definition", just goes to show how ignorant you are. But I don't expect you to get it. However, if you do, congratulations.



Grab a dictionary my friend, you certainly need it.


Wooohooo, look at me, I have a dictionary!!! I'm smarter than you! But I won't read any litterature!! I'm an intellectual, I know shit!!, nevermind I do not have any intellectuel power whatsoever!!! :lol:


And speaking of irony (since you brought it up) you claim I don't know what I'm referring to, yet it's obviously you who doesn't understand what you're talking about.

Absolutely, I don't know shit.

I am absolutely overwhelmed by your intellectual superiority! I feel rendered powerless, especially by your excessive amount of knowledge and wisdom!

Oh thy lord! Oh thy lord!

Messiah must not be mistaken. Thou must not forget!

Servant to raise up from the ashes of darkness!



Notice how I also don't ask you for "proof" everytime you post some asinine comment.


You won't, I know. Sometimes because you know I am right, other times you won't because you are confused and insecure of yourself.

By the way, what "asinine comment"?


Maybe you should do you're own research then? Just a thought. Wait...then it might compromise what little integrity you have... :rolleyes:.

Damn, I wasted all this time reading all these books. I'd better do like good ol' "Comrade"Chris, just read some definitions and pretend I know everything. :D

English is not my native language, but I believe it's "your", not "you're"?

[Hiero]

hiero, stop giving crack pot awnsers

This is coming from you. Some one who can't even try to use the basics of grammar.

Come on full stops and capitals.


lenin started the revolution, and led it in the right direction, stalin just messed it up

Great anaylsis, i really respect you as a political intellect.


Because that contradicts everything I've ever been told

Everything you so far know about communism, socialism etc contradicts everythign you have been told? yes or no?


Attempt what?? I've said your views seem very totalitarian. That's about the closest I've come. And only because you defend bloodthirsty brutal dictators like Stalin.

Opps i meant to type admit.


It's a source of context for the word...which is more accepted than your view.

Most intellectual sociologist, political scientist, party members use the word Fasicist to describe a system that has certain economic and political detials. It is only you and the mass of people that use the word Fascist so losely.


I am absolutely overwhelmed by your intellectual superiority! I feel rendered powerless, especially by an excessive amount of knowledge and wisdom!

AHAHA Thats what i sometimes think too.

I would hate to be member of the same party as "Comrade"Chris. He would be (using Comrade Chris' logic) such Fascist. You wouldn't be able to get a word out without him butting in and saying how much of a idiot you are compared to his extensive knowledge.

[Wiesty]

and this is coming from the guy, who supports forced collectivization

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What an intellectual counterpunch!

[ComradeChris]

What's the problem with reading fascist writings? Is there a

problem?

Using them as definitions. I've been told so many times dictionaries are written by the bourgeois and therefore should be ignored too. Having them written by a Fascist is like a double whammy: brutal dictator meets bourgeoisie (and of course, that's going by the definition YOU uphold; as Fascism meaning a entirely bourgeois movement).


And you deny Stalin was a marxist-leninist? Most marxist-leninists view him as... Yes, a marxist-leninist.

Last I heard Stalinists were a minority of Marxist-Leninists, and that actually
Trotskyists now outnumber them; mainly because most Stalinists went into hiding
after constant intellectual attacks made agains them; primarily by Trotskyists. And most Trotskyists believe that Stalin was nothing remotely close to Marxist-Leninism (where they place themselves).


many people professing Marxism or Leninism view Stalinism as a perversion of their ideas; Trotskyists, in particular, are virulently anti-Stalinist, considering Stalinism a counter-revolutionary policy using Marxism as an excuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist


Yes.

That doesn't change the fact that... Trotsky was a marxist-leninist... Just as much as Stalin was.

So completely different ideals are the same theory :rolleyes: ? You lost me there. Look at the above quote.


No he wasn't.

Nationalism over internationalism, pragmatism over principle, religion over
secularism, racism, capitalism, protecting the bourgeoisie are not "socialist"
positions.

He said he was, like Stalin...it must be true. Sorry just using your logic.


Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German

Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:
"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor

Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight

against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest
terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to
the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years.
The prelates did not contradict him."

Source: Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

He restricted private businesses of the Jews. A sign of a socialist...you really need to think outside the box a little more and use some common sense. I'm just regurgitating your crappy logic.


Nazism is an abbreviation from the German Nationalsozialismus, "National
Socialism".

If you believe Stalin was a socialist with nationalistic beliefs, you could call
him a "non-internationalist socialist", or "socialism with focus on the Soviet Union".
But to call him a National Socialist... Let's just say I'm not the slightly suprised that this is coming from you.

The fact that you write National Socialist instead of national socialist, indicate either ignorance or just a perverted mentality.

Do you know the difference between a communist and a Communist?

Did you even read the "socialism in one country" article?? Speaking of
capitalizing things, you've forgot to capitalize a lot like Marxist-Leninism...You're very hypocritical. But I'm not going to nitpick your spelling unless it's completely illegible. But I see you want to play that game...It'll be good practice for when I'm a teacher, and have to mark ignorant little shit's (ie. people like you) papers.


In his early years, perhaps. Was his policies socialist?

Was should be were. He claimed so.


The fascism in Italy was established as a reaction against the spread of

leftwing movements in Europe. Leftwings were executed.

Conclusion? Don't judge the book by the cover.

You seem to get hooked up by definitions, and solely concentrate on so-called
"definitions", which leads to my point:

Which lead to my point with an interlude that just wastes space...good one ;) .


The fact that you write "both were brutal dictatorships, by this
definition", just goes to show how ignorant you are. But I don't expect you to
get it. However, if you do, congratulations.

How does you posting a definition of communism show my ignorance at all? Please elaborate on that. It's not a good argument to just to leave something like that hanging by itself.


Wooohooo, look at me, I have a dictionary!!! I'm smarter than you! But I
won't read any litterature!! I'm an intellectual, I know shit!!, nevermind I do
not have any intellectuel power whatsoever!!!

I don't think you do have a dictionary, and if you do it's obvious you don't use
it. Why do I need to use other people's ideas when I can form my own based on
common sense. And it's obvious you don't have any intellectual prowess at all,
because you can't even spell the word.


Absolutely, I don't know shit.
I am absolutely overwhelmed by your intellectual superiority! I feel rendered
powerless, especially by your excessive amount of knowledge and wisdom!

Oh thy lord! Oh thy lord!

Messiah must not be mistaken. Thou must not forget!

Servant to raise up from the ashes of darkness!

I see...you take the same road as Hiero when you're integrity is threatened.
Resort to inane gibberish...I'm so proud that you are my fellow leftists...and I
thought we were the smart bunch :rolleyes: .


You won't, I know. Sometimes because you know I am right, other times you won't because you are confused and insecure of yourself.

By the way, what "asinine comment"?

Do you ever reread your posts? There are half a dozen useless comments in this
post alone. If I knew you were right I'd admit it. I've revoked my views
several times on this forum. But I don't think I'll have to worry about doing so
with such intelligent people as yourself :rolleyes: .


Damn, I wasted all this time reading all these books. I'd better do like
good ol' "Comrade"Chris, just read some definitions and pretend I know
everything.

English is not my native language, but I believe it's "your", not "you're"?


I get my sources from professors as well and formulate my own opinion...and not
the opinion of brutal dictators as you and Hiero seem to do time and time again.
What is your native language (besides useless jargon)? I must admit, I'm
horrible when it comes to synonyms. See I have the grace to admit when I err.


What an intellectual counterpunch!

Isn't this spamming? Keep it on topic please. I mean if your arguments are
that weak you can't even bring in relevent comments don't comment at all. Good
grief. It's a never-ending, self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance with you isn't
it?

Now on to the other stubborn fool's comments...


Everything you so far know about communism, socialism etc contradicts
everythign you have been told? yes or no?

Did you look at my comment in context? Everything I know about the treatment of Stalin to his subjects!


Opps i meant to type admit.

Well as long as you correct yourself when you're shown in the wrong I'll do the
same.


Most intellectual sociologist, political scientist, party members use the
word Fasicist to describe a system that has certain economic and political
detials. It is only you and the mass of people that use the word Fascist so
losely.

A lot has to be said about common usage. Words are basically subject to the
user...but that's linguistics for you...you obviously have no interest in that
since you repeatedly try to negate it :rolleyes: . And obviously if the majority of people are using a term it must be wrong because a theory (and of course you) from a self-proclaimed Fascist says so.


AHAHA Thats what i sometimes think too. I would hate to be member of the same party as "Comrade"Chris. He would be (using Comrade Chris' logic) such Fascist. You wouldn't be able to get a word out without him butting in and saying how much of a idiot you are compared to his extensive knowledge.

I stopped calling you an idiot because, honestly, I thought you had grown up a bit. Yet you prove me wrong with this horribly off-topic banter. I'm sorry I
admit my belief about you was wrong. You still have a lot of maturing to do. And I don't know what you mean by, "He would be such Fascist."

[Hiero]

I give up you win Comrade Chris. Does that make you happy? Do you get off thinking you are like your proffesor?

Whats the point, you are just a typicaly arrogant leftist that thinks they have world worked out and anyone else who has different point to you ( heaven forbid) is just some moron and can't compete with pseudo intellectual first year university arse.

Here are some tips for future work in leftist politics

1) Be aware that some people will have a different opinion to you, and they may have evidence to back it up with.
2) Your proffesor might be a jackass who is soo biased that his blood boils everytime he is wrong, so he just goes into definitions or something similar to get away from they fact he is a jackass.
3) Turtle necks or other clothing worn by pseudo-intellectuals can cause rashes if you are allergic to the fabric.
4)Workers will not tolerate snotty little pseudo intellectuals have a whine everytime something goes agaisn't your ethics.
5) Just because you are happy doesn't mean your right.
6) Just because some people might not understand you, doesn't make you a intellectual.
7) Dictionaries are NOT a the accurate source of knowledge and you will need to be more critical in your research.
8) Just because you are a leftist doesn't mean you are open minded.


I was going to put more up but i can't think of any more.

Anyway i can't be bothered with you. You don't care or respect anyone's opinions if they differ to your own.


Did you look at my comment in context? Everything I know about the treatment of Stalin to his subjects!

What i meant was surely as you grew up you would of been told Socialism is a failure, does that not contradict what you think you know about socialism? Do you think that they are right and you are wrong?

What ever has been said on this board is a huge contradiction to what Profesores the press, the media, politicains say.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Using them as definitions.

The definitions of fascism I've received from fascists have been pretty good, actually. Better than your "fascism = brutal dictatorship".



Last I heard Stalinists were a minority of Marxist-Leninists

There's no such thing as "Stalinists".


And most Trotskyists believe that Stalin was nothing remotely close to Marxist-Leninism (where they place themselves).

Who cares what they think?

Does their thoughts change Stalin's political agenda?


So completely different ideals are the same theory :rolleyes:? You lost me there. Look at the above quote.

As I see it, there weren't that many differences between Stalin and Trotsky.

Do you know what happened at the Kronstadt rebellion, and what Leon Trotky's involvement was?



He restricted private businesses of the Jews. A sign of a socialist...

Restricting private business because of Judaism is not "a sign of a socialist".

Putin has nationalized a few things lately. Does that make him socialist?


you really need to think outside the box a little more and use some common sense.

Ah, like... Using "definitions"?


Speaking of
capitalizing things, you've forgot to capitalize a lot like Marxist-Leninism...You're very hypocritical.

No, I don't think so.

The fact is that you try to define Stalin as a National Socialist, on the pretext that he had some nationalist policies. By capitalizing National Socialist, you give the impression that he was a member of the NSDAP.

I do not make such an impression when I write "marxism-leninism" instead of "Marxism-Leninism" and vica versa.


Again, I want to ask you:

Do you consider Stalin a socialist with nationalistic policies, or a national socialist, ie. nazi?


But I see you want to play that game...It'll be good practice for when I'm a teacher, and have to mark ignorant little shit's (ie. people like you) papers.

You have some really big issues. I think most of us have already noticed. You don't need to make that clearer. Just a friendly advice.

It is quite obvious that you feel a need to feel and act superior to others. You are hooked up on definitions.

It's a clear sign of lack of self esteem, possibly you have feel unfairly treated by those who have abused you, and misused their authority. Now you are looking for a way to correct their mistakes by creating your own sense of authority over other people.

Did you have a "Stalin" hanging over you when you were little child? Was he mean to you?

Did "Trotsky", a neighbour for instance, desperately try to save you?


He claimed so.

That doesn't mean his policies were socialist.



How does you posting a definition of communism show my ignorance at all? Please elaborate on that. It's not a good argument to just to leave something like that hanging by itself.

You come up with a definition of fascism. "Aha, look, this is FASCISM, and Stalin would fall under these", then I show you that the same site you refer to have a completely wrong and biased definition of communism.

Just to further show you how stupid it is to use some random definitions, check this out:


a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society
www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html



a political theory derived from Marxism, advocating a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities.
teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/Cuban/INDEX2.HTML



An economic system in which the means of production are owned and operated for the public by the government. The government determines the type, quantity, and price of goods produced. Communism promises to provide for everyone's needs and to have no social classes. Ideally government would not be necessary. (See SOCIALISM; CAPITALISM)
members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm



a totalitarian system preventing amassing of privately owned goods; a goal of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"; a major control of the economic, social and cultural life of a society.
www.stormy.org/defin.htm



Everyone shares everything. No one has more or less money than anyone else. The idea is that everyone deserves to have an equal part of wealth because everyone's work is equally important.
home.cwru.edu/~ngb2/Pages/Definitions_deficient.html


type of command economy in which the government owns and operates all industries.
wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_ebert_busess_3/0,6518,224378-,00.html



Communism is an economic system in which all the means of production are government controlled
instruction.blackhawk.tec.wi.us/ghoffarth/economicsglossary.htm


Because these claimed communism to be so, does that mean communism is "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society"?



I don't think you do have a dictionary, and if you do it's obvious you don't use
it.

You might be right. What do I do without a dictionary! It's my bible!


Why do I need to use other people's ideas when I can form my own based on
common sense.

Values, duties to the state, and common sense: The conservatives love it! Why not join the republicans?

The fact is that you "use other people's ideas" when you just look up in a random dictionary. Another thing is that humans are always connected. You cannot escape human relations, so to say that "Why do I need to use other people's ideas", when you are so closely effected by them, sounds a little wierd in my opinion.



I see...you take the same road as Hiero when you're integrity is threatened.
Resort to inane gibberish...I'm so proud that you are my fellow leftists...and I
thought we were the smart bunch :rolleyes:.

As far as I can see, you're not a leftist, at least not a real one. I honestly think you're confused. I'm not saying this because I am mean, but that is my

I suggest you check out: www.republicans.org/

They might help you find the values and common sense.



Keep it on topic please.

OK, master.

Since the name of the thread is "STALINISM=NAZISM", and you claim Stalin to be a "National Socialist"... Do you believe Stalin was a nazi? Was he close to Hitler, ideologically speaking?

I think a lot would be cleared up if you would let us all know.


And obviously if the majority of people are using a term it must be wrong because a theory (and of course you) from a self-proclaimed Fascist says so.


Most people believe communism is a totalitarian ideology, and that communism leads to is poverty. They think it's "dead", that "it doesn't work". Does that mean it is true?

[workersunity]

he wasnt a communist, thats all there is to it

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:24 PM
he wasnt a communist, thats all there is to it
Great work, that was such a inspirationaly addition to this conversation. Sure shows how much you know.

[ComradeChris]

I give up you win Comrade Chris. Does that make you happy? Do you get off thinking you are like your proffesor?

Meh, a bit...it saves constantly rebuking your unbased arguments. That professor is amazing...he's older, and has probably has experienced some of the events in the time they actually took place (at least from the 1960's onward; he did his Doctorate in France in the 1960's). And I'd gladly believe him over you.


Whats the point, you are just a typicaly arrogant leftist that thinks they have world worked out and anyone else who has different point to you ( heaven forbid) is just some moron and can't compete with pseudo intellectual first year university arse.

Please...proof-read your insults. If you ever had a debate with a rightwinger on a forum they'll get a bad representation of the left and it's argumentative skills. And why the religious connotation? I know for a fact the way you argued against me in religious forums you're not religious. Of course I think that was under your other pseudonym.

And for the record, I'm 3/4's done my second year of university ;) .


