Where are the Stalinists?

[rice349]

While I don't normalyl like using the words "stalinism" or "stalinist" because of their pejorative meanings and origins, I have sometimes been classified as one by others and while I don't put much weight in what others think, I'm going to use that as the basis for my ideological description for now. Anways, back to the purpose of this post, i'm looking for those other members on revleft who would be classified as "stalinist" or openly consider themselves "stalinist." I'm really interesting to find some more like me and get a feel of how many there are on here who fit that description. Thank you.

By the way, alot of you may not realize what it actually means to be a "stalinst," it is not by any means someone who simply advocates state ownership and racist, nationalistic, quasi-fascist governmental institutions at the same time so spare me the diatribes please...

[RedAnarchist]

A lot of members, including me, would consider themselves closer to Anarchism than Stalinism, although i assume that there are some Stalinists around.

[T_SP]

I believe Comrade RAF is one but don't quote me on that! The rest are on ECG forums!

ECG FORUMS (http://www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/index.php?act=idx)

While I would not normally direct others there as a Stalinist you would fit right in! ;)

[rice349]

thank you!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We have a couple of Stalinists here I think, but they rarely post. Which I think is a shame as this board appears to have become a lot more lenient towards Stalinists - we have one as a moderator for goodness' sake.

The trouble is is telling where a Stalinist ends and where a third positionist begins.

[rice349]

which mod is a stalinist?

[NovelGentry]

Comrade RAF, as someone mentioned earlier, and he is the mod.

We have a number of maoists too, and certainly that "General Secretary" guy is a huge admirer of Stalin. As someone pointed out though, the posts by these people aren't too frequent, and it might take a bit before people really begin to realize the board is back up, as we were down for awhile.

[Saint-Just]

There are always a few Stalinists on this board, probably more than you think. I couldn't name many that post a lot at the moment.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:11 PM
We have a couple of Stalinists here I think, but they rarely post. Which I think is a shame as this board appears to have become a lot more lenient towards Stalinists - we have one as a moderator for goodness' sake.

The trouble is is telling where a Stalinist ends and where a third positionist begins.
Having one mod is hardly proof of lenience. The criticism of RAF as the "loyal" Stalinist are true to some extent.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, I would say it is. It means we trust a stalinist enough to give administrative powers to him, I think that speaks volumes about our position on stalinists as revolutionaries.

[BOZG]

We'll agree to disagree.

[rice349]

I think there is an awful lot of confusion on here regarding Stalinists. First, there are stalinists who take rather reactionary viewpoints regarding nationalism, patriotism, and particularly which i disagree with: anti-homosexuals. As a stalinist, i do not advocate any of these, im very critical of nationalism and patriotism, and i'm in absolute support for gay rights. To be a stalinist does not mean you have to take controversial opinions on these topics, and even though other Stalinists disagree this does not mean they aren't worthwhile comrades. But Stalinism isn't defined by these such views, Stalinism is truly defined as a particular governing style marked by strong, centralized leadership with radical state-ownership and the ever-so-popular bureaucratic-style of government. Another key difference between us Stalinists and others, is the way in which we believe political power is to be used. We strongly feel the need to suppress political opposition because we legitimately see the opposition forces (reactionaries, capitalists, etc.) as a threat in which has to be crushed.

[refuse_resist]

Which I think is a shame as this board appears to have become a lot more lenient towards Stalinists - we have one as a moderator for goodness' sake.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. :P

[rice349]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Right on refuse_resist! lol

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well I may not be a Stalinist as such but I do support a lot more than most here Cuba, the USSR, the DPRK and so on. I also post at EG as Geist so you probably know this already.

[rice349]

ahh yes i've seen u before on EG before as geist!