1) Be aware that some people will have a different opinion to you, and they may have evidence to back it up with.
2) Your proffesor might be a jackass who is soo biased that his blood boils everytime he is wrong, so he just goes into definitions or something similar to get away from they fact he is a jackass.
3) Turtle necks or other clothing worn by pseudo-intellectuals can cause rashes if you are allergic to the fabric.
4)Workers will not tolerate snotty little pseudo intellectuals have a whine everytime something goes agaisn't your ethics.
5) Just because you are happy doesn't mean your right.
6) Just because some people might not understand you, doesn't make you a intellectual.
7) Dictionaries are NOT a the accurate source of knowledge and you will need to be more critical in your research.
8) Just because you are a leftist doesn't mean you are open minded.

1) Actually, I'm well aware people have different opinions of me. But anyone who like vicious killing dictators...well I just don't particularly have much patience for them.
2) My professor actually gave a little speak on Anarchism during one of his lectures. He seems rather liberal to me. And I love the assumption because HE disagrees with YOU, you have to throw jackass in there. Maybe you need to refer to your number one...hypocrite.
3) I hate Turtle necks. I wear what I please when I please to wear it...and only if it's comfortable.
4) Actually, I've been thinking about dropping out of school and getting a 9-5, or factory job. Still love your assumptions :rolleyes: .
5) I'm never happy when I try to correct ignorance...just goes to show you what's wrong with human civilization.
6) Yeah...I barely understand you sometimes...but just because of the plethera of typos that make some of your arguments illegible. But I try to understand you if that's any consolation.
7) Well maybe you should do some research yourself. Common meaning of the word still stands. It&#39;s people like YOU, who wish to change it for the mass use. Seems elitist to me <_< .
8) I try to be open-minded...but like I said, not to ignorance or ignorant people. Because ignorance leads to discrimination and prejudice.


I was going to put more up but i can&#39;t think of any more.

Anyway i can&#39;t be bothered with you. You don&#39;t care or respect anyone&#39;s opinions if they differ to your own.

Oh, I respect grounded opinions (another false assumption; please this has to be at least a dozen times I&#39;ve told you to stop doing that, so please: Stop assuming things about me&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;). All I&#39;m waiting for is something beyond your opinion with some intellectual backing to it.


What i meant was surely as you grew up you would of been told Socialism is a failure, does that not contradict what you think you know about socialism? Do you think that they are right and you are wrong?

Who said anything about socialism being a failure. My parents (especially my mom, who is a devout Christian) fights very actively for Socialistic causes; especially in public schools. Pretty much my entire family votes as leftist as we can (NDP) and I would vote even further if there were any in my jurisdiction. Also, I&#39;ve had another professor (ironically a Child and Youth Professor; however was very leftist and kept telling us there still is an outside to Capitalism and to fight for it) that Stalin, and even the Soviet Union after Stalin, isn&#39;t even socialism to begin with. He even said Stalin could be seen as Hyper-Fascist. Which I&#39;ve never heard that term, but it did have the word fascist (which I think at this point he was referring to the rightist movement) and hyper, which loosely can my opposite; but can also mean excessive. So like brutal, forced (through fascist techniques and terrorism) collectivization. Which has been done by Monarchs as early as the Ancient Minoans.

By the way, I finally got around to those pictures you showed me and it only proves my point&#33; The guy owned six fucking houses. Did everyone else own that many? And one of them was a palace&#33;&#33;&#33;


What ever has been said on this board is a huge contradiction to what Profesores the press, the media, politicains say.

Not always...Stalin was a brutal dictator, and he claimed to be socialist (Marxist-Leninist) and therefore put an irremovable stain on the term. You can thank Stalin for that bad stigma and constant debate material used by the sources you listed.


The definitions of fascism I&#39;ve received from fascists have been pretty good, actually. Better than your "fascism = brutal dictatorship".

Well good for you...I&#39;m glad you let your vocabularly come from fascists and not the majority of the people&#39;s use of the word. Go back to the elitist comment I made to Hiero, and ditto it for you.


There&#39;s no such thing as "Stalinists".

For fucks sake&#33; Do some reading. I posted some things already.


Who cares what they think?

Does their thoughts change Stalin&#39;s political agenda?

What kind of useless question is that? They had their own political agenda to begin with. And if Trotskyists and Stalinists were the same, why did they contend one another for power after Lenin? I&#39;m tired of your useless asinine comments. I&#39;m almost at the point of just ignoring you; but you spread to much ignorance, and I wouldn&#39;t want people to take your "special" view.


As I see it, there weren&#39;t that many differences between Stalin and Trotsky.

Do you know what happened at the Kronstadt rebellion, and what Leon Trotky&#39;s involvement was?

Saying, "As [you] see it" doesn&#39;t say a lot. Speaking of reading political theory, maybe you came across a few of Trotsky&#39;s that FIERCELY opposed Stalin...good grief :rolleyes: .


Restricting private business because of Judaism is not "a sign of a socialist".

Putin has nationalized a few things lately. Does that make him socialist?

I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s your logic I&#39;m regurgitating.


Ah, like... Using "definitions"?

I use them to prove trivial disputes. You just lack logic altogether.


No, I don&#39;t think so.

The fact is that you try to define Stalin as a National Socialist, on the pretext that he had some nationalist policies. By capitalizing National Socialist, you give the impression that he was a member of the NSDAP.

I do not make such an impression when I write "marxism-leninism" instead of "Marxism-Leninism" and vica versa.

You don&#39;t think about a lot of things do you? Then what was the point of you saying to me something about Communist versus communist?


Again, I want to ask you:

Do you consider Stalin a socialist with nationalistic policies, or a national socialist, ie. nazi?

Already answered.


You have some really big issues. I think most of us have already noticed. You don&#39;t need to make that clearer. Just a friendly advice.

It is quite obvious that you feel a need to feel and act superior to others. You are hooked up on definitions.

Once again...it is the FEW that want to change the definition. You&#39;re the one taking the elitist stance here.


It&#39;s a clear sign of lack of self esteem, possibly you have feel unfairly treated by those who have abused you, and misused their authority. Now you are looking for a way to correct their mistakes by creating your own sense of authority over other people.

LMFAO&#33; Please I hope your future career isn&#39;t a psychiatrist. You, like Hiero, obviously love assumptions...your "arguments" are both riddled with them.


Did you have a "Stalin" hanging over you when you were little child? Was he mean to you?

Did "Trotsky", a neighbour for instance, desperately try to save you?

What does that have to do with anything? I&#39;ve eluded, and even directly stated, why I dislike Stalin. The primary reason: is because people like you, keep trying to place him as a Communist, or a Marxist-Leninist, and therefore maintain the stain he put on those ideologies. He didn&#39;t give up his power to ensure communism...he certainly wasn&#39;t a Marxist-Leninist. These rebuttals are getting more and more useless...stay on topic please.


That doesn&#39;t mean his policies were socialist.

Doesn&#39;t make Stalin&#39;s policies Marxist-Leninist either, because he claimed to be one :rolleyes: . I love using people&#39;s ignorant logic against them.


You come up with a definition of fascism. "Aha, look, this is FASCISM, and Stalin would fall under these", then I show you that the same site you refer to have a completely wrong and biased definition of communism.

It&#39;s not wrong...it&#39;s brief. And because people like Stalin, claimed to belong to a Communist ideology that there&#39;s a misconception that Communism is a dictatorship.

And much like the Bible...people read into Marxism too much. People take "Dictatorship of the Prolateriat," to literally mean a dictatorship&#33;


Because these claimed communism to be so, does that mean communism is "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society"?

If people like Stalin quit mislabelling themselves, we wouldn&#39;t have definitions like that ;) .


You might be right. What do I do without a dictionary&#33; It&#39;s my bible&#33;

You&#39;d probably do nothing differently. Your logic would probably remain outstandingly faulty and childish in nature.


Values, duties to the state, and common sense: The conservatives love it&#33; Why not join the republicans?

The fact is that you "use other people&#39;s ideas" when you just look up in a random dictionary. Another thing is that humans are always connected. You cannot escape human relations, so to say that "Why do I need to use other people&#39;s ideas", when you are so closely effected by them, sounds a little wierd in my opinion.

No I&#39;ve heard both sides of the issue, I made up my own mind. Please stop listening to Hiero...you&#39;re assuming too much like he does.


As far as I can see, you&#39;re not a leftist, at least not a real one. I honestly think you&#39;re confused. I&#39;m not saying this because I am mean, but that is my

I suggest you check out: www.republicans.org/

They might help you find the values and common sense.

I have a source saying my values are leftist; check out my signature.

You&#39;re an idiot. So the left doesn&#39;t use common sense? Well you&#39;re a specific example, and I won&#39;t hold it against the many (vast majority) intelligent leftists on this site.


OK, master.

Since the name of the thread is "STALINISM=NAZISM", and you claim Stalin to be a "National Socialist"... Do you believe Stalin was a nazi? Was he close to Hitler, ideologically speaking?

I think a lot would be cleared up if you would let us all know.

Please check out the RL Guidelines. One line posts that don&#39;t contribute the the discussion are considered spam. That&#39;s their definition not mine. In fact I have many definitions for you, but it&#39;s against the Guidelines to mention them ;) .

I&#39;ve told you twice (at least). I&#39;m not going to continually post the same thing over and over because of your illiteracy.


Most people believe communism is a totalitarian ideology, and that communism leads to is poverty. They think it&#39;s "dead", that "it doesn&#39;t work". Does that mean it is true?

Who said anything about Communism fist of all? And according to Stalin, because he&#39;s a Marxist-Leninist (because you say so), which is a Communist ideology, all of the above are true. Not in all cases, but the case in which we&#39;re discussing.

By the way, what is your native tongue? You never did answer. Unless of course you lied, but then that too would be against RL Guidelines.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Since the name of the thread is "STALINISM=NAZISM", and you claim Stalin to be a "National Socialist"... Do you believe Stalin was a nazi? Was he close to Hitler, ideologically speaking?

I&#39;ll post this again:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...s/analysis2.php (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php)

(Quoted from the side:)

"If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground."

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Not always...Stalin was a brutal dictator, and he claimed to be socialist (Marxist-Leninist) and therefore put an irremovable stain on the term.

I&#39;ll have to ask...

What exactly is it that you are opposed to?

The abandonment of the NEP?`

The industrialization?



For fucks sake&#33; Do some reading. I posted some things already.

I&#39;m a very avid reader, actually.

There&#39;s no real ideological difference between Lenin and Stalin, as far as I can see. Stalin followed the leninist path, didn&#39;t he? If you answer no, please give us your reasons for not believing he was.

Stalin made very little contribution to marxist theory. He was a politician, not a theorist. If it could be called anything at all, "Stalinism" could be described as a realpolitical solution, but not an ideology in itself.

Do you know the difference between marxism and marxism-leninism?


And if Trotskyists and Stalinists were the same, why did they contend one another for power after Lenin?

Not everyone is the same. Even people at this forum have different views.

Executions were made under Lenin. Trotsky was responsible for executions. Stalin was responsible for executions. Do you think Trotsky didn&#39;t have blood on his hands?


Trotsky organised and directed the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion. Let me give you a little copy and paste from Wikipedia:



This unbearable situation led to uprisings in the countryside, such as the Tambov rebellion, and to strikes and violent unrest in the factories. In urban areas, a wave of spontaneous strikes occurred, and in late February a near general strike broke out in Petrograd. On February 26, in response to these events in Petrograd, the crews of the battleships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol held an emergency meeting and agreed to send a delegation to the city to investigate and report back on the ongoing strike movement. On their return two days later, the delegates informed their fellow sailors of the strikes, with which they had full sympathy, and the government repression directed against them. Those present at this meeting on the Petropavlovsk then approved a resolution which raised fifteen demands. The demands included free elections to the soviets, freedom of speech, press, assembly and organisation to workers, peasants, anarchists and left-socialists. Of the fifteen demands, only two were related to what Marxists term the "petty-bourgeoisie", the reasonably wealthy peasantry and artisans. These demanded "full freedom of action" for all peasants and artisans who did not hire labour. Like the Petrograd workers, the Kronstadt sailors demanded the equalisation of wages and the end of roadblock detachments which restricted both travel and the ability of workers to bring food into the city.

Finally, in March 1921, the Kronstadt naval base, celebrated by the Communists as one of the sources of the October Revolution, rose in rebellion against Bolshevik rule. The sailors and other Kronstadt rebels demanded free Soviets and the summoning of a constituent assembly. The Bolshevik Government responded with an ultimatum on March 2. This asserted that the revolt had "undoubtedly been prepared by French counterintelligence" and that the Petropavlovsk resolution was a "SR-Black Hundred" resolution (SR stood for "Social Revolutionaries", a democratic socialist party that had been dominant in the soviets before the return of Lenin, whose right-wing had refused to support the Bolsheviks; the "Black Hundreds" were a reactionary, indeed proto-fascist, force dating back to before the revolution which attacked Jews, labour militants and radicals, among others). They also argued that the revolt had been organised by ex-Tsarist officers led by ex-General Kozlovsky (ironically, he had been placed in the fortress as a military specialist by Trotsky). This was the official line throughout the revolt.

The rebellion was isolated and received no external support. The Petrograd workers were under martial law and could offer little support to Kronstadt. The Bolshevik government began its attack on Kronstadt on March 7. After 10 days of continuous attacks, during which many Red Army units were forced onto the ice at gunpoint and during which some had actually joined the rebellion, the Kronstadt revolt was crushed by the Red Army, numbering some 50,000 troops under command of Mikhail Tukhachevsky. On March 17, the Bolshevik forces finally entered the city of Kronstadt after having suffered over 10,000 fatalities. Although there are no reliable figures for the rebels&#39; battle losses, historians estimate that thousands were executed in the days following the revolt, and a like number were sent to Siberian labor camps. A large number of more fortunate rebels managed to escape to Finland. Ironically, the day after the surrender of Kronstadt, the Bolsheviks celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Paris Commune.

Although Red Army units ruthlessly suppressed the uprising, the general dissatisfaction with Bolshevik rule could not have been more forcefully expressed. Against this background of discontent, Lenin, who also concluded that world revolution was not imminent, proceeded in the spring of 1921 to replace War Communism with his New Economic Policy.



Already answered.

I haven&#39;t read your answer.

Could you answer my question, or paste your previous answer?

Because if you do not believe he was a nazi or a fascist, then I don&#39;t see why there is any point of further arguing.

Could you give me your own definition of marxism-leninism, fascism, nazism, and "Stalinism"? Thank you


Once again...it is the FEW that want to change the definition. You&#39;re the one taking the elitist stance here.


So correcting people who mistake communism for being totalitarian, is an "elitist stance"?


He didn&#39;t give up his power to ensure communism...he certainly wasn&#39;t a Marxist-Leninist. These rebuttals are getting more and more useless...stay on topic please.

The conditions in the Soviet Union made it impossible to establish a communist society.


The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed. - Lenin




Doesn&#39;t make Stalin&#39;s policies Marxist-Leninist either, because he claimed to be one :rolleyes:

True.

But nationalizing the means of production, supressing counter-revolutionaries, industrializing the nation, eradicating bourgeoisie laws and prejudice, work for progress in the field of education, health and science... aren&#39;t all of these marxist-leninist traits? Isn&#39;t this what Stalin did?


Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. - Lenin




he certainly wasn&#39;t a Marxist-Leninist.

Documentation? Proof?


And much like the Bible...people read into Marxism too much.

Aha, so we shouldn&#39;t read into marxism.


People don&#39;t read into marxism "too much". Most people haven&#39;t touched one book related to marxism.


The fact that you compare marxism to the bible just goes to show how un-marxist you are.



If people like Stalin quit mislabelling themselves, we wouldn&#39;t have definitions like that :rolleyes: .

If Stalin wasn&#39;t a marxist-leninist, what was he?

Che admired Stalin. He did some things that would not be considered "friendly". He executed people, but he gave marxism a good reputation.


Could it be true that the fact that the bourgeoisie hates Stalin, is because he was a "good" marxist-leninist? That he is hated so much because he supressed rightwing filth?

Cuba has gotten a better reputation lately. Why? Probably because they have loosened up and allowed some private property. Because Stalin is so hated by the bourgeoisie, makes me consider the possibility that he was a very great threat to the bourgeoisie, not only in Eastern Europe, but all over the world. (&#33;)


I have a source saying my values are leftist; check out my signature.


Oh right, the political compass... Do you know the site claim the Pope and Jacques Chirac to be leftist? Do you agree with them?


You&#39;re an idiot.

My guess is that you are most likely to be banned if you continue to use such behavior upon your fellow lefists.


Who said anything about Communism fist of all?

That was not my point. I am saying that.... what is widely believed is not necessary true.


By the way, what is your native tongue? You never did answer. Unless of course you lied, but then that too would be against RL Guidelines.

That&#39;s true. I never did answer.

I don&#39;t feel obliged to tell you where I am from, nor what my native tounge is. In fact, I don&#39;t feel obliged to tell you anything at all. I don&#39;t like giving personal information to pricks.