[ZeroPain]

Stalinists used to restricted to the opposing ideologies forum but that changed, so now we have huge arguments every now and then that lead nowhere

But still most people who are critical of stalinism do recognize the aspects of stalins rule that most throw out, but those that hero worship the man diverge on fascism refuseing to beleave the crimes stalin commited dismissing it as "capitalist propaganda"

<_<

[Raisa]

Grrr...Stalin was a manly man :ph34r:

[Zingu]

I think alot of "Stalinism" is too personified on what Stalin did himself; as I myself, not being a Stalinist, can still see that Stalinists must have some frustration arguing their point. Sort of how Socialists are always assiocated with the "horrors of the Cold War"; Stalinists are always accused by other leftists for "glorifying Stalin and everything he did"; even though that is true to some self claimed Stalinists, I don&#39;t think that applies completely to rice, I&#39;ve read some of his posts, and if I&#39;m correct; he disagrees with the whole personality cult.
What I think rice is trying to describe as a system is Stalinism, well, without Stalin&#33; A massive centralized state organ of power ruling the name of the proletariat. Or something of the sort.

[rice349]

What I think rice is trying to describe as a system is Stalinism, well, without Stalin&#33; A massive centralized state organ of power ruling the name of the proletariat. Or something of the sort.

Almost 100% correct there Zingu lol&#33; Personally, I do admire Stalin and I believe him to be one of the most significant figures in the development of socialism, but I am always willing to admit he made a number of mistakes, rather than glorifying his every waking breath. However, you are absolutely correct in your assessment that i am staunchly anti-personality cult. I beleive these are pointless in the fact that they really bear no meaning nor merit towards communism whatsoever. I do advocate Stalinism as "a massive centralized state organ of power" (quoting your exact words).

[ZeroPain]

Why cant you guys come up with a new name stalinism pisses people off to much if you would just try and disassoiate yourselfs from him and not defend in any manor his crimes including those aginst the working class and simply state your core beleafs - however much i disagree with them atleast i can respect you its really hard for me to respect any some who would defend the great asshole who wreched russias road to communism.

This is compleatly irrelivent but i joined the same day as you a year before, i dont know why i just think its odd and its late and im slightly intoxicated so hell...

[rice349]

While i usually don&#39;t use the term Stalinist as i posted in the beginning, i think the majority of comrades who feel the way i do use it because of the respect we do have for Stalin, as well as for the fact that the idea of a strong, centralized bureaucratic style of government was initiated and advocated by him, we feel it is only fair to give credit where credit is due (while understanding he wasn&#39;t the first one to ever discuss or advocate such an idea). HOwever, i am critical of using the term more on the grounds in which it originated amongst trotskyites, whom i stand in the strict opposition to, while also respecting them to some degree.

Ooo yeah, sometimes we do go by a different name, its a little more broad and can also apply to juche socialists and maoists, but sometimes we go by anti-revisionists.

[encephalon]

the term "communism" pisses people off. that doesn&#39;t mean it fails to describe.. communism.

[Kaan]

"Stalinism" as an ideology doesn&#39;t actually exist, "Stalinists" are actually just marxist-leninists who support Stalin rather than Trotsky. I too take Stalin&#39;s side but do acknowledge that he made a number of mistakes that have nothing to do with him being evil or anything.

By the way, its nice to see this board is back up, what keeps happening?

[rice349]

Stalinism" as an ideology doesn&#39;t actually exist, "Stalinists" are actually just marxist-leninists who support Stalin rather than Trotsky. I too take Stalin&#39;s side but do acknowledge that he made a number of mistakes that have nothing to do with him being evil or anything

Thank you very much&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Where are the Stalinists?


They are busy sacrificing virgins and deep frying babies.

[rice349]

I particularly enjoy my babies stir-fried. And my virgins beaten over the head with a sack of apples.

[Questionauthority]

I have a problem with stalinists. Don&#39;t you lot believe you should be the ones to take humanity forward to a better future or am I confused? On the assumption I&#39;m not then its the idea of authority I think most stalinists have. That we have to create another state to take people to communism(which is how it fails a tranisitent state is just not going to work). We should aim to organise from the bottom up not be organised by others from the top down&#33;
+ They royally fucked over the anarchists in catalonia by not providing arms to them and being general reactionarys

[rice349]

Don&#39;t you lot believe you should be the ones to take humanity forward to a better future or am I confused? On the assumption I&#39;m not then its the idea of authority I think most stalinists have. That we have to create another state to take people to communism(which is how it fails a tranisitent state is just not going to work

In all actuality, i&#39;m using the term "stalinist" as a means of simply identifying those comrades who tend to follow a more centralized leadership role, as the term itself was originalyl created as a derogatory term by trotskyites (as stated before). However, we do not believe we&#39;re going to take humanity forwards to a better future, we simply believe that the state in transition should be lead from the top down simply for efficiency and for the purpose of acting against and legislating against opponents of the revolution, i.e. reactionaries, capitalists, the bourgeoisie, etc.

You sound like your views are more anarchist, in which you will naturally disagree so we&#39;re simply going to get in a debate over opinions here, since neither of us have empirical proof regarding a hypothetical situation.

Finally, whatever acts enacted upon other groups (like your example of what happened to the anarchists in catalonia) this does not reflect the ideals, actions, or policies of "stalinists" as a whole.

[Enragé]

Stalinism: doing away with every ideal and principle of the socialist/communist movement in order to establish the CP as the new elite and ripping control of the economy out of the hands of the proletariat, placing it in the hands of said party, whereby it creates a new form of capitalism; simply known as state capitalism. All of which, doing so in the name of socialism/communism.

[rice349]

ignoramus: A stupid, ignorant person; a vain pretender to knowledge; a dunce; NewKindOfSoldier.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If you believe "Stalinism" is an ideology, then you are mistaken.

[rice349]

your absolutely right...its a typology, branched off the ideology of marxism-leninism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

My question, Rice, is why identify with Stalin when you claim yr goal is a sort of "socialism" without any sort of market mechanisms, private property, etc.? Since the Soviet Union under Stalin was characterized by nationalism, hetrocentricity, etc. Can one not oppose Stalin without necessarily being a Trotskyist?
Well I can&#39;t speak to the PLP, it seems as though, given the development of its own vision of a post-revolutionary society, would be a harsh critic of Stalin, rather than his stalwart defenders. Care to explain?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:51 AM
ignoramus: A stupid, ignorant person; a vain pretender to knowledge; a dunce; NewKindOfSoldier.
well, what else did stalin do? Oh yes he murdered jews too, guess that makes him a great guy....hmm what else did he do...ahh yes how can i forget; Katyn massacre (1939), letting the polish resistance fight itself to death while waiting a couple of miles from Warsaw (1944), signing the Molotov-Van Ribbentrop pact, occupying Poland, occupying Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, purging the Red Army, thereby weakening it allowing Adolf Hitler to slaughter a large percentage of the Red Army. Dude, the list goes on and on.

And he instated a personality cult (which goes against every principle of socialism)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Oh yes he murdered jews too, guess that makes him a great guy....

Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Christians.. What&#39;s your point? Why do you point out the jews specifically? Are they more worth than, say, atheists?

Or are you trying to compare Stalin to Hitler?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:20 PM
well, what else did stalin do? Oh yes he murdered jews too, guess that makes him a great guy....hmm what else did he do...ahh yes how can i forget; Katyn massacre (1939), letting the polish resistance fight itself to death while waiting a couple of miles from Warsaw (1944), signing the Molotov-Van Ribbentrop pact, occupying Poland, occupying Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, purging the Red Army, thereby weakening it allowing Adolf Hitler to slaughter a large percentage of the Red Army. Dude, the list goes on and on.

And he instated a personality cult (which goes against every principle of socialism)
Stalin was married to a jewish woman (whether it was his 1st or 2nd marriage I don&#39;t know)
-One of the first orders Stalin gave to the Red Army was that Jews who wanted to should be evacuated East into the safety of the Soviet rear, out of the reach of the advancing Nazi army. A considerable portion of the Soviet railroad capacity, which otherwise would have been used to transport troops and material to the front, was allocated for this purpose.
-"Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death.