Several people at this board know where I am from, however. The world aint that big. :)

Because I am a radical leftist, I try to give out as little information as possible on public forums.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I&#39;ll post this again:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...s/analysis2.php

(Quoted from the side:)

"If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground."

Yes, they say so.

It&#39;s funny how the bourgeoisie try to portrait Hitler and Stalin as the same person, or at least two people with similar agenda.


[b]Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews. - Adolf Hitler


[b]"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." - Adolf Hitler


"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." - Adolf Hitler. Keep in mind that he wanted to destroy Marxism even before the Soviet Union existed.

What an intense hatred against Marxism&#33;

[ComradeChris]

I&#39;ll have to ask...

What exactly is it that you are opposed to?

The abandonment of the NEP?`

The industrialization?

Quasi-socialists and quasi-socialist states that give the true term and leftism in general, a bad reputation. Stalin was a major culprit of that. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing until you&#39;ll finally read it?


I&#39;m a very avid reader, actually.

There&#39;s no real ideological difference between Lenin and Stalin, as far as I can see. Stalin followed the leninist path, didn&#39;t he? If you answer no, please give us your reasons for not believing he was.

Like I said, Trotsky and Stalin were fiercely opposed. And I asked you, different ideas are the same ideology all of a sudden? I think Lenin even had planned a different way of handling the peasants.


Stalin made very little contribution to marxist theory. He was a politician, not a theorist. If it could be called anything at all, "Stalinism" could be described as a realpolitical solution, but not an ideology in itself.

Do you know the difference between marxism and marxism-leninism?

DID YOU READ THE SOCIALISM IN ONE STATE ARTICLE?&#33;?&#33;&#33;??&#33;&#33; OMG&#33;&#33;

Yes, I know a few of the differences. Like Lenin wanted to have a government that had more power than the normal people. And this might be leading moreso towards Trotskyism, but also the idea that it doesn&#39;t have to be an already industrialized country in order for a socialist revolution.


Not everyone is the same. Even people at this forum have different views.

No shit. Then why are you saying "There&#39;s no real ideological difference between Lenin and Stalin." That itself contradicts everything you said right there.


Executions were made under Lenin. Trotsky was responsible for executions. Stalin was responsible for executions. Do you think Trotsky didn&#39;t have blood on his hands?

He killed actually opponents during the war primarily. I don&#39;t know too much about political bloodiness. At that time you really didn&#39;t get anywhere politically without blood on your hands.


Trotsky organised and directed the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion. Let me give you a little copy and paste from Wikipedia:

He did his job. He was a commissar and those people were revolting and foreign involvement was believed to be an issue. Did you read that article? What did you hope to prove?


I haven&#39;t read your answer.

Could you answer my question, or paste your previous answer?

Because if you do not believe he was a nazi or a fascist, then I don&#39;t see why there is any point of further arguing.

Could you give me your own definition of marxism-leninism, fascism, nazism, and "Stalinism"? Thank you

So much is obvious that you haven&#39;t read (or maybe you&#39;ve just ignored) my answer numerous times. I&#39;ve already tried looking stuff up for you and you insult me for it. You can scroll back and find one of the two or three times I&#39;ve responded.

I&#39;ve already posted a link showing how Stalin&#39;s "socialism" was both nationalistic and different from Marxist-Leninism.


So correcting people who mistake communism for being totalitarian, is an "elitist stance"?

I was referring to Fascism there. But you think since Stalin was Marxist-Leninist (a form of a Communist movement) then they are partly correct. I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re arguing, or how I can be any clearer. I think you need to be less ignorant because I&#39;m jsut posting essentially the same things over and over.


The conditions in the Soviet Union made it impossible to establish a communist society.

That&#39;s what every dictator says, "It&#39;s for your own good" type of ideal. He didn&#39;t make the Soviet Union any more socialist than his predecessor. In fact he implaced more hierarchy and beauracracy&#33;


True.

But nationalizing the means of production, supressing counter-revolutionaries, industrializing the nation, eradicating bourgeoisie laws and prejudice, work for progress in the field of education, health and science... aren&#39;t all of these marxist-leninist traits? Isn&#39;t this what Stalin did?

Firstly, I&#39;d like to say I almost fell out of my chair backwards when I got an agreement statement from you.

Stalin was a Bourgeoisie. He eliminated the old hierarchy and made one that suited him with his own beauracracy. When they outlived their usefulness they were "removed" of (that&#39;s a polite way of saying they were often killed ;) ).

I&#39;ve actually heard bad things about the working conditions in this forum (other Stalin threads). And if people complained that was seen as forms of disobedience and then they were just worked to death in work camps.


Documentation? Proof?

I&#39;ve shown you many ways they differed in links.


Aha, so we shouldn&#39;t read into marxism.


People don&#39;t read into marxism "too much". Most people haven&#39;t touched one book related to marxism.


The fact that you compare marxism to the bible just goes to show how un-marxist you are.

I was referring to the definition, and those who impliment it. Why is it that most "socialist" regimes are implimented through a dictatorship? Good grief. Just when I thought you were getting better.


If Stalin wasn&#39;t a marxist-leninist, what was he?

Che admired Stalin. He did some things that would not be considered "friendly". He executed people, but he gave marxism a good reputation.

Executed opponents....you&#39;ve already done the Che comparison :rolleyes: .

Stalin was a Stalinist. As you said yourself, not everyone is the same how can they have identical ideologies? There&#39;s always variations....


Could it be true that the fact that the bourgeoisie hates Stalin, is because he was a "good" marxist-leninist? That he is hated so much because he supressed rightwing filth?

Cuba has gotten a better reputation lately. Why? Probably because they have loosened up and allowed some private property. Because Stalin is so hated by the bourgeoisie, makes me consider the possibility that he was a very great threat to the bourgeoisie, not only in Eastern Europe, but all over the world. (&#33;)

No because he was a murdering dictator people don&#39;t like him.

I don&#39;t think Cuba&#39;s gotten a better reputation anytime since Castro&#39;s fall. Not that I have heard anyway. They&#39;re still on the "Axis of Evil." But if you could provide this proof of a better reputation in the Right-wing&#39;s eye?


Oh right, the political compass... Do you know the site claim the Pope and Jacques Chirac to be leftist? Do you agree with them?

I&#39;ve already argued against the Pope being leftist (although maybe because he&#39;s a it of a humanitarian). Jacques Chirac, I don&#39;t know enough about his policies to be certain. I know he&#39;s liberal though.


My guess is that you are most likely to be banned if you continue to use such behavior upon your fellow lefists.

You are one. I say I use common sense then you compare me to a Republican, implying you can&#39;t be a leftist and use common sense. That common sense must be a "right-wing" trait. I love it...I&#39;m sure most people here would love to hear your opinion that it&#39;s only a right-wing trait&#33; Ok...here&#39;s one...You&#39;re a Genius (I say that so sarcastic I could barely type it without feeling bad for having posted it :o ).


That was not my point. I am saying that.... what is widely believed is not necessary true.

Well it&#39;s widely believed that Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and therefore Communist. You think he is.... :rolleyes: . So I wonder where people get that impression from. Could it be from people like you, who defend Stalin and continue to give Communism that stain?


That&#39;s true. I never did answer.

I don&#39;t feel obliged to tell you where I am from, nor what my native tounge is. In fact, I don&#39;t feel obliged to tell you anything at all. I don&#39;t like giving personal information to pricks.

Then I&#39;ll assume it&#39;s a lie. It&#39;s tongue here in English.

Maybe you should be banned for insulting me :o . Hypocrite&#33;


Several people at this board know where I am from, however. The world aint that big.

Because I am a radical leftist, I try to give out as little information as possible on public forums.

A radical ignoramus is more like it. You belong to the Republican party not I. What do you do, spread ignorance to the world? It&#39;s only a small place, shouldn&#39;t be so hard for someone of your caliber ;) .

[Hiero]

Stalin was a Bourgeoisie.

Please explain this.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

It&#39;s funny how the bourgeoisie try to portrait Hitler and Stalin as the same person, or at least two people with similar agenda.

They didn&#39;t have the same agenda, but they had another thing in common: they were both dictators. And a dictator can say whatever he wants, put up any rules and regulations he want. Stalin could just as well have said that Lenin was a traitor of the revolution, and people would have to believe that.


Adolf Hitler. Keep in mind that he wanted to destroy Marxism even before the Soviet Union existed.

That isn&#39;t relevant. Any dictator can have any reason to hate anyone/anything and set any rule.



Could you give me your own definition of ... "Stalinism"?

There is an article on Wikipedia about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Quasi-socialists and quasi-socialist states that give the true term and leftism in general, a bad reputation. Stalin was a major culprit of that. How many times do I have to repeat the same thing until you&#39;ll finally read it?

You won&#39;t answer my question?

What exactly is it you are opposed to?

The abandonment of the NEP?`

The industrialization?

The Bolshevik revolution?

The invasion of Finland?


Like I said, Trotsky and Stalin were fiercely opposed. And I asked you, different ideas are the same ideology all of a sudden?

Over relatively small issues, yes.

As it seem like you won&#39;t believe anything than Trotsky, your professor and official sources, I&#39;ll give you a little reading:


As founder and commander of the Red Army, he was largely responsible for their success over the White Army and victory in the lengthy and violent Russian Civil War.
In March 1921 he organised and directed the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion, famous as the last major revolt against Bolshevik rule and an important event in the history of Libertarian socialist and Anarchist struggle.
With the illness and death of Lenin, Joseph Stalin was able to consolidate his control of the Party and the government. At this point, Trotsky was unable or unwilling to actively oppose Stalin. By remaining silent at the Twelfth Party Congress in 1923, particularly on the issue of the suppressed Testament of Lenin that called for Stalin&#39;s removal, Trotsky lost his last real opportunity to oppose Stalin, who, along with Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev, was able to take control of the Party. Trotsky and his supporters founded the Left Opposition, which fought within the Communist Party for several years against Stalin&#39;s platform and leadership.

Trotsky put forward the theory of &#39;Permanent Revolution&#39; and an internationalist perspective, which stood in stark contrast to Stalin&#39;s policy of building &#39;Socialism in One Country&#39;. He also put forward an argument for rapid industrialization of the economy and abandonment of the New Economic Policy while Stalin, allied with Bukharin, argued for gradual industrialization and retention of the NEP. This ideological division provided much of the intellectual basis for the political divide between Trotsky and Stalin, which culminated on November 12, 1927 when he was expelled from the Soviet Communist Party (leaving Stalin with undisputed control of the Soviet Union). He was exiled to Alma Ata (now in Kazakhstan) on January 31, 1928. He was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929.

Following Trotsky&#39;s defeat, Stalin turned against Bukharin and appropriated much of Trotsky&#39;s domestic economic policy, although he implemented it in a manner criticised for being overly violent and authoritarian.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky)



I think Lenin even had planned a different way of handling the peasants.

Means and ideas are two different things.


No shit. Then why are you saying "There&#39;s no real ideological difference between Lenin and Stalin." That itself contradicts everything you said right there.

Because there is a difference between means of reaching a goal, and ideological belief itself. Do you understand the difference?


He killed actually opponents during the war primarily. I don&#39;t know too much about political bloodiness. At that time you really didn&#39;t get anywhere politically without blood on your hands.

Exactly.

So why blame Stalin?


He did his job.

So did Stalin.

So why blame Stalin and not Trotsky?



So much is obvious that you haven&#39;t read (or maybe you&#39;ve just ignored) my answer numerous times. I&#39;ve already tried looking stuff up for you and you insult me for it. You can scroll back and find one of the two or three times I&#39;ve responded.

I&#39;ve already posted a link showing how Stalin&#39;s "socialism" was both nationalistic and different from Marxist-Leninism.


The only thing i&#39;ve read is that you have hinted that Hitler and Stalin&#39;s way of doing politics were the same thing.

I haven&#39;t found a very accurate answer from you, so could you perhaps copy it?

Could you give me your own definition of marxism-leninism, fascism, nazism, and "Stalinism"? Also, do you believe Stalin was a nazi?

Thank you


I was referring to Fascism there.

That doesn&#39;t change the fact that correcting someone for misusing the term "fascism" is just as elitist as correcting someone for misusing the term "communism".


That&#39;s what every dictator says, "It&#39;s for your own good" type of ideal. He didn&#39;t make the Soviet Union any more socialist than his predecessor. In fact he implaced more hierarchy and beauracracy&#33;



Lenin said that.

At what time do you think the Soviet Union could have advanced to communism, and what could Stalin have done in order to make the Soviet Union more socialist?

Do you agree with Lenin, when he says that... "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary", and "the state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."?



People take "Dictatorship of the Prolateriat," to literally mean a dictatorship&#33;

It is a dictatorship, and we should have no problem saying it loudly. It&#39;s a dictatorship. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat.



Stalin was a Bourgeoisie.

Please explain.


I&#39;ve actually heard bad things about the working conditions in this forum (other Stalin threads). And if people complained that was seen as forms of disobedience and then they were just worked to death in work camps.


And CNN calls Fidel a "dictator" and a mass murderer.

How could not expect "bad things about the working conditions" taking the conditions in the Soviet Union into account?


Why is it that most "socialist" regimes are implimented through a dictatorship?

If you want to find out, The ABC of Marxism-Leninism might prove to be useful :)



Executed opponents....you&#39;ve already done the Che comparison :rolleyes: .

Stalin was a Stalinist. As you said yourself, not everyone is the same how can they have identical ideologies? There&#39;s always variations....

Yes, there is always varations.

But again you fail to understand the difference between means, and what one is intended to achieve.

If Stalin was a Stalinist, then Che must also have been a stalinist, too?

Am I NWOGist? Is Hiero, Hieroist? RedStar2000, RedStar2000ist?


No because he was a murdering dictator people don&#39;t like him.


Fidel Castro has killed people too. So did Che.

By the way, do you know that Stalin is quite popular in Russia?

But of course, the fact that the bourgeoisie might not like Stalin, has nothing to do with it. Stalin was evil. Why? Because the newspapers say so.


I don&#39;t think Cuba&#39;s gotten a better reputation anytime since Castro&#39;s fall. Not that I have heard anyway.

I think so.

You should have read from the times Cuba under the Cold War (when Cuba was a strong and powerful nation), compared to now (when the economy is weak and they have opened up for private business).

If a nation x loosen up and allow capitalism, the capitalist nations will have nothing against x. But if x get rid of capitalism, then there is a whole different story. They don&#39;t spread propaganda and try to assasinate Castro because "he is an evil dictator", but because he is an enemy of the bourgeoisie.

Che isn&#39;t viewed as that bad guy now, because simply, he isn&#39;t a threat. He&#39;s dead&#33;

But Stalin was viewed as a monster because he was dangerous.


I&#39;ve already argued against the Pope being leftist (although maybe because he&#39;s a it of a humanitarian). Jacques Chirac, I don&#39;t know enough about his policies to be certain. I know he&#39;s liberal though.

OK, good.

Do you consider liberals, leftist?



You&#39;re a Genius

:D


Well it&#39;s widely believed that Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and therefore Communist. You think he is.... :rolleyes: . So I wonder where people get that impression from. Could it be from people like you, who defend Stalin and continue to give Communism that stain?

Why is he not, in your eyes, a marxist-leninist?

As I pointed out in the beginning of my post:

What exactly is it you are opposed to?

The abandonment of the NEP?`

The industrialization?

The Bolshevik revolution?

The invasion of Finland?

And here&#39;s a tricky question... Who were the first to use the term "Stalinism"?



They didn&#39;t have the same agenda, but they had another thing in common: they were both dictators. And a dictator can say whatever he wants, put up any rules and regulations he want. Stalin could just as well have said that Lenin was a traitor of the revolution, and people would have to believe that.

Yes, both were "dictators". So what? That does not make them closer, speaking of ideology. Hitler&#39;s concern, at least officially, was the Aryan race. Stalin&#39;s concern, at least officially, was the working class.

Even under a dictatorship, people can think for themselves. People wouldn&#39;t have to believe everything the dictator says. People would not automatically have to believe Lenin was a traitor of the revolution without any incredible evidence.



That isn&#39;t relevant. Any dictator can have any reason to hate anyone/anything and set any rule.

Do you think this only goes for "dictators", or also including leaders elected in a "democratic manner"?


There is an article on Wikipedia about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Yes, I&#39;ve read about "Stalinism". Why should it be considered an ideology? At least from my point of view, "Stalinism" could hardly be considered anything more than a political solution to marxism-leninism.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To ComradeChris.


Fascism, from Wikipedia:

In 1921, the fascists developed a program that called for:

a democratic republic,
separation of church and state,
a national army,
progressive taxation for inherited wealth, and
development of co-operatives or guilds to replace labor unions.


Fascism was, to an extent, a product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle class of postwar Italy. This fear arose from a convergence of interrelated economic, political, and cultural pressures. Under the banner of this authoritarian and nationalistic ideology, Mussolini was able to exploit fears regarding the survival of capitalism in an era in which postwar depression, the rise of a more militant left, and a feeling of national shame and humiliation stemming from Italy&#39;s &#39;mutilated victory&#39; at the hands of the World War I postwar peace treaties seemed to converge. Such unfulfilled nationalistic aspirations tainted the reputation of liberalism and constitutionalism among many sectors of the Italian population. In addition, such democratic institutions had never grown to become firmly rooted in the young nation-state.

While failing to outline a coherent program, fascism evolved into a new political and economic system that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-Communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system. This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries. Under the banners of nationalism and state power, Fascism seemed to synthesize the glorious Roman past with a futuristic utopia.


Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism, although some early Fascists were themselves former Marxists. In 1923, Mussolini declared in The Doctrine of Fascism:

... Fascism [is] the complete opposite of... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of the 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. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
... "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature&#39;s plans.... If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."
--Benito Mussolini, public domain, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)
While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. The role of the state, for example: socialism considers the state to be merely a "tool of the people," sometimes calling it a "necessary evil," which exists to serve the interests of the people and to protect the common good. (Certain forms of libertarian socialism reject the state altogether.) Meanwhile, fascism holds the state to be an end in and of itself, which the people should obey and serve, rather than the other way around.

Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production.

A fascist government is usually characterized as "extreme right-wing," and a socialist government as "left-wing". Others such as Hannah Arendt and Friedrich Hayek argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. Many socialists and communists also reject those totalitarian governments, seeing them as fascism with a socialist mask. (See political spectrum for more on these ideas.)

Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and Marxism; they regard the two as utterly distinct. Since Marxism is the ideological basis of Communism, they argue that the comparisons drawn by Arendt and others are invalid.

Mussolini completely rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle or the Marxist thesis that the working class must expropriate the means of production.

Mussolini wrote in his 1932 treatise, The Doctrine of Fascism (ghostwritten by Giovanni Gentile): "Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State." 1 (http://www.constitution.org/tyr/mussolini.htm)

Italian fascist leader Mussolini&#39;s own origin on the left, as a former leader of the more radical wing of the Italian Socialist Party, has frequently been noted. After his turn to the right, Mussolini continued to employ much of the rhetoric of socialism, substituting the nation for social class as the basis of political loyalty. These rhetorical devices seem to have been the last remnants of Mussolini&#39;s non-fascist past.

It is also frequently noted that Fascist Italy did not nationalize any industries or capitalist entities. Rather, it established a corporatist structure influenced by the model for class relations put forward by the Catholic Church. Indeed, there is a lot of literature on the influence of Catholicism on fascism and the links between the clergy and fascist parties in Europe before and during World War II.



Critics point out that Marxists and trade unionists were the first targets, and the first victims, of both Mussolini and Adolf Hitler once they came to power. They also note the antagonistic relationship which resulted in street fights between fascists and socialists, including:

the 1936 Battle of Cable Street in London of Trotskyists and members of the Communist Party of Great Britain against Mosely&#39;s supporters, and
street fights in Germany prior to Hitler&#39;s coming to power.
A more serious manifestation of the conflict between fascism and socialism was the Spanish Civil War, mentioned earlier in this article.


Mussolini imprisoned Antonio Gramsci from 1926 until 1934, after Gramsci, a leader of the Italian Communist Party and leading Marxist intellectual, tried to create a common front among the political left and the workers, in order to resist and overthrow fascism. Other Italian Communist leaders like Palmiro Togliatti went into exile and fought for the Republic in Spain.

The Marxist concept of dictatorship of the proletariat alluded to by Von Mises is not the same as the dictatorship concept employed by fascists. Dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to mean workers&#39; democracy, or dictatorship by the working class, rather than dictatorship by the capitalist class. This concept had been distorted under Stalin to mean dictatorship by the General Secretary over the party and the working class. In this, Stalin deviated from Marx, and therefore it cannot be said that the Stalinist form of government is Marxist.

The fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state, a concept that is anathema to classic socialism.

The fascist states from the period between the two world wars were police states, as were the ostensibly socialist USSR and the post-WWII Soviet bloc states. Conversely, there have been multi-party socialist states that have not been police states, and capitalist states that have been police states.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:11 AM

Stalin was a Bourgeoisie.

Please explain this.
Remember those pictures you told me to look at??

He owned six of them. Had feasts. While the rest of the country was starving. I said that already though.


You won&#39;t answer my question?

What exactly is it you are opposed to?

The abandonment of the NEP?`

The industrialization?

The Bolshevik revolution?

The invasion of Finland?

OYG...you&#39;re ignorant. I&#39;m opposed to him slaughtering his own people, his own party members, even his friends, because he was a paranoid megalomaniac.

Socialism is supposed to spread to neighbouring countries without the use of force, so his satelite states were a joke in that aspect towards the development of socialism. It only gave it a bad image.

The NEP...that&#39;s give or take. I really don&#39;t have an opinion on it. It&#39;s really anti-socialist allowing some free ownership, but it did relieve some tension.


The NEP was generally believed to be intended as an interim measure, and proved highly unpopular with the strong Marxists in the Bolshevik party because of its compromise with some capitalistic elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy


Over relatively small issues, yes.

As it seem like you won&#39;t believe anything than Trotsky, your professor and official sources, I&#39;ll give you a little reading:

I&#39;m not even really a Trotskyist...but he was a very intelligent theorist in my opinion.

I like how even the article you posted proved my argument:


Trotsky put forward the theory of &#39;Permanent Revolution&#39; and an internationalist perspective, which stood in stark contrast to Stalin&#39;s policy of building &#39;Socialism in One Country&#39;.


Means and ideas are two different things.

Who said it wasn&#39;t?


Because there is a difference between means of reaching a goal, and ideological belief itself. Do you understand the difference?

Stalin didn&#39;t give up his power to achieve communism. And of course Trotsky was never in power to see what he would have done. How do you know their ends were the same?


Exactly.

So why blame Stalin?

Because he killed millions more and in peacetime situations, and sometimes only because of "suspicion." And only if they were suspect. I spoke to my professor and he said something like 90% of the people sent to the Gulags died. So he force labours, fore collectivizes, forces other countries to join him...he seems very despotic.


So did Stalin.

So why blame Stalin and not Trotsky?

No, the job of a socialist leader is not to kill as much of your population through forced labour and starvation as possible. It&#39;s not to create more hierarchy through beauracracy. He did not do his job because Stalin didn&#39;t succeed his power and the USSR didn&#39;t end in a Communist utopia like Marxist theory.


The only thing i&#39;ve read is that you have hinted that Hitler and Stalin&#39;s way of doing politics were the same thing.

I haven&#39;t found a very accurate answer from you, so could you perhaps copy it?

Could you give me your own definition of marxism-leninism, fascism, nazism, and "Stalinism"? Also, do you believe Stalin was a nazi?

Thank you

HINTED?? I directly said it...as did a few other people&#33; Stop asking me to do your work. I&#39;ve already tried being gracious with you...now you&#39;re just irritating. Go back and find one of the two or three times I&#39;ve posted my thoughts on it and relating questions.


That doesn&#39;t change the fact that correcting someone for misusing the term "fascism" is just as elitist as correcting someone for misusing the term "communism".

Nobodies correctly misusing it, and if they are, it&#39;s because people like you give them a means to misuse it.


Lenin said that.

At what time do you think the Soviet Union could have advanced to communism, and what could Stalin have done in order to make the Soviet Union more socialist?

Lenin was essentially a dictator ;) . More benevolent then Stalin yes...but never the less a dictator.

The USSR could have been more Socialist if it actually represented the workers and listened to their grievences; instead of taking discontent as a form of rioting or something.


Do you agree with Lenin, when he says that... "Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary", and "the state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed."?

THose statement are almost contradictory. So the government is supressing, and until there is no supression there can&#39;t be communism :unsure: . I agree, you can&#39;t have communism without first removing capitalist thought. But that can be done through information and not supression. Stalin basically just went into the provinces, without informing the peasant it&#39;ll be for the good of everyone, and started seizing. There&#39;s ways by means other than force. You attract more bees with honey then with vinegar. Or however that saying goes exactly.


And CNN calls Fidel a "dictator" and a mass murderer.

How could not expect "bad things about the working conditions" taking the conditions in the Soviet Union into account?

People call Bush a murderer...because he is. I&#39;m sure Castro did have people killed because they opposed the revolution.

And Castro is a dictator...one that is much more benevolent than Stalin was however.

I&#39;ve heard it on this site as well. Also in classes.

Maybe you should look up the RL Guidelines and see what they think about Stalinism ;) .


If you want to find out, The ABC of Marxism-Leninism might prove to be useful

You misunderstood my connotation. Because people read into it too much. How can a single person look out for, and represent, the worker&#39;s needs, when that individual lives above them in class?


Yes, there is always varations.

But again you fail to understand the difference between means, and what one is intended to achieve.

If Stalin was a Stalinist, then Che must also have been a stalinist, too?

Am I NWOGist? Is Hiero, Hieroist? RedStar2000, RedStar2000ist?

The thing is...Stalin did not give up his power, and the state did not "wither away" as Lenin theorized. In fact, Stalin made the state stronger and put more beauracracy in. That in itself should say it differs in theory. I think about the only thing this site has in common is that we&#39;re all "leftist" and for some form of collectivization. As you said, there are many means to get there, and I&#39;m sure we all differ, because you said so yourself, we&#39;re all different.


Fidel Castro has killed people too. So did Che.

Yes I admitted to both. However one of those two wasn&#39;t a dictator and was a militant doing the job of any militant.


By the way, do you know that Stalin is quite popular in Russia?

Because most of the older people remembered the Czarist era and Stalin essentially brought back a single figure head. I&#39;ve heard he is popular among the older generations.


But of course, the fact that the bourgeoisie might not like Stalin, has nothing to do with it. Stalin was evil. Why? Because the newspapers say so.

No because he killed MILLIONS of people&#33;&#33; More than Hitler per annum. You don&#39;t need a newspaper to tell you that...or in your case, maybe...you need someone to tell you though.


I think so.

Well that really doesn&#39;t hold ground without backing, does it?


You should have read from the times Cuba under the Cold War (when Cuba was a strong and powerful nation), compared to now (when the economy is weak and they have opened up for private business).

Because of imbargos...it&#39;s a said affair really :( .


If a nation x loosen up and allow capitalism, the capitalist nations will have nothing against x. But if x get rid of capitalism, then there is a whole different story. They don&#39;t spread propaganda and try to assasinate Castro because "he is an evil dictator", but because he is an enemy of the bourgeoisie.

Actually, Stalin took place at all the conferences after WWII with all the big leaders and probably got some of the best deals out of it. They must have hated him. Stalin actually promoted hierarchy. Ask Hiero. In the book both of us are reading, Stalin wanted this one author so desperately he offered him a mansion. Then when he didn&#39;t suit Stalin&#39;s needs (as we see time and time again with Stalin) he was removed.


Che isn&#39;t viewed as that bad guy now, because simply, he isn&#39;t a threat. He&#39;s dead&#33;

But Stalin was viewed as a monster because he was dangerous.

On this forum there are people that claim even the CIA didn&#39;t want Che dead. You&#39;re logic doesn&#39;t hold though. Both Che and Stalin are dead, one is worshipped by the media, the other is detested. I&#39;ll let you guess which.


OK, good.

Do you consider liberals, leftist?

Mildly. Have you ever heard of the "swing left" policy implimented by some liberal parties?


Why is he not, in your eyes, a marxist-leninist?

As I pointed out in the beginning of my post:

What exactly is it you are opposed to?

The abandonment of the NEP?`

The industrialization?

The Bolshevik revolution?

The invasion of Finland?

And here&#39;s a tricky question... Who were the first to use the term "Stalinism"?

Answered that earlier. You know you don&#39;t need to keep asking the same questions over and over again. I&#39;ll give you some grace and answer the same question a couple times, but when it keeps bearing repeating over, and over, and over again, I just won&#39;t answer and, as you can see, let you look it up.


Yes, both were "dictators". So what? That does not make them closer, speaking of ideology. Hitler&#39;s concern, at least officially, was the Aryan race. Stalin&#39;s concern, at least officially, was the working class.

They used a lot of the same horrible and oppressive tactics...that&#39;s "what."


Even under a dictatorship, people can think for themselves. People wouldn&#39;t have to believe everything the dictator says. People would not automatically have to believe Lenin was a traitor of the revolution without any incredible evidence.

See that just wasn&#39;t the case with Stalin was it? Anyone was suspect in his regime. Even your thoughts weren&#39;t safe because secret police were everywhere. Wait a sec...some other evil dictator had abusive secret police too... :rolleyes:


Do you think this only goes for "dictators", or also including leaders elected in a "democratic manner"?

Too be honest, all forms of government have their flaws (to date that is). Of course democratic leaders abuse their powers. Because we give them that authority. I kind of agree with Plato when he says, "Democracy passes into despotism."


Yes, I&#39;ve read about "Stalinism". Why should it be considered an ideology? It could hardly be considered anything more than a political solution to marxism-leninism.

Political solution? He botched the meaning of Marxist-Lenin ideology with his constant purges.

And to your Fascism post:

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini&#39;s, that:


- exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,

I&#39;ve already shown you Stalin was above his own people. And a link to possible anti-Semitism on his bahalf.


- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,

He certainly did that. I mean millions of deaths as scare tactics can&#39;t be ignored.


- engages in severe economic and social regimentation.

He actually further collectivized, so that&#39;s a given that there would be less economic, and even social freedom.


- engages in corporatism,[1] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=219369)

That&#39;s the only one he really didn&#39;t do. But I mean, he ran both the country and it&#39;s industries.


implements or is a totalitarian regime.

Well that&#39;s obvious.

Not to mention he matches the entirety of the definition I posted.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Remember those pictures you told me to look at??

He owned six of them. Had feasts. While the rest of the country was starving. I said that already though.

Were this owned by the state, or Stalin in person?

Living well and eating plenty of food does is not a neccesary criteria for being a member of the bourgeois.


OYG...you&#39;re ignorant. I&#39;m opposed to him slaughtering his own people, his own party members, even his friends, because he was a paranoid megalomaniac.

But Trotsky also "slaughtered his own people" (btw, do you count the bourgeoisie as part of the people?, and so has more or less every famous revolutionary.


Still, that&#39;s all you can come up with. I take it you don&#39;t really have much against the rest of Stalin&#39;s policies?


Socialism is supposed to spread to neighbouring countries without the use of force

Are you serious? :huh:


Answered that earlier.

Actually, you didn&#39;t.

Not the four last questions.


Because of imbargos...it&#39;s a said affair really :( .


I disagree.

Not because of the embargo, but because Cuba&#39;s sugar policy and lack of autarky. When their "sugar daddy" went away, Cuba went down, too.

That is why we see tourism and prostitution in Cuba right now. That is why Cuba is an economic prostitute. It may have a political base that is opposed to the US, but as long as the economy is spreading it&#39;s legs, Cuba cannot possibly become socialist. It&#39;s pregnant with the US, and the younger generation is leaning towards capitalism.


Cuba is not socialist in my eyes, because....

1. It is not self-reliant.

2. The living standard of the population is not high enough.

3. The nation is not industrialized

4. the majority of the population are religious.

5. The majority of the population are far from being class conscious, and thus little room for the proletariat to become independent.


In my opinion they should have, like Mao said: Break up the sugar plantations and focus on rural revolution and transformation, and developing domestic self-reliant food production.


Actually, Stalin took place at all the conferences after WWII with all the big leaders and probably got some of the best deals out of it.

Yes, and your point?


Stalin actually promoted hierarchy.

Yes, so?


On this forum there are people that claim even the CIA didn&#39;t want Che dead.

And do you honestlybelieve the CIA didn&#39;t want Che dead?


Mildly. Have you ever heard of the "swing left" policy implimented by some liberal parties?

What liberal policies do you consider leftist?

Actually, I&#39;ve never heard of the "swing left" policy implemented by some liberal parties. I haven&#39;t really studied liberal parties indepth. Link?


They used a lot of the same horrible and oppressive tactics...that&#39;s "what."


Yes.

But the name of the thread is "STALINISM = NAZISM?".

Even though executions etc. existed in both nations, doesn&#39;t mean that they would have the same goal.

For example, both Pincohet and Castro are responsible for murder, but they do not have the same ideological background.