Stalin, January 12, 1931, to an inquiry made by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of America"
(thank you to DyerMaker for providing this quote in another thread)


Given this view on nation, it seems unlikely that Stalin would have harboured anti-semitic views.

&#39;What is a nation?

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

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

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.&#39;
Marxism and the National Question (1913)

&#39;the USSR is a country where everything is supposed to be decided on collegiums; but, on the other hand, it is known that everything is decided by single persons&#39; Sidney and Beatrice Webb posed the question to Stalin
&#39;who really decides&#39; Stalin&#39;s reply was emphatic and explicit. He said: &#39;No; single persons cannot decide. The decisions of single persons are always, or nearly always, one sided decisions.... Everyone is able to contribute his or her experience. Were it otherwise, if decisions had been taken by individuals, we should have committed very serious mistakes in our work. But since everyone is able to correct the erros of individual persons, and since we pay heed to such corrections, we arrive at more or less correct decisions.&#39;

Sidney Webb was one of the founders of the Fabien Society in the United Kingdom.


Katyn massacre was a Nazi massacre. There is an age-old thread on Che-lives that, unanimously reaches this conclusion.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact prevented the USSR going to war with the Germans. A war with Germany was not desirable at the time.

The following transcript of the pact is not necessarily accurate. However, I think that parts of it develop an understanding of the nature of the pact.

Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.

Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.

Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.



[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]
Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.


Moscow, August 23, 1939.


For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html



NewKindOfSoldier, what is your attitude towards Che-Guevara?

[rice349]

My question, Rice, is why identify with Stalin when you claim yr goal is a sort of "socialism" without any sort of market mechanisms, private property, etc.? Since the Soviet Union under Stalin was characterized by nationalism, hetrocentricity, etc. Can one not oppose Stalin without necessarily being a Trotskyist?
Well I can&#39;t speak to the PLP, it seems as though, given the development of its own vision of a post-revolutionary society, would be a harsh critic of Stalin, rather than his stalwart defenders. Care to explain

I identify with Stalin on the basis of his organization and powers vested in the state in which i heavily agree with. While i do not hold Comrade Stalin above anyone else nor do i see his every move and tactic 100%, i hold nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for him as a statesman and leader.

The PLP holds Stalin as a human being; in this i mean he is not perfect and he made some mistakes. They are critical of his use of bureaucracy, but overall they see him as a signifcant contributor to marxism-leninism. But slight differences in ideology does not mean that you can&#39;t defend and admire and respect someone. For instance, i work with PLP but i do see the value of bureaucracy and other aspects in which Stalin used, as opposed to how a large quantity of members of the PLP feel i make individual assessments and ideas.

[MKS]

He is not perfect? He is only human? Well so was Hitler I guess and that makes what he did alright? Hitler was a socialist in a sense (National Socialist Party), as most heavy industry and labour was controlled and owned by the state. But thats the flaw of Hitler and Stalin (not the only one). The state was seperate from the masses, the state controlled the masses. The state should only exist as a vanguard of the masses , a guide to a complete communism.

Stalin in my opinion was a cancer on the body of the socialist/communist movement. His tyranny over the masses and liquidation of millions of people make him in my opinion one of the worlds crulest dictators. Whatever good Stalin stood for was washed away by the blood on his hands. In Stalins Russia (Soviet Union) he was the state, any who opposed him would die, even Party members.

Stalin is one of the main reasons Westerners fear communism. His radical xenophobia and facist presence over the people are what causes the blackening of the word communist.

When Stalin died his image was erased from almost all revolutionary propoganda, the image he originally super imposed to glorify himself.

Genocide can never be forgiven, never be justified, and never be excused.

[Hiero]

On anti semitism, Paul Robeson (the man in my avator) made many trips to the USSR during the time of Stalin and commented how mutlicultural it was. One thing he commented on was how Jewish people were able to walk around in public and not be criticised.