See that just wasn&#39;t the case with Stalin was it? Anyone was suspect in his regime.

I would like to see the list of 100 million Soviets being suspect for collaborating with the enemy. :D


Even your thoughts weren&#39;t safe because secret police were everywhere.

1984?

Actually, I&#39;ve read several articles from newspapers at the time where there were complaints, hash criticism, discussion etc.

The "secret police" can&#39;t read you thoughts, so why worry about "mind-crimes"?


Too be honest, all forms of government have their flaws (to date that is).

I agree.

But you say "to date that is".

Do you think a government can be perfect? What role do you think the government have in society?


Of course democratic leaders abuse their powers.

I agree.

But D&#092;do you think "democratic leaders", like for instance liberal and conservative leaders elected in Europe, the US and other places, are democratic?



Because we give them that authority.

I wouldn&#39;t say we give them that authority. They take it. It&#39;s just a show. In several "democratic nations", the leader is not elected. They are still described as leaders elected by democratic means.


I kind of agree with Plato when he says, "Democracy passes into despotism."

Then if you are a communist (are you?), why would you agree with him on that one?


Political solution? He botched the meaning of Marxist-Lenin ideology with his constant purges.

If that is how you want to summarize Stalin&#39;s policies, then be my guest. I just think he did a little more during the years he was in power.

I&#39;ve got to go now, but I&#39;ll comment on this one first...


That&#39;s the only one he really didn&#39;t do. But I mean, he ran both the country and it&#39;s industries.

Well, I doubt Stalin was the only one who had control of the Soviet Union. Power was highly centralized, I agree.

But the means of production were not used as a way of exploiting.

I think we all need to look at this question from a class perspective.

If Stalin didn&#39;t protect corporate power, how could he be a bourgeoisie? How could he be a fascist?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I don&#39;t have much time, but I think these questions can be important to debate and go through.

Was the centralization of power in the Soviet Union, neccesary?

Without a class-conscious proletariat, how could the Soviet Union establish a democratic society?

If the Soviet Union was to move to a more decentralized and democratic society, what steps would be taken to ensure this?

Taking into account the countless invasions of the nation, including the invasion of Germany in WW2 which caused some 20 million Soviet deaths, and the desperate situation in the Soviet Union at the time, would a more decentralized society be a good thing (also taking into account that Russians do not really care very much about "democracy" anyways)?

If the Soviet Union was undemocratic, why are many Russians claiming the opposite?

Were the purges necessary?

Would you accept elections, even if the result was to be the return of the bourgeoisie?

[rice349]

There is a huge difference between National Socialism (Nazis) and the convergence of nationalism and socialism. Although Stalin would not be considered a huge contributer to Marxist theory; however, he was beneficial to the advancement of socialism. Stalin was by no means a Nazi, and although its easy to put a lot of the blame on the crimes committed such as the purges and the "Ukrainian Famine," it is also important to note that Stalin also had a lot of people who committed the crimes without his knowledge, although things were very centralized alot of his ministers and colleagues did things unbeknownst to Stalin himself. Comrade Stalin had his faults, but he made significant contributions to socialism.

Also, there really is no such thing as a "Communist State," in fact, thats an oxymoron, and was created as a pejorative term used by the capitalist pigs to degrade socialism/communism&#33; In communism there is no state.

The combining of nationalism and socialism/communism is an integral part to a large number of communist revolutions in the twentieth century. The National Liberation Front (Northern Vietnam), the People&#39;s Liberation Army under Mao (China), and the July 26th Movement under Castro (Cuba) all were a hybrid of national sovereignty and marxist ideology. These countries, after kicking out bourgeoisie influence and oppression, developed an internationalist ideology (as did the USSR) and aided revolutions that were taking part in other third world nations.

[Mitch Flo]

Alright to the question asked I must say, no it isn&#39;t.
I didn&#39;t like stalland, but the difference between stalland and a nazi is huge. ;)

[ComradeChris]

Were this owned by the state, or Stalin in person?

Well considering he was the state it really doesn&#39;t matter. But I assume by him, because he invited people over to them and whatnot. Not like they were public housing when he wasn&#39;t at one of them.


Living well and eating plenty of food does is not a neccesary criteria for being a member of the bourgeois.

Bourgeois changes depending on the condition of the country.


bour·geois
n. pl. bourgeois
1. A person belonging to the middle class.

Definately wasn&#39;t a working class, he was treated far better. Also notice how middle class is subjective to the country in question?


2. A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.

He did many of the things bourgeois in the other countries were doing.


3. In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

Technically he owned the state being the dictator of it. But he also owned property and could allocate to suit HIS interests.


But Trotsky also "slaughtered his own people" (btw, do you count the bourgeoisie as part of the people?, and so has more or less every famous revolutionary.

Sorry that was a little convoluted. Could you perhaps clarify please?


Still, that&#39;s all you can come up with. I take it you don&#39;t really have much against the rest of Stalin&#39;s policies?

That pretty much sums up the most dispicable things I hate about him. I listed more parallels between Hitler and Stalins "methods" (as you would say) I believe on the first page of this topic.


Are you serious?

THat&#39;s the idea. Because people will realize it&#39;s a Utopia...most utopias don&#39;t go around killing people, locking people in concentration camps, not letting people voice their opinion without scrutiny, etc. Stalin had to FORCE other people to join a cause that had already been gaining popularity before WWII. I&#39;m not too certain of the democratic figures after WWII. I know the Communist Party in German had over 100 seats before Hitler intervened :( .


Actually, you didn&#39;t.

Not the four last questions.

What about the last 4?


Cuba is not socialist in my eyes, because....

1. It is not self-reliant.

And the USSR was? Why did they NEED their socialist states to make a pact with them? They obviously weren&#39;t self-reliant. Like I said, most of their nuclear materials came from their satelite states.


2. The living standard of the population is not high enough.

I don&#39;t understand your logic. You support a man who kills millions through mismanagement and man-made famine.


3. The nation is not industrialized

What makes you say that? It only needs to be industrialized enough to be self-sufficient.


4. the majority of the population are religious.

You can thank the Spanish conquest for that. But then again they never would have even been remotely modernized either.


5. The majority of the population are far from being class conscious, and thus little room for the proletariat to become independent.

Class-conscious? What do you mean by that?


In my opinion they should have, like Mao said: Break up the sugar plantations and focus on rural revolution and transformation, and developing domestic self-reliant food production.

It&#39;s interesting how important sugar is for the world. During the age of imperialism, that was a major factor for settlement: the hospitality to the growth of sugar. It was a huge commodity then and still remains so.

But I agree. Then again, I&#39;m more for rural reform communism anyway.


Yes, and your point?

Maybe you should have looked at my whole post. But I&#39;m partly to blame, I didn&#39;t properly indicate that I was being sarcastic in the second sentence.


Yes, so?

Rigid social hierarchical ladders are classes&#33;


And do you honestlybelieve the CIA didn&#39;t want Che dead?

I don&#39;t know the CIA&#39;s thoughts. Or like it&#39;s put on "Meet the Fockers:" CLIA :lol: .


What liberal policies do you consider leftist?

Actually, I&#39;ve never heard of the "swing left" policy implemented by some liberal parties. I haven&#39;t really studied liberal parties indepth. Link?

It&#39;s pretty self-explanitory and it was in a newspaper article I was reading. Essentially, it&#39;s when a Moderate-Liberal government is forced to adopt a more leftist policy after a right-winged party has been in power. This usually means raised taxes however...


Yes.

But the name of the thread is "STALINISM = NAZISM?".

Even though executions etc. existed in both nations, doesn&#39;t mean that they would have the same goal.

For example, both Pincohet and Castro are responsible for murder, but they do not have the same ideological background.

I&#39;ve drawn parallels to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. I&#39;ve done my best to stay on topic. But I also reply to whatever someone posts off me (unless of course I&#39;ve posted it numerous times before).


I would like to see the list of 100 million Soviets being suspect for collaborating with the enemy.

It was a figure of speech. But anyone was a potential suspect. There now I&#39;ve clarified.


1984?

Actually, I&#39;ve read several articles from newspapers at the time where there were complaints, hash criticism, discussion etc.

The "secret police" can&#39;t read you thoughts, so why worry about "mind-crimes"?

If some people even acted suspicious they could be suspect.

I&#39;ve never read 1984 unfortunately. It&#39;s on my list of books to get to.

Do you think you could post some of those newspaper articles? How do you know the people who wrote them weren&#39;t suspect afterwards?


I agree.

But you say "to date that is".

Do you think a government can be perfect? What role do you think the government have in society?

I don&#39;t know why I said that. Putting humans and the thought of governmental perfection together is preposterous. I must have had a brain lapse or something.


I agree.

But D&#092;do you think "democratic leaders", like for instance liberal and conservative leaders elected in Europe, the US and other places, are democratic?

Not really, look who&#39;s running in the campaigns...those who can afford it (ie. Already wealthy individuals). Tell me again, how is this on topic?


I wouldn&#39;t say we give them that authority. They take it. It&#39;s just a show. In several "democratic nations", the leader is not elected. They are still described as leaders elected by democratic means.

Look how Hitler got into power. In a corrupt democratic system, I&#39;m not arguing that. But I still don&#39;t know how we got from Stalin to this?


Then if you are a communist (are you?), why would you agree with him on that one?

I said kind of. To date, you can see that happening. I&#39;m sure in a direct democratic communist society means of eliminating the accumulation of too much influence will be instituted.

Yes I consider myself a communist. Not a Marxist-Leninist however. I don&#39;t even know if there&#39;s a ideology to place me. Not that I&#39;m particularly fond of being classified anyway...that in itself leads to stigmas.


If that is how you want to summarize Stalin&#39;s policies, then be my guest. I just think he did a little more during the years he was in power.

Sure he industrialized...i don&#39;t think anyone is arguing that. But the cost of lives was far too high and will probably forever negatively represent "communism."


Well, I doubt Stalin was the only one who had control of the Soviet Union. Power was highly centralized, I agree.

But the means of production were not used as a way of exploiting.

He gave certain people better positions. He also had control over who took those positions. Essentially he had full control.


I think we all need to look at this question from a class perspective.

If Stalin didn&#39;t protect corporate power, how could he be a bourgeoisie? How could he be a fascist?

I&#39;ve showed you how he demonstated a system of government similar to that of Mussolini&#39;s definition of fascism, and of the common use of the term itself.

You can&#39;t fight a class warfare only to impose your own classes structure and hierarchies...that&#39;s not communism. And like I said, you wonder why he had to FORCE other countries to become socialist.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Well considering he was the state it really doesn&#39;t matter.

Stalin was not the only one in charge of the Soviet Union.


Bourgeois changes depending on the condition of the country.

No.

Like I said, "Living well and eating plenty of food does is not a neccesary criteria for being a member of the bourgeois."

A bourgeois can act and look like a proletariat, just as a proletariat can act and look like a bourgeois. Just simply "owning bucks", or "eating well" doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re a bourgeois.


Definately wasn&#39;t a working class, he was treated far better.

Being "treated far better" doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not working class. I live quite comfortable myself, and I enjoy quality muisc, alcohol and political reading. But I am working class.


Also notice how middle class is subjective to the country in question?


What?

Belonging to the bourgeoisie is not something you can judge by "opinion". It&#39;s scientific.


He did many of the things bourgeois in the other countries were doing.


Yes, like pooing.

If you were a marxist, you wouldn&#39;t be using a bourgeois definition on classes.

Funny that you would use a bourgeois definitions of the term "bourgeois".


Technically he owned the state being the dictator of it. But he also owned property and could allocate to suit HIS interests.

Again, Stalin wasn&#39;t the only one in charge of the Soviet Union.

What property are you talking about?

The fact is that Stalin wasn&#39;t bourgeois. You may call him a lot of things, but not bourgeois.


Sorry that was a little convoluted. Could you perhaps clarify please?

Trotsky was responsible for "killing his own people". But many of those killed in the hands of revolutionaries have been reactionary, sometimes even member of the bourgeoisie.



THat&#39;s the idea.

Do you believe socialism can be established peacefully?



What about the last 4?

I believe you didn&#39;t answer them.

I believe you said something like "already answered", but you didn&#39;t answer the last 4. It&#39;s not something very important though.


I don&#39;t understand your logic. You support a man who kills millions through mismanagement and man-made famine.

Actually, I don&#39;t. Just to clarify, I&#39;m neither a supporter of Stalin, nor am I extremely opposed to him, either. I consider myself "neutral". I don&#39;t have any feelings for him in either direction. I see good things and bad things.

I don&#39;t understand your logic.

I wrote, regarding Cuba "The living standard of the population is not high enough.", and you start talking about (I presume) Stalin?

Maybe I didn&#39;t make it 100 percent clear that I was talking about Cuba, not any other country. If I didn&#39;t, I apologize.


What makes you say that?

Reading the history of Cuba, and studying present conditions.


You can thank the Spanish conquest for that.

No, not really.

I am born into a nation where church and state is seperated, and I am not religious. Religion is a common sign of lack of scientific knowledge and backward culture.


Class-conscious? What do you mean by that?

:huh:

Aware of belonging to a particular socioeconomic class? Being aware of the relations between the classes? Being conscious of living in a class society, and your relation herein?

Awareness held by members of a class regarding their common vested interests and need for collective political action to bring about social change?

This is a very important aspect of Marxism.


Rigid social hierarchical ladders are classes&#33;

Well, the state is a tool to keep one class dominating, while supressing others.

But I would disagree if you mean that if one belong to a high position in the government, you would be bourgeois.



I don&#39;t know the CIA&#39;s thoughts. Or like it&#39;s put on "Meet the Fockers:" CLIA

Felix Rodriguez comes to my mind.


In 1967 the CIA recruited him to train and head a team to hunt down Guevara in Bolivia. When Guevara was captured it was Rodriguez who interrogated him. After his execution he took Guevara&#39;s Rolex watch as a souvenir.

By the way, why wouldn&#39;t they want him dead?


Essentially, it&#39;s when a Moderate-Liberal government is forced to adopt a more leftist policy after a right-winged party has been in power. This usually means raised taxes however...

Yes, they can implement some reforms, but they won&#39;t change class relations.


I&#39;ve drawn parallels to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

Yes, some of the means were same, but the ideological difference is huge, and my view is that that is what we need to focus on.


But anyone was a potential suspect. There now I&#39;ve clarified.



If some people even acted suspicious they could be suspect.

In critical times, especially under an invasion, everyone would be considered "a potential suspect". I guess it&#39;s the sad nature of life.



Do you think you could post some of those newspaper articles? How do you know the people who wrote them weren&#39;t suspect afterwards?

I don&#39;t remember where I read it, but it wasn&#39;t long ago, and if I&#39;ll find it, I&#39;ll post it here. It was mainly on the struggle of daily life. I think it was in Pravda. There were complains about everything from the very low quality on razor blades and other consumer goods, to general complaints about society.

An editor of some sort answered the complaints, explaining or apologizing for the "uncomfortable event".

A lot of people gave their full name in the letter, and didn&#39;t seem to have any problem with it. Of course we won&#39;t know if they were suspects afterwards, but I don&#39;t think complaining about razor blades would warrant such a thing.


I&#39;ve showed you how he demonstated a system of government similar to that of Mussolini&#39;s definition of fascism, and of the common use of the term itself.


I do understand what you are saying.

But, in my view, the big difference is the relation of class. In Italy, corporate power was protected. In the Soviet Union, the opposite.

I think this is very important to keep in mind, because economy is everything -- politics follow. Supression is one thing, and it happens on both sides. But what is important is to look at who is opressed.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Yes, both were "dictators". So what? That does not make them closer, speaking of ideology.

Ideologies don&#39;t matter - it&#39;s how they control their country. The point is that both can use the same means of oppression, while having other ideologies.


Even under a dictatorship, people can think for themselves.

Of course - but who can they trust? Will anyone listen, and if so, could that person be a spy or informer for the state - the secret police?


People wouldn&#39;t have to believe everything the dictator says.

No, but officially they would have to. That is why it is called a dictatorship - they dictate what you should believe and what you shouldn&#39;t.


People would not automatically have to believe Lenin was a traitor of the revolution without any incredible evidence.

Of course not - they would be made to believe it. Okay, maybe not something as big as Lenin, but still. How can a country be socialist when the state is manipulating and controlling everything?


Do you think this only goes for "dictators", or also including leaders elected in a "democratic manner"?

Today it is done everywhere in the world. But in these so called "democracies" the people obviously have a bigger freedom to look and research in their "leaders". That is a step on the way.


Yes, I&#39;ve read about "Stalinism". Why should it be considered an ideology?