[rice349]

is not perfect? He is only human? Well so was Hitler I guess and that makes what he did alright? Hitler was a socialist in a sense (National Socialist Party), as most heavy industry and labour was controlled and owned by the state. But thats the flaw of Hitler and Stalin (not the only one). The state was seperate from the masses, the state controlled the masses. The state should only exist as a vanguard of the masses , a guide to a complete communism.

there have already been numerous threads regarding the comparison of hitler and stalin so i&#39;m not going to waste my time with this one...

[MKS]

I reacted when you said he was only human, suprised and insulted by your defense of the man.

Not wanting to "waste" your time with a response is an attitude Stalin had (to an extreme). Why allow opinions and critisism exist? To strenghten the Party and its cause.

My question to you is, how could you ally your self to a man who did such terrible things. As a human being how could you condone such behavior?

Stalin was a criminal.

[rice349]

WHile I don&#39;t approve of everything Stalin did, having never been in his situation of insurmountable responsibility, i&#39;m not even going to pretend that i could begin to make those kinds of decisions and deal with those kinds of problems in any particular manner, nor was STalin probably prepared to deal with it. While I don&#39;t know what was in Stalin&#39;s mind, i sincerely believe he did what he felt was best for socialism and the working class. I do not know what its like to have that much power in my hands and that much responsibility, however, i can imagine it demands an awful lot.

[MKS]

Many men have held the kind of power Stalin did, but few did what he did (genocide). That act did nothing positive for Socialism/Communism. The very fact that one man held so much power is anti-communist.
Stalin was a mass killer, period, no one can deny that. Evryone knew what was in Stalin&#39;s mind; eliminating his enemies (or percieved enemies) at any cost. How can you agree or identify with a man who acted as he did?

[rice349]

to be honest, i admire his ruthlessness, his brutal efficiency, even the way in which he consolidated power from trotsky and the others. Pure genius and completley admirable if you ask me.

[MKS]

You condone genocide?

at least your honest about your inhumanity.

[rice349]

genocide of the capitalists? the bourgeois? the reactionaries? if that is inhumanity then yes, i&#39;m proud of it.

[MKS]

While I am a true enemy of all those parties mentioned I dont and will never condone genocide thinking that it will create a lasting Communism, it will actually cause a violent anti-communist sentiment that could cause the destruction of socialism/ communism. (example U.S.S.R under Stalin).

we should kill only the leaders of the systems that oppress, the masses we will embrace within the equality of the socialist system.

My point is that Stalin did not stop with the leaders he killed all who opposed HIM, not the Revolution or the party, just those who opposed HIM.

Mercy is sometimes more powerful than brutality.

[rice349]

i&#39;m going to be honest and say i disagree-- i don&#39;t have a problem killing all capitalists, not just their leaders. Sorry if it sounds a bit harsh..

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I get ya and fair play.

[act_5]

every time someone jumps up to defend stalin i am amazed. how can someone defend someone stalin&#33;&#33;&#33; he was an absolute monster&#33;&#33;&#33;

he committed genocide, he had anyone who opposed HIM killed, he starved the ukrainians so they couldnt fight back,he was a hyporcrite, he crippled the red army, he was homophobic, xenophobic and paranoid.

as if this wasnt bad enough the man was also incredibly incompetent, he couldnt point out the denmark on a map (sounds like another world dictator i know *cough-bush-cough*) and when his german spies returned telling him germany was about to attack, he had them killed as traitors to the motherland&#33;&#33;&#33;


he made a few mistakes

he made more than a few mistakes&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

he was nothing but mistakes&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


you may claim "he had a few problems,but his system was good"

WRONG&#33;&#33;&#33;

his system caused the downfall of everything lenin fought to create

he ruined the name of communism, broke the hammer and sickle and sullied the crimson cloth

[rice349]

Dear act_5:

Your post bears witness to the fact that you have a very skewed view of history and international politics. Let me guess, your basis of history on Stalin and Soviet Russia could be found in any American text-book no? The fact that you believe one man really caused all those "atrocities" really leads me to believe that i shouldn&#39;t even dignify this with a response...however, let me put things in context for you. I&#39;m not defending everything Stalin did, nor do those who would be classified as "Stalinists." Stalinism, first off, isn&#39;t a cult of personality for stalin, it&#39;s a typology, or doctrine of beliefs, that believe government should be structured and organized similar to the way in which Stalin used and/or the advocationg of "socialism in one country."

Your amazement as to why some people defend Stalin stems from the fact you literally know nothing about him. Those who defend Stalin also defend the practice of doing some research and showing some interest in truth and knowledge before making uneducated childish rants. Something to think about ya know?

[act_5]

Your post bears witness to the fact that you have a very skewed view of history and international politics.

ya, skewed toward the truth&#33; :D


The fact that you believe one man really caused all those "atrocities" really leads me to believe that i shouldn&#39;t even dignify this with a response...

:D (because there&#39;s nothing you can say when confronted with the truth) :D


I&#39;m not defending everything Stalin did

of course not, its impossible to defend anything he did&#33; :D


it&#39;s a typology, or doctrine of beliefs, that believe government should be structured and organized similar to the way in which Stalin used and/or the advocationg of "socialism in one country."

to bad stalinism and socialism are opossing idea&#39;s


Those who defend Stalin also defend the practice of doing some research and showing some interest in truth and knowledge before making uneducated childish rants

even though stalin never did...

:cool:

[rice349]

lol WOW. I was trying to set the bait for a serious intelligent discussion but i guess you&#39;re not biting today act_5.

[Black Dagger]

genocide of the capitalists? the bourgeois? the reactionaries? if that is inhumanity then yes, i&#39;m proud of it.

I&#39;m not talking about genocide, but was the central committee really a hive of imperialist agents? Did so many bolsheviks deserve to be murdered as well?

[rice349]

I&#39;m not talking about genocide, but was the central committee really a hive of imperialist agents? Did so many bolsheviks deserve to be murdered as well?

While I wish i could give you an intelligent response Black Dagger, I&#39;m afraid any response to that would be completely speculative as I do not know the nature of the members of the Central Committee so I can only assume that perhaps it wasn&#39;t completely infested with imperialist agents, i no doubt there were some legitimacy to the claims which caused a hysteria and Stalin&#39;s attempts to preserve what he saw as the most conceivable notion for the advancement of socialism. Sorry but that&#39;s the best i can do.

[Enragé]

You guys (well at least some) are supporting a man who did away with socialism, free speech, equality etc etc. In short, he threw away every socialist principle, and did so in the name of socialism. He ruined the revolution, face it, without stalin (or Mao or Kim Yung Il) the bourgeoisie would have no clear example by which they can say : look at what communism did for you, it murdered, it stole away freedom, and yes even equality was lost, on top of that the party was/is most important under Stalinism/Maoism and the voice of the people&#39;/proletariat has NO influence<---nice workers&#39; democracy isnt it?

[act_5]

i applaud you, rice

:D you made more than 1 post before someone opposed you and you claimed they were childish and didnt know what they are talking about :D

just like stalin, if the other guy makes sense send him to a gulag, although you dont have that authority(thank god) so you just stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and yell "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala"

[Enragé]

"just like stalin, if the other guy makes sense send him to a gulag, although you dont have that authority(thank god) so you just stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and yell "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" "

ahh yes, such is the way of selfrighteous idiots
such is the way of the dictator
such is the way of the state capitalist
such is the way of rice349

[rice349]

"just like stalin, if the other guy makes sense send him to a gulag, although you dont have that authority(thank god) so you just stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and yell "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" "

ahh yes, such is the way of selfrighteous idiots
such is the way of the dictator
such is the way of the state capitalist
such is the way of rice349

Right..........


nice workers&#39; democracy isnt it?

It wouldn&#39;t be, had i actually called for a workers&#39; democracy. In fact, i called for a workers&#39; dictatorship.

[act_5]

Right..........

:D see, he agree&#39;s :D


It wouldn&#39;t be, had i actually called for a workers&#39; democracy. In fact, i called for a workers&#39; dictatorship

ah, a dictatorship, nothing bad could come of that...