I consider it a saying, not really an ideology. Stalin betrayed the revolution - he didn&#39;t fight for democracy, human rights, freedom of speach and press, the freedom to believe in whatever you want to believe in, and so on.

If the Soviet Union, or rather, Soviet Russia had stayed in it&#39;s position after World War 2, if they had only focused on the Russian workers, their freedoms and such, the socialism would have automatically spread to other countries in better means.


At least from my point of view, "Stalinism" could hardly be considered anything more than a political solution to marxism-leninism.

Sending people to consentration camps?



Socialism is supposed to spread to neighbouring countries without the use of force

-Are you serious?

Why not? Explain.


Cuba is not socialist in my eyes, because....

1. It is not self-reliant.

What other country is self-reliant?


2. The living standard of the population is not high enough.

Ever thought about the US embargo, and other hostilities against Cuba? It is a though job to let everyone be a part of everything, sharing and distributing. They are far better than any other Third World country.


3. The nation is not industrialized

Can the industrialize it? Do they have the resources and the economy to do so? Is industrialization needed?


4. the majority of the population are religious.

So what? Should they be brainwashed, all of them? It is the people&#39;s choice, not the rulers who decide. If they want to be, fine, let them. What&#39;s the problem?


Stalin actually promoted hierarchy.

-Yes, so?

Promoting heirarchy is like saying promoting classes, capitalism or feudalism. He promoted something that socialists have fought against&#33;


Do you think a government can be perfect? What role do you think the government have in society?

As with all things in this universe, nothing can be perfect, but it can be better. The idealistic government is the one that is a tool of the people, nothing more. It is like your hand or your foot, a part of a huge veichle. Just as the factories, as the police, all buildings and veichles.

The people itself is small in comparisson, just as the brain is small compared to the rest of the body.


Do you believe socialism can be established peacefully?

I, for one, believe so. It has been happening all the time. Women and blacks have been given equality, they have been lifted up from being mere tools or slaves to human beings, much through their own fighting. Small parts of socialism, coming together to form the bigger picture.

As time progress, technology and science progress, the more freedom and realizations will we have, the more will people think, more rights and freedoms will be granted to us.


Actually, I don&#39;t. Just to clarify, I&#39;m neither a supporter of Stalin, nor am I extremely opposed to him, either.

Then I must ask a thing: Do you see anything good in Hitler?


There were complains about everything from the very low quality on razor blades and other consumer goods, to general complaints about society.

Maybe that was part of the plan to make people believe that they were free, while they really wasn&#39;t? How can you trust what was written in it? Did anyone controll what they posted?


A lot of people gave their full name in the letter, and didn&#39;t seem to have any problem with it.

Did those people even exist?


Of course we won&#39;t know if they were suspects afterwards, but I don&#39;t think complaining about razor blades would warrant such a thing.

Quite convinient, isn&#39;t it? But complaining against the government, critisizing it, even calling Stalin a fool for this or that, well, that is another matter altogether.


But, in my view, the big difference is the relation of class. In Italy, corporate power was protected. In the Soviet Union, the opposite.

Yes, state-capitalism was protected.


Supression is one thing, and it happens on both sides. But what is important is to look at who is opressed.

The Jews were not a majority in Germany during the 1930&#39;s - actually, they never were.

Oppression is a thing for fascists. To oppress someone is exactly what war-mongering monsters want - someone to blame for all the problems, may it be a people, a country, etc.

Is this what we want for our society? Oppression? Not information, education and peace?

[ComradeChris]

Stalin was not the only one in charge of the Soviet Union.

Then how come he was able to choose pretty much all the ministers, and could have anyone killed, if he wasn&#39;t in charge. Sure there were other officials, I said that. But they were chosen by Stalin and could be dismissed by Stalin.


No.

Like I said, "Living well and eating plenty of food does is not a neccesary criteria for being a member of the bourgeois."

A bourgeois can act and look like a proletariat, just as a proletariat can act and look like a bourgeois. Just simply "owning bucks", or "eating well" doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re a bourgeois.

Please define Bourgeous for me please. You once again contradict everything I&#39;ve been told and read on the subject.


Being "treated far better" doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not working class. I live quite comfortable myself, and I enjoy quality muisc, alcohol and political reading. But I am working class.

That&#39;s how communism/socialism should be. About the only privilege bestowed was a large abundance of Vodka while Stalin was in power. Probably to make people forget they were starving and that Stalin was a corrupt person.


What?

Belonging to the bourgeoisie is not something you can judge by "opinion". It&#39;s scientific.

I provided a definition. That&#39;s about the closest you get for "science" when it comes to terms...


Yes, like pooing.

If you were a marxist, you wouldn&#39;t be using a bourgeois definition on classes.

Funny that you would use a bourgeois definitions of the term "bourgeois".

I presented a Marxist definition, as it was in the definition :rolleyes: .


Again, Stalin wasn&#39;t the only one in charge of the Soviet Union.

What property are you talking about?

The fact is that Stalin wasn&#39;t bourgeois. You may call him a lot of things, but not bourgeois.

You&#39;re right...and everything I call him has backing. You defend him on nothing. Let&#39;s weight the scales here...


Trotsky was responsible for "killing his own people". But many of those killed in the hands of revolutionaries have been reactionary, sometimes even member of the bourgeoisie.

Good for him...they were REACTIONARY&#33;&#33;&#33;


Do you believe socialism can be established peacefully?

I think that socialism can be instilled democratically. I&#39;m sure there will be some quibbles from the elite.


I believe you didn&#39;t answer them.

I believe you said something like "already answered", but you didn&#39;t answer the last 4. It&#39;s not something very important though.

You asked if I had grievences with the things you listed (some of them weren&#39;t even Stalin&#39;s ideas) so I answered the appropriate ones.


Actually, I don&#39;t. Just to clarify, I&#39;m neither a supporter of Stalin, nor am I extremely opposed to him, either. I consider myself "neutral". I don&#39;t have any feelings for him in either direction. I see good things and bad things.

Then why do you so fiercely defend them? There&#39;s not much support for Stalinists here...I recommended checking the RL Guidelines for their views on teh subject.


I don&#39;t understand your logic.

I wrote, regarding Cuba "The living standard of the population is not high enough.", and you start talking about (I presume) Stalin?

Maybe I didn&#39;t make it 100 percent clear that I was talking about Cuba, not any other country. If I didn&#39;t, I apologize.

No no. I understood. Then I went to the parallel of you defending Stalin. I was referring to Stalin and was curious as to why you defend the one who didn&#39;t allow the starvation of millions.


Reading the history of Cuba, and studying present conditions.

I know they have large Nickel mines, sugar plantations, and there was another major commodity. I&#39;m not exactly sure what they do with it, but since a lot of people embargo their goods I assume they refine it themselves.


No, not really.

I am born into a nation where church and state is seperated, and I am not religious. Religion is a common sign of lack of scientific knowledge and backward culture.

Actually, Protestantism was a symbol of progress. Unfortunately that "progress" was industrialization which lead to capitalism.


Aware of belonging to a particular socioeconomic class? Being aware of the relations between the classes? Being conscious of living in a class society, and your relation herein?

Ok I guessed that&#39;s what you meant. Wasn&#39;t sure if it had different interpretations.


Awareness held by members of a class regarding their common vested interests and need for collective political action to bring about social change?

This is a very important aspect of Marxism.

I&#39;m well aware of that. And how do you spread that information? Through knowledge; not force like Stalin.

I&#39;m sure the Cubans were aware of the classes, or why did they fight, and why did Castro win?


Well, the state is a tool to keep one class dominating, while supressing others.

But I would disagree if you mean that if one belong to a high position in the government, you would be bourgeois.

Stalin lived in a fucking Czarist palace. I don&#39;t know how much bourgeois you can get. You think he would have torn it down as a symbol of oppression or something. No they lived in it&#33;


Felix Rodriguez comes to my mind.


In 1967 the CIA recruited him to train and head a team to hunt down Guevara in Bolivia. When Guevara was captured it was Rodriguez who interrogated him. After his execution he took Guevara&#39;s Rolex watch as a souvenir.

By the way, why wouldn&#39;t they want him dead?

Maybe to get information out of him?

But I&#39;m just going by something I read on this site.


Yes, they can implement some reforms, but they won&#39;t change class relations.

I know. It&#39;s just a swing left. Because you asked if I consider Liberals leftist. And to that essentially is sometimes.


Yes, some of the means were same, but the ideological difference is huge, and my view is that that is what we need to focus on.

Stalin was a dictator, and remained so until his death. Hitler did the same. There&#39;s no evidence Stalin was a communist at heart. And with 6 houses (one of them a palace) I highly doubt he was that in tune with the needs of his people anyway.


In critical times, especially under an invasion, everyone would be considered "a potential suspect". I guess it&#39;s the sad nature of life.

I&#39;m more concerned about how his paranoia drove many of his purges.


I don&#39;t remember where I read it, but it wasn&#39;t long ago, and if I&#39;ll find it, I&#39;ll post it here. It was mainly on the struggle of daily life. I think it was in Pravda. There were complains about everything from the very low quality on razor blades and other consumer goods, to general complaints about society.

An editor of some sort answered the complaints, explaining or apologizing for the "uncomfortable event".

A lot of people gave their full name in the letter, and didn&#39;t seem to have any problem with it. Of course we won&#39;t know if they were suspects afterwards, but I don&#39;t think complaining about razor blades would warrant such a thing.

You did mention they were cmplaining about other things also, no need to trivialize the complaints.

And it sounds as though the editor was put in place by Stalin or something. Making apologies and all, I can only assume, for Stalin?


I do understand what you are saying.

But, in my view, the big difference is the relation of class. In Italy, corporate power was protected. In the Soviet Union, the opposite.

I think this is very important to keep in mind, because economy is everything -- politics follow. Supression is one thing, and it happens on both sides. But what is important is to look at who is opressed.

Many groups of people were oppressed under Stalin. In fact I was reading an article that even initially under Stalin&#39;s rule he incarcerated more people in the Gulags alone, then the entirety of the US penal system. It could have been for anything too. I&#39;ve heard numerous stories (by pretty much all my teachers who have taught on the subject) of how people could just be taken away in the night and never seen again.

[Hiero]

Then how come he was able to choose pretty much all the ministers, and could have anyone killed, if he wasn&#39;t in charge. Sure there were other officials, I said that. But they were chosen by Stalin and could be dismissed by Stalin.

He didn&#39;t choose all the ministers, they were voted in by the Polit Buro. There was a procces.

The NKVD were the ones who did the invesigations and the excutions. Stalin even had people close to him who he could not save.


Please define Bourgeous for me please. You once again contradict everything I&#39;ve been told and read on the subject.

If everything you have been told about the Bourgeois contradicst what is said here then you have not been told the Marxist definition of the Bourgeois.

They are the class that owns the means of production. But once the revolution happens and proleteriat take the means of production into there control that doesn&#39;t make them Bourgeois since they dont function the same as the Bourgeois did in capitalism.

Stalin never owned the means of production for himself and never created his wealth off the labour of others. Stalin reveiced a monthly salary and it was just a bit higher then the average worker.

About the amount of house Stalin "owned". He never owned thoose houses, the state owned thoose houses for use of government officials on holidays. After the CC worked long hours for months at a time i don&#39;t see why they shouldn&#39;t be allowed to have a holiday


Probably to make people forget they were starving and that Stalin was a corrupt person.

AHAh im just going to laugh at this one, yep Chris thats excactly right.


Stalin lived in a fucking Czarist palace.

Not always. He mostly lived in the Kremlin, or a building that was shared among other Polit Buro members. He never lived in the traditional sense of a palace which you are thinking of.


On Stalin&#39;s orders the restoration was halted and many of the private rooms of the Imperial family were stripped of their decoration. This was in preparation for the conversion of the palace to a bland, generic museum of the town of Pushkin http://users.rcn.com/web-czar/homes.htm

Also Stalin often removed things of luxury in the building he lived in.

Oh Chris you can stop braging about how you back everything up with sources. The few times you have it was been from a dictionary or wipekidia. Most of what you say is assumption and hear say. You can&#39;t just come in and say "oh i heard Stalin did this" etc

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

He didn&#39;t choose all the ministers, they were voted in by the Polit Buro. There was a procces.

And the thoughts and approval of the people?


The NKVD were the ones who did the invesigations and the excutions. Stalin even had people close to him who he could not save.

That he couldn&#39;t, or wouldn&#39;t?


About the amount of house Stalin "owned". He never owned thoose houses, the state owned thoose houses for use of government officials on holidays.

Stalin basically was the state.


You can&#39;t just come in and say "oh i heard Stalin did this" etc

I have no problem with getting information straight, even if it is one of the most brutal dictators of all time. But one can&#39;t possible support a dictator that shook hands with nationalism and racism.

The nationalists in Germany captured and killed leftists. The nationalists took power. After a decade, you can&#39;t say that Stalin didn&#39;t know this. Hitler himself said one and many things about Marxism and socialism. But hey, screw Marx, screw Lenin, hell screw the revolution and the people - let&#39;s divide Poland and get all over with.

As if that wasn&#39;t enough. He oppressed and murdured his own people.

(From Wikipedia):
"Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power by the end of the 1930s. However, Soviet agriculture, which had been exploited to finance the industrialization drive, continued to show poor returns throughout the decade. Collectivization had met widespread resistance from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of many peasants against the authorities. Meanwhile, Stalin argued that the ruling Communist Party&#39;s factionalism might weaken the Soviet Union in the face of foreign enemies. During the 1930s, he eliminated effective political opposition through a harsh system of internal exile (see Gulag) and executions, and through providing certain segments of the population benefits so as to win their support or co-opt them into the regime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

He also created his own Cult of Personality.

Is this the government we want for the people? A maniac?

[Hiero]

And the thoughts and approval of the people?

Thats Impossible.


That he couldn&#39;t, or wouldn&#39;t?

Since i said "could not" that means couldn&#39;t.


Stalin basically was the state.

What do you mean.


Is this the government we want for the people? A maniac?

You need to criticise the Stalin in his time period.

Ofcourse we will not do things like in the firsthalf centuary of the 1900.

[Hiero]

Since we have lost many post i will make my last reply that was worth saying.

Note that even Trotsky didn&#39;t identified what he called Stalinism as being anything equally to Fascism. He did belief Stalinist parties allowed the rise of Fascism due to their sectarianism. But he never call Stalinism the equal of Fascism its just nutter like Chris, Clenched fist and Weisty.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Note that even Trotsky didn&#39;t identified what he called Stalinism as being anything equally to Fascism.

Well, of course. Fascism is whatever the leader wants it to be. Is North Korea fascist? China? I mean, are there rules to how fascism should be? Are there rules for anarchists for them to be anarchists?


He did belief Stalinist parties allowed the rise of Fascism due to their sectarianism. But he never call Stalinism the equal of Fascism its just nutter like Chris, Clenched fist and Weisty.

To answer the question directly, no, it wasn&#39;t fascism. It was authorian.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:46 PM
Since we have lost many post i will make my last reply that was worth saying.

Note that even Trotsky didn&#39;t identified what he called Stalinism as being anything equally to Fascism. He did belief Stalinist parties allowed the rise of Fascism due to their sectarianism. But he never call Stalinism the equal of Fascism its just nutter like Chris, Clenched fist and Weisty.


That wasn&#39;t worth saying...

I&#39;ve proven many times that he was paralleled to the ideology of Fascism (as both you describe it, and the common definition).


He didn&#39;t choose all the ministers, they were voted in by the Polit Buro. There was a procces.

The NKVD were the ones who did the invesigations and the excutions. Stalin even had people close to him who he could not save.

And he watched those proceedings like a hawk. He ultimately had control over the proceedings. And who exactly did he not want to save that were executed? Most of the people who were closest to him (friends and political partners) were the ones he was most suspicious of.


They are the class that owns the means of production. But once the revolution happens and proleteriat take the means of production into there control that doesn&#39;t make them Bourgeois since they dont function the same as the Bourgeois did in capitalism.

Ok, he controlled the means of production...lived better than the workers themselves (I think that was quite evident as I&#39;ve pointed out numerous times).


Stalin never owned the means of production for himself and never created his wealth off the labour of others. Stalin reveiced a monthly salary and it was just a bit higher then the average worker.

He lived better...he benefitted much more than the workers did.


About the amount of house Stalin "owned". He never owned thoose houses, the state owned thoose houses for use of government officials on holidays. After the CC worked long hours for months at a time i don&#39;t see why they shouldn&#39;t be allowed to have a holiday

Right...all that planning of isolated starvations, and killings makes a person weary :rolleyes: . If they did not belong to him, how come when Kruschev and that other chap WERE INVITED to the palace, THEY had to SHARE a room...Sounds like they knew who the owner of the house was.


AHAh im just going to laugh at this one, yep Chris thats excactly right.

Well I meant it to be sarcastically funny...but I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if that was part of the reason.


Not always. He mostly lived in the Kremlin, or a building that was shared among other Polit Buro members. He never lived in the traditional sense of a palace which you are thinking of.

WELL NO FUCKING SHIT, "Not always"&#33;&#33; He had multiple houses...that only proves his far greater superiority than his subjects. I was just emphasizing the fact HE HAD A PALACE&#33;&#33;


http://users.rcn.com/web-czar/homes.htm

Also Stalin often removed things of luxury in the building he lived in.

I think you posted the wrong link for the quote you provided....It&#39;s not on that site.


Oh Chris you can stop braging about how you back everything up with sources. The few times you have it was been from a dictionary or wipekidia. Most of what you say is assumption and hear say. You can&#39;t just come in and say "oh i heard Stalin did this" etc

You&#39;re going to university right? Maybe you shuoldn&#39;t listen to your professors. Whatever they say is just "hearsay"...Sometimes you are too childish... :rolleyes: . I posted a much longer and more insulting post last time, but I will limit myself this time.

[Hiero]

I&#39;ve proven many times that he was paralleled to the ideology of Fascism (as both you describe it, and the common definition).

No you haven&#39;t.

[rice349]

There is absolutely no parallel between "stalinism" and Nazism. First off, national socialism is in staunch contrast to actual socialism. You really can&#39;t make any logical basis whatsover comparing the two.

National socialism was marked by some state ownership, but it was also marked with a close relationship between the Nazi party and capitalist business and industry owners. The only reason National Socialism calls for state ownership is the buildup of the state; not for the elimination of classes. In fact, national socialism looks to bring about racial identity, as opposed to class identity (real socialism).

Many people claim that "stalinism" is linked to nazism because of the way in which each respective leader led his country. This again, is completely false. Hitler ran a very rigid regime bent on empire-building and race purification. Stalin ran a steady government trying to bring about socialism and worker liberation. While Stalin did use some brutal tactics (many of which have been exaggerated beyond belief), his leadership was not dependent on the systematic elmination of a scapegoat ethnic group.

Another aspect in which people try to link Stalin with Nazism is "socialism in one country," which many believe is to be nationalistic. There is some important historical context to inspect before making judgments on this theory. First, Stalin originally believed in world-wide revolution much in the same way LEnin and Trotsky did. However, after realizing that the more industrialized nations weren&#39;t having successful communist revolutions, the Soviet Union could not lie idly by and wait; so he had to do something, thus beginning socialism in one country.

Stalin had recorded his own opinions of nationalism as well as being available in soviet archives his actions against nationalism in places such as Georgia and the Ukraine. However, the west has lied and turned these into huge controversies in which they depict him as completely slaughtering entire regions--again obvious lies.

There basically is no comparison between socialism, and national socialism. The two are in complete contrast to one another and to compare Stalin to Hitler really bears no merit. Stalin was a dedicated communist who devoted his life to bringing about social justice to the working class; Hitler was a fascist thug who was determined to conquer and "racially purify" the world.

[1936]

Rice......national socialsm is basically

Socialsm + nationalsm + a hell of alot of racism + procetionism


Therefor the root foundation of national socialsm is socialsm, just a racist one.

Oh and socialsm is for the people before the state, national socialsm is the other way around.

Theres a big connection

[1936]

And hitler persecued jews for hindering germany in world war 1

stalin persecued ukranians for hinderin russia in world war 2

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:16 PM
Therefor the root foundation of national socialsm is socialsm, just a racist one.
*Buzzer* WRONG&#33;

The root of National Socialism is CORPORATISM, in which the means of production privately held, and relations between owner/worker are mediated on behalf of the owners by the state.

[1936]

Ok, but national socialsm is connected to socialsm, undeniabley&#33;....its just national socialsm is the wrong sort of socialsm...in wich i in NO WAY support or sypmathise. As my many other alias&#39;s have been discrimanated and deleted for.

[rice349]

Stalin did not persecute Ukrainians for hindering the Soviet Union in WW2, any action against the Ukrainians (which is under severe scrutiny due to the amount of lies which surround this topic) was because of their unwillingness and rejection of collectivization. However, there is unlimited amounts of lies that even point to the notion that Stalin organized a famine to kill the Ukrainians--again, with no empirical proof.

The idea of building up a workers state and socialism do not have to be counterposed; in fact, when building up a worker&#39;s state in which the workers are the main focus as well as the advancement of society, were necessary elements of bringing about socialism in a nation like Russia -- Russia was far from the model nation for communist revolution, so of course there had to be exceptions and alterations to orthodox marxism.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

There is absolutely no parallel between "stalinism" and Nazism.

Both were dictatorships. Hitler ruled Germany with the idea of races and classes. Stalin ruled his country by placing the state first, and the people second.


National socialism was marked by some state ownership, but it was also marked with a close relationship between the Nazi party and capitalist business and industry owners.

Capitalist business and industry were both temporal. In Hitler&#39;s final plan, only the state and the people it ruled would be left.


The only reason National Socialism calls for state ownership is the buildup of the state; not for the elimination of classes.

But "idealistically" (that is, according to Hitler) there would be no class sooner or later. Assume that Hitler won World War 2, continued his extermination of Jews and other "races" throughout Europe, we would only have the aryan "race" left. Racism would have ended there - but not the state.

The state would keep working, it would come up with new reasons for "unity". War is one possibility - an endless war - just like in Orwell&#39;s 1984. In the end, only the aryans would exist, a war, and the state. Everybody not in the state is directly under it, ruled by it. Of course, there would be classes in the war itself.


Stalin ran a steady government trying to bring about socialism and worker liberation.

I&#39;m sure he did.


While Stalin did use some brutal tactics (many of which have been exaggerated beyond belief), his leadership was not dependent on the systematic elmination of a scapegoat ethnic group.

To send millions of people - workers and peasants - into camps is a clear sign that something is wrong with the regime. The people decide, not the state.


However, after realizing that the more industrialized nations weren&#39;t having successful communist revolutions, the Soviet Union could not lie idly by and wait; so he had to do something, thus beginning socialism in one country.

Lenin already thought about this. Revolutions was improbable after 1920 - around that time, the world was closest to a global socialist revolution than it has ever been. Stalin didn&#39;t wait. He implemented a new system that gave the state much more power - one that exceeded the people. Lenin already began building socialism, it was well underway until Stalin took office, and after the second world war, any thoughts of socialism was already gone.


Stalin was a dedicated communist who devoted his life to bringing about social justice to the working class;

Yes, a "leader of communism" - which by the way has no leaders. Guess Stalin didn&#39;t know that.

[rice349]

Yes, a "leader of communism" - which by the way has no leaders. Guess Stalin didn&#39;t know that.

No, Stalin never claimed (nor did I call him) a leader of communism...he was a communist, who happened to be a leader during the transitional period of socialism...big difference.

[prettyred]

socialism, youre sayin the ussr was socialist?

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:33 PM
socialism, youre sayin the ussr was socialist?
Yes the USSR was socialist, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:24 PM
Ok, but national socialsm is connected to socialsm, undeniabley&#33;....its just national socialsm is the wrong sort of socialsm...in wich i in NO WAY support or sypmathise. As my many other alias&#39;s have been discrimanated and deleted for.
care to keep trying ????

[rice349]

this is getting ridiculous, to claim that national socialism has anything to do with the socialism instilled by Stalin is borderline retarded&#33;

[Rebel For Life]

actualy you can compare hittler to stalin [/U]in a way[U] they both killed millions of people, and if im corect they where both on speed <im not sure about that. But there are diferant opinions on those two simalarities if you want to call them that :rolleyes:

[rice349]

I never heard of Hitler or Stalin on speed, I really don&#39;t think there can be a legitimate comparison between the two, considering (although both beleived in strong government and inherent political suppression), one worked on the basis of class consciousness while the other worked on the basis of race consciousness, as well as the fact both were essentially driven by two very separate ideologies.

Some will say that the tactics in which both used are the same, this is highly doubtful. Gulags were not concentration camps, they were forced labor camps. Big difference. Stalin sent people to the gulags who ultimately posed a greater threat to the general public; Hitler executed those he felt were racially inferior to him, or weren&#39;t suitable to exist within the "aryan race."

However, I did hear that Hitler was a bit of a massochist (sp) and liked to be verbally and physically abused by women lol...

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:48 PM
this is getting ridiculous, to claim that national socialism has anything to do with the socialism instilled by Stalin is borderline retarded&#33;
Well you criticized me for the misuse of the words suck and fascist so I would just like to point out that you completely misused the word retard. A retard is, someone who has a mental disability, or to slow something down. And that is childish to use a remark that mocks others misfortunes anyway, I do agree that National Socialism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other they just share the word socialism, they literally have no similiar ideals, not to say that Hitler and Stalin didn&#39;t have similiarities.

Also I don&#39;t think speed was even around yet but they both could have been on some drug.

[rice349]

i was using retarded in the sense that comparing the two slows down any further discussion based on real, empirical, logical evidence or theoretical questions...not to poke fun at those with sub-par IQ&#39;s lol

[codyvo]

It doesn&#39;t offend me much anyways.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

No, Stalin never claimed (nor did I call him) a leader of communism...

Yes, he was never a leader...


he was a communist, who happened to be a leader during the transitional period of socialism...

Then we have it right there - he was both a communist and a leader.


socialism, youre sayin the ussr was socialist?

The Soviet Union was socialist to a degree, kind of a twisted socialism referred to as stalinism. But it never became truly socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism


Yes the USSR was socialist, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic.

Let&#39;s say that one day, the United States of America changed it&#39;s name - for no reason - to United Socialists of America. Nothing changed, only the name. Bush is still the president, corporations still exploit other people in other countries, and so on. Would this make the USA socialists?


Some will say that the tactics in which both used are the same, this is highly doubtful.

Doubtful in what way?


Gulags were not concentration camps, they were forced labor camps. Big difference. Stalin sent people to the gulags who ultimately posed a greater threat to the general public; Hitler executed those he felt were racially inferior to him, or weren&#39;t suitable to exist within the "aryan race."

It doesn&#39;t matter. The whole thing is: they sent MILLIONS of people into these camps. We all understand why Hitler did this - after all, he and his whole bunch were wicked nazis.

Workers will not see any difference in regimes when they pour people into camps. They are all the same to them: dictatorships. Socialism is supposed to be proven to the people, so they can see and realize that socialism is the best way to go. To pour the "incorrect" into camps only proves one thing: we are not better than the others (feudalism, capitalism etc).

When any given regime send millions of it&#39;s own people into camps, then something is not right with that regime.


Extreme production quotas, brutality, hunger and harsh elements were major reasons for Gulag&#39;s high fatality rate, which was as high as 80% during the first months in many camps.

Logging and mining were among the most common of activities, as well as the harshest. In a Gulag mine, one person&#39;s production quota might be as high as 29,000 pounds (13,000 kg) of ore per day. Failure to meet a quota resulted in a loss of vital rations, a cycle that usually had fatal consequences through a condition of being emaciated and devitalized, dubbed "dohodyaga" (доходяга).

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:56 PM

I&#39;ve proven many times that he was paralleled to the ideology of Fascism (as both you describe it, and the common definition).

No you haven&#39;t.
I think on the first or second page I showed policy similarities between the two dictators. The rest were interspersed with my arguments. However they might have been deleted when the purges occurred. But you can go back and read them if they are there.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Apr 2 2005, 02:32 AM--> (ComradeChris @ Apr 2 2005, 02:32 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 05:56 PM

I&#39;ve proven many times that he was paralleled to the ideology of Fascism (as both you describe it, and the common definition).

No you haven&#39;t.
I think on the first or second page I showed policy similarities between the two dictators. The rest were interspersed with my arguments. However they might have been deleted when the purges occurred. But you can go back and read them if they are there. [/b]
I have read them, and they are nothing more then ramblings.

[Brennus]

First of all, "Stalinism" was not nationalist, as Stalin never advised nor attempted to expel any country from the Soviet Union despite the fact that there were of many different ethnicities and most spoke very different languages.


Originally posted by Comrade Chris+--> (Comrade Chris)Also satelite states under Stalin (and some of his successors; but not so much, they became increasingly less fascist as time progressed) were basically stripped of resourses strictly for Russia, and hardly given anything in return. That&#39;s probably why places like Hungary and Czech wanted to revolt so badly.[/b]

Uhh...the "satellite" states recieved very cheap prices on crucial economic resources such as oil. By 1974, the Soviet Union was providing oil at an 80% discount from world market prices to its Eastern European allies. (For reference you can check The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine)


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Yes... and the mass deportation of all Soviet Jews to that "homeland".

I&#39;d like to see some evidence of that.

[rice349]

First of all, "Stalinism" was not nationalist, as Stalin never advised nor attempted to expel any country from the Soviet Union despite the fact that there were of many different ethnicities and most spoke very different languages.

Very true, in fact, Stalin was practically one of the first leaders to bring an end to the fighting of many of the existing ethnic groups in the Caucuses, particularly in his native Georgia. Under Stalin nationalism was suppressed quite heavily, as it should be.

[Maksym]

Originally posted by Rebel For [email protected] 23 2005, 11:45 PM
actualy you can compare hittler to stalin [/U]in a way[U] they both killed millions of people, and if im corect they where both on speed <im not sure about that. But there are diferant opinions on those two simalarities if you want to call them that :rolleyes:
The Russian State Archives pin the maximum number of people killed during the years of Stalin at 700 000. About 60% of the 700 000 were German Fascists taken prisoner. If you understand a revolutionary state and when comparing it to previous revolutionary states, the numbers are not exceptional .

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Hiero+Apr 1 2005, 08:59 PM--> (Hiero &#064; Apr 1 2005, 08:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:32 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 05:56 PM

I&#39;ve proven many times that he was paralleled to the ideology of Fascism (as both you describe it, and the common definition).

No you haven&#39;t.
I think on the first or second page I showed policy similarities between the two dictators. The rest were interspersed with my arguments. However they might have been deleted when the purges occurred. But you can go back and read them if they are there.
I have read them, and they are nothing more then ramblings. [/b]
That&#39;s why you&#39;re not refuting them? Should be easy for someone of your intelligence if they are nothing but ramblings. But oh yes&#33; This is also coming from the same person who said they weren&#39;t there&#33; :rolleyes:


Uhh...the "satellite" states recieved very cheap prices on crucial economic resources such as oil. By 1974, the Soviet Union was providing oil at an 80% discount from world market prices to its Eastern European allies. (For reference you can check The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine)

Well I&#39;m sure oil tasted great to the millions starving in his satelite states&#33;&#33; Talk about crucial...good grief.


First of all, "Stalinism" was not nationalist, as Stalin never advised nor attempted to expel any country from the Soviet Union despite the fact that there were of many different ethnicities and most spoke very different languages.

He was nationalist, and he was imperialist. Kind of reminds me of the US today. They&#39;re even trying to imperialize the same friggen region&#33;&#33;

[rice349]

He was nationalist, and he was imperialist. Kind of reminds me of the US today. They&#39;re even trying to imperialize the same friggen region&#33;&#33;

You&#39;ve done nothing but display your sheer level of ignorance of not only history, but that you really don&#39;t have any solid understanding of what &#39;nationalism&#39; or &#39;imperialism&#39; is...

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:22 PM

He was nationalist, and he was imperialist. Kind of reminds me of the US today. They&#39;re even trying to imperialize the same friggen region&#33;&#33;

You&#39;ve done nothing but display your sheer level of ignorance of not only history, but that you really don&#39;t have any solid understanding of what &#39;nationalism&#39; or &#39;imperialism&#39; is...
They used military might to maintain control over regions. That is not imperialism?? The forced people to think their way. That is not imperialism??


im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation&#39;s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Wow...sounds like you&#39;re right on the imperialism issue.

And I don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve seen the multiple links to socialism in one country? Maybe that&#39;s not nationalistic to you? :rolleyes:

You&#39;re the one who&#39;s very mistaken here&#33;

[rice349]

They used military might to maintain control over regions. That is not imperialism?? The forced people to think their way. That is not imperialism??

They used military might to suppress reactionary uprisings and to preserve socialism in the Eastern Bloc. After the establishment of the Soviet Satellites, their were reactionary uprisings which had ot be suppressed, the Soviet Union wasn&#39;t trying to establish dominance over these regions, they were autonomous states in alliance with the Soviet Union; they were separate and the Soviet Union did not control them from Russia, hence, it wasn&#39;t imperialism. Besides, the type of imperialism you&#39;re talking about is the simplest form of imperialism--basically empire building. THere are three types of imperialism: colonial imperialism (settler colonies), administrative imperialism, and neo-colonial (capitalist) imperialism. The soviet union wasn&#39;t guilty of any of these, in the essence that all nations in the Eastern Bloc were autonomous and like some did--disavowed relationships with the Soviet Union itself.


And I don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve seen the multiple links to socialism in one country? Maybe that&#39;s not nationalistic to you?

No, socialism in one country is not nationalistic in the fact that it doesn&#39;t pronounce dominance or superiority of one nation of another. Socialism in one country means not having to wait for the proletariat of the industrialized nations to revolt in order for the survival of third-world revolutions. Socialism in one country means breaking away the imperialists&#39; control over the third-world one nation at a time in which that nation allies itself with other socialist nations and goes forward with building a socialist system in that respective nation.

Again, I think you&#39;re making an illegitimate connection between socialism in one country and something totally unrelated as "national socialism."

[ComradeChris]

They used military might to suppress reactionary uprisings and to preserve socialism in the Eastern Bloc. After the establishment of the Soviet Satellites, their were reactionary uprisings which had ot be suppressed, the Soviet Union wasn&#39;t trying to establish dominance over these regions, they were autonomous states in alliance with the Soviet Union; they were separate and the Soviet Union did not control them from Russia, hence, it wasn&#39;t imperialism. Besides, the type of imperialism you&#39;re talking about is the simplest form of imperialism--basically empire building. THere are three types of imperialism: colonial imperialism (settler colonies), administrative imperialism, and neo-colonial (capitalist) imperialism. The soviet union wasn&#39;t guilty of any of these, in the essence that all nations in the Eastern Bloc were autonomous and like some did--disavowed relationships with the Soviet Union itself.

In countries they forced to instill THEIR brand of socialism. Many of the uprisings were because people wanted more democracy. Many of the uprisings were started in schools and intellectual institutions. The most famous incidents were Prague Spring and the Hungarian Revolt.

I thought socialism was about peaceful methods of achieving global communism. They were imperialists&#33;


No, socialism in one country is not nationalistic in the fact that it doesn&#39;t pronounce dominance or superiority of one nation of another. Socialism in one country means not having to wait for the proletariat of the industrialized nations to revolt in order for the survival of third-world revolutions. Socialism in one country means breaking away the imperialists&#39; control over the third-world one nation at a time in which that nation allies itself with other socialist nations and goes forward with building a socialist system in that respective nation.

It defies Marxist socialism&#33;&#33; They were supposed to peacefully spread socialism to other countries. And I mean peaceful as in support the other countries workers in revolution, not using their military might directly. If you have to force someone into socialism, it&#39;s obviously not going to work.

The primary reason for Stalin to establish satelite states was for the benefit of the USSR. Not the benefit of the satelite states. They offered greater numbers, and something Russia severely lacked: uranium (or plutonium, I always get those two mixed up). The USSR, especially under Stalin, severely exploited the satelite countries for the good of the USSR alone. TO me that makes them nationalistic...but obviously your opinion is different :rolleyes: .


Again, I think you&#39;re making an illegitimate connection between socialism in one country and something totally unrelated as "national socialism."

If Stalin&#39;s brand of socialism could survive in his country why did he require the imperialization (yes I know I made up a word) of his satelite countries; countries that quite obviously did not want his brand of socialism?

[Brennus]

Well I&#39;m sure oil tasted great to the millions starving in his satelite states&#33;&#33; Talk about crucial...good grief.

I&#39;d like some evidence that the Eastern Bloc nations were starving in 1974.


He was nationalist, and he was imperialist. Kind of reminds me of the US today. They&#39;re even trying to imperialize the same friggen region&#33;&#33;

Are you going to provide any evidence for this claim of nationalism? As for your charge of imperialism- the USSR invaded Eastern Europe, to liberate it from the NAZIS. The USSR was defending itself. Are you saying that the Poles would have been happier under German rule?


And I mean peaceful as in support the other countries workers in revolution, not using their military might directly.

The USSR pursued that exact policy until they were invaded by the Germans.


If Stalin&#39;s brand of socialism could survive in his country why did he require the imperialization (yes I know I made up a word) of his satelite countries; countries that quite obviously did not want his brand of socialism?

Would you have liberated these people and then let the imperialists take them again?

[MKS]

This Forums constant "backand forth" is evidence that Stalin continues to divide the Left, even today.

[Hiero]

This is also coming from the same person who said they weren&#39;t there&#33;

I never said they weren&#39;t there, i just implied you didn&#39;t do what you attended.


This Forums constant "backand forth" is evidence that Stalin continues to divide the Left, even today.

No not really, as commnunist is only a minority of left politics in Western countries. Most in the third world that are stagging revolutions are Maoist.

This forum is mostly non party members.

[MKS]

There is a basic idealogical thread that ties all leftist movements together,(usually the creation for a better world.)

Let me clarify for those who seem to target small details and pull them apart for some sort of yearning to always be right. (I could be incuded in that group sometimes)

This forums constant back and forth is evidence that Stalin continues to divide SOCIALISTS, even today.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Mar 22 2005, 10:18 PM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Mar 22 2005, 10:18 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 10:16 PM
Therefor the root foundation of national socialsm is socialsm, just a racist one.
*Buzzer* WRONG&#33;

The root of National Socialism is CORPORATISM, in which the means of production privately held, and relations between owner/worker are mediated on behalf of the owners by the state. [/b]
National Socialism is rooted in a belief of social/racial purity on a national scale--homogeniality of social/racial grouping. It is stresses the importance of an elite class having the upper hand in all state affairs. It stresses the need for swift, absolute action against anyone who opposes the state. It is the basic underlying principle behind Bennito Mussolini&#39;s "Black Shirts" Fascist movement.

[rice349]

This forums constant back and forth is evidence that Stalin continues to divide SOCIALISTS, even today.

In a small way, you&#39;ve proven the need for a strong, centralized governing body when it comes to real movement. The kind fo division that exists between communists/socialists/anarchists today have existed well before the era of Stalin. Blaming Stalin for this is absurd. However, these rifts will always exists between "stalinists" and trotskyites, leninists and anarchists, marxists and social democrats, etc. My point being, this type of tension between "factions" shows the necessity for a strong centralized body to gain control and lead the revolution and society thereafter.

[MKS]

I agree that there at first needs to be centralized power base, a vanguard, but one that will dissolve once communism is established. Stalin, never did that, he did the opposite he stregnthed his power at the cost of the masses. That is one of the core flaws of Stalin.

[rice349]

I agree that there at first needs to be centralized power base, a vanguard, but one that will dissolve once communism is established. Stalin, never did that, he did the opposite he stregnthed his power at the cost of the masses. That is one of the core flaws of Stalin.

It didn&#39;t dissolve because the Soviet Union hadn&#39;t reached communism...they were in socialism in which marx and lenin called for a strong government.

[MKS]

Exactly it didnt dissolve, it grew and became oppressive indirectly or direclty through its econmic and "cultural" policies. The masses suffered, and were not lead to communism, but to another form of state-capitalism and tyranny.

[rice349]

so what exactly are you advocating MKS? Revolution towards direct communism?

[MKS]

I oppose the establishment of tyranny, especially when presented as Socialism. My previous post reveals my opinion that Stalin did not lead a vangaurd, but a kind of state capitalism, which was in direct opposition to true communism.

But my original point was that Stalin continues to divide Socialists, even in the modern world.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:58 PM
But my original point was that Stalin continues to divide Socialists, even in the modern world.
HOW?

Show me where any major Leftist movement is divided over Stalin and Trotsky.

[ComradeChris]

I&#39;d like some evidence that the Eastern Bloc nations were starving in 1974.

Maybe you didn&#39;t hear about the Ukraine? I&#39;m very surprised. And why precisely does it have to be 1974?


Are you going to provide any evidence for this claim of nationalism? As for your charge of imperialism- the USSR invaded Eastern Europe, to liberate it from the NAZIS. The USSR was defending itself. Are you saying that the Poles would have been happier under German rule?

They divided up Poland to best suit them. That deal was made with another Nationalistic country. I already have provided evidence; you choose to ignore it.

They stayed an awfully long time to just have them "liberated." I don&#39;t think the Poles were happy being under USSR or Nazi rule.


The USSR pursued that exact policy until they were invaded by the Germans.

I guess cutting deals with the Nazis changes a person eh?


Would you have liberated these people and then let the imperialists take them again?

I&#39;d let countries decide what is best for themselves...that&#39;s liberation. If they asked for help I&#39;d probably give it to them however.

[rice349]

Maybe you didn&#39;t hear about the Ukraine?

We&#39;ve all heard about the infamous "Ukraine Famine" that Stalin supposedly man made...the point he&#39;s trying to establish is that it has been completely taken out of context and twisted around by the west and ukrainian nationalists to dive stalin and communism in general a bad name.


They divided up Poland to best suit them. That deal was made with another Nationalistic country. I already have provided evidence; you choose to ignore it.

They stayed an awfully long time to just have them "liberated." I don&#39;t think the Poles were happy being under USSR or Nazi rule.

They made that deal to stop the apparent spread of fascism throughout Europe. THe first half of the 20th century showed a great interest in experimentation with both communism and fascism. The Soviet Union saved unknown amounts of Poles by making this deal.


guess cutting deals with the Nazis changes a person eh?

They were trying to prevent war at all costs, and rightfully so, as we later saw the Soviet Union experienced (i do not recall the exact number) more losses in WWII than any other nation involved.

[ComradeChris]

We&#39;ve all heard about the infamous "Ukraine Famine" that Stalin supposedly man made...the point he&#39;s trying to establish is that it has been completely taken out of context and twisted around by the west and ukrainian nationalists to dive stalin and communism in general a bad name.

See I thought we&#39;d all heard of Ukraine too. But that one bloke, I don&#39;t even remember his name, asked for cases of starvation. So I guess he hadn&#39;t heard of it.


They made that deal to stop the apparent spread of fascism throughout Europe. THe first half of the 20th century showed a great interest in experimentation with both communism and fascism. The Soviet Union saved unknown amounts of Poles by making this deal.

I&#39;m sorry, forced authoritarian regimes are relatively the same to me. Stalin got rid of one brutal authoritarian regime (albeit much more brutal) for his own. They weren&#39;t content under either. If they were mass revolts and the Warsaw pact would have remained in tact.


They were trying to prevent war at all costs, and rightfully so, as we later saw the Soviet Union experienced (i do not recall the exact number) more losses in WWII than any other nation involved.

I&#39;m sorry...that can be taken several ways.
1. Stalin was being nationalistic looking out only for Russia. Which is a clear contradiction to what you&#39;ve been saying, making Stalin to look to be the saviour of the Eastern Bloc countries.
2. Any deals with the Nazis would be collaboration. Apathy, to me, is a form of collaboration.
3. They suffered more casualties because they thought they were on good terms with the regime you claimed they so justly liberated the East Bloc countries from. The attack was unsuspected. Although you&#39;d think a weasel would know a weasel&#39;s tricks.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:58 AM
It didn&#39;t dissolve because the Soviet Union hadn&#39;t reached communism...they were in socialism in which marx and lenin called for a strong government.
That&#39;s exactly where Stalinism conflicts with Marxism.

Marx didn&#39;t call for a strong government, it called for a dictator of the proletarian. Stalin created a Dictatorship for the proletarian

[Forward Union]

They were trying to prevent war at all costs, and rightfully so, as we later saw the Soviet Union experienced (i do not recall the exact number) more losses in WWII than any other nation involved.

That may also have had something to do with Hitler...I mean Stalin&#39;s policies of shooting his own soldiers.

[MKS]

Quote from Hiero
Show me where any major Leftist movement is divided over Stalin and Trotsky

I dont know if you call RL a major leftist movement, but if you do, the mere fact that this thread has several pages, all with different views on Stalin (his crimes, policies, etc.) demostrates a real divide. Dosent it?

Even when you disregard Stalins crimes and just look at his policies there are differences compared to Trotsky and even "Cuban Socialism". These differences are a major source of debate and contention amongst Socialists.

Even Che himself disagreed with the Soviet sytem set up by Stalin, and his later speeches, created almost an unrepairable divide between Cuba and the Soviet Union.

Is there room for Stalinists in the Socialist movement? Can we ignore the crimes, and just examine the ideal and practices of the man? I dont think we can. But then again I could be wrong, I often am.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Is there room for Stalinists in the Socialist movement?

To me, that sounds like "is there room for nazis, capitalists and fascists in the Socialist movement"?

Remember that Stalin himself was a racist, just like Hitler, he had a burning hate against the Jews.

[Hiero]

I dont know if you call RL a major leftist movement, but if you do, the mere fact that this thread has several pages, all with different views on Stalin (his crimes, policies, etc.) demostrates a real divide. Dosent it?

I don&#39;t. If you ever go to a real party meeting or any people movement organisation you will realise how different things are in the real world.

Your also not taking into account that the majority of the left are not communist.


To me, that sounds like "is there room for nazis, capitalists and fascists in the Socialist movement"?

Except Stalin was neither.


Remember that Stalin himself was a racist, just like Hitler, he had a burning hate against the Jews.

No he wasn&#39;t. It has been proven that he wasn&#39;t anti semtic, from protecting Jews in WWII to having Jews in the politburo. If he was a tyranic leader and a anti semite he would of killed the Jews in the party, but he was neither.


Even Che himself disagreed with the Soviet sytem set up by Stalin

No. Che disagreed with the reforms of Stalins system by Khrushchev.


Even when you disregard Stalins crimes and just look at his policies there are differences compared to Trotsky

How amazing you would call Stalin the split in leftist and not Trotsky.

[MKS]

No. Che disagreed with the reforms of Stalins system by Khrushchev

"Che had remained a sekptic...until his discovery of Stalin in books, and he had been bowled over by what he had read... believing the Soviet Union lay the solution to life...But in 1963 and 1964, when he realized they had been tricking him- you know Che couldnt stand being lied to= then came the violent reaction."
Che Guevara: A Revolutionaty life pg 565 paragraph 4.

The above quote and other sources show a dissolutionment and even anger over the Soviet system initiated by Stalin.


But my original point was that Stalin continues to divide Socialists, even in the modern world Quote from MKS.



How amazing you would call Stalin the split in leftist and not Trotsky.
Both Trotsky and Stlain are obvious schisms, however it seems, in my view, thatt Stalin creates more division and even anger amongst Socialists.

Whether you believe in the crimes of Stalin or not, whether you agree with his economic and social polices, it is evident that Josef Stalin has forever blemished Communism, almost irreparably . History will always remeber him as a tyrant, the masses will always see him as evil. Modern Socialists must try to distance themselves from that memory and create a better image, the true image of Communism, one of benevolence, justice and equality.

[Hiero]

But in 1963 and 1964

It means that in this period he realised the revisionism in the USSR.


Both Trotsky and Stlain are obvious schisms, however it seems, in my view, thatt Stalin creates more division and even anger amongst Socialists.

Its actually the Trots that will kicked people out of their party if they are thought to be "stalinist".

It&#39;s the Trots that never want to cooperate with thoose who believed to be more refomist then themsevles.

But you will find, if you left your computer and went into the real world that most CP&#39;s that aren&#39;t Trot do not promote Stalin as they did in the 30&#39;s 40&#39;s 50&#39;s.

[MKS]

But you will find, if you left your computer and went into the real world that most CP&#39;s that aren&#39;t Trot do not promote Stalin as they did in the 30&#39;s 40&#39;s 50&#39;s

Exactly, but there is still a contingent of Stalinists in the Socialist movement, and this in my opinion is a majore division amongst Socialists as well as impedement to a wider acceptance of communism as a valid form of social and economic change, not just as another form of tyranny.

I do leave my computer for about 45-50hrs a week working, attending "party" meetings is a waste of time as most American CP&#39;s are worthless.

[Hiero]

I do leave my computer for about 45-50hrs a week working, attending "party" meetings is a waste of time as most American CP&#39;s are worthless.

It seems the greatest split in socialist is the lack of enthusiasm, and willingness to build the CP&#39;s.

[OleMarxco]

Do you know why it was so? Because that party is another party "infiltrated" by capitalists to make sure that it doesn&#39;t try do anything dramatic, by toning down the rebel spirit of it. Disgusting....

I repeat and will always say so again: Create a free society of communists outside the reaches of Civilization ;)

[MKS]

It is hard to commit to something that seems so bogged down in rhetoric and trying not to alienate themselves from modern American Society. The few CP meetings I attended I was shocked at the lackluster approach to "change" and motivation for increased action. It seemed that the CP was just another outlet for burgoise Liberals.

We need to look outside of the parties and create new movements of action which seek to operate as fas as outside of the box as possible.