*cough*hitler*cough*

*cough*mousillini*cough*

*cough*stalin*cough*

*cough*soon bush*cough*

sorry something caught in my throat(yes, it affects my typing&#33;&#33;&#33;)

now what was i gonna say....

oh yeah&#33;

dictatorship in any way shape or form = bad&#33;&#33;&#33; :trotski:

[rice349]

act_5 there is significant differences in all those dictatorships you listed...

Mussollini, Stalin, Hitler, *soon Bush all ran/run different types of governments under different ideologies. They all had different goals and were willing to go to any extreme to achieve these goals.

My argument has been, it&#39;s not the path to communism that matters, its the fact that that&#39;s what we aim for is what really matters.

Hitler wanted a complete Aryan world and was willing to do whatever he needed to do to attain that. Stalin wanted communism and was willing to do whatever necessary to bring about this. Does that make them equal or the same? No. Does that make them both dedicated to their ultimate respective goals? Yes.

[Enragé]

By using methods which are against the essence of SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM one destroys it. One cannot build a world of equal men if one promotes extreme hierachy and inequality, one cannot want a world in which people can speek their minds, when one kills those who actually do that. Stalin did all that.

On top of that, right wingers are PRAGMATIC, because they have no real ideology except that of greed and power, therefore right wingers can do whatever they want because they have no moral grounds for not doing that. THE LEFT DOES HAVE THOSE MORAL GROUNDS&#33; When you forsake those moralities, you become a right wing fuck just by doing that.

[rice349]

One cannot build a world of equal men if one promotes extreme hierachy and inequality

First off hierarchy does not breed inequality if the hierarchial organization is used to deal with threats to equality: reaction, fascism, capitalist, etc.


On top of that, right wingers are PRAGMATIC, because they have no real ideology except that of greed and power, therefore right wingers can do whatever they want because they have no moral grounds for not doing that. THE LEFT DOES HAVE THOSE MORAL GROUNDS&#33; When you forsake those moralities, you become a right wing fuck just by doing that

That&#39;s not true. Right-wingers have ideologies that extend beyond greed and power; such as hatred, biggotry, xenophobia, racism, fear, ignorance, etc. Anybody can do whathever they believe necessary regardless of moral grounds because morality is subjective. What is right to you is not necessarily what is right for me. Ethical subjectivism is what makes revolution acceptable for some of us, while electoral evolution is the best means according to others. Again, keep in mind anyhting regarding morality or ethics is completely up to the person making the choice.

However, since we don&#39;t live in pure chaos, we have cultural relativism which sets a social authority in which we all try to answer to, or in which we make decisions based on where that line is drawn between legal and illegal. To say the left is the only one that has moral grounds is wrong in the basis that not all of us agree with the same morals. Not all right-wingers (despite the fact they&#39;re backwards, reactionary, and completely wrong (subjective again?)) believe in ethnic cleansing, while some believe in totally destroying the world in hte name of jehovah/yahweh/allah/whatever.

This little lesson in morality is to simply try to extend to you the notion that basically whatever you agree with is what&#39;s right, and what you don&#39;t is wrong. This doesn&#39;t mean people should be allowed to do whatever they want, there has to be some social authority (return to cultural relativism).

[act_5]

First off hierarchy does not breed inequality if the hierarchial organization is used to deal with threats to equality: reaction, fascism, capitalist, etc.

you do realize that you just contradicted one of the base rules of communism by saying that, right?

[MKS]

The path to communism is almost as important as the goal. If the path is paved with blood and fear than what you end up with is not true communism it resembles more of a facist state. While revolution will end up in lost life, it will not be to an extreme.
When people look at the Soviet Union under Stalin, they see a despotic, xenophobic, and murderous regime that destoryed any who opposed HIM. Even Party members because they threatned HIS power. Stalin was not a communist. While the masses starved he lived in a palace. His economic polices were laughable and plunged the Union into a deeper depression.

When people act out of fear they are slaves.

Communism would have been better off if Stalin never existed.

He did commit genocide. 10 million dead. More than Adolf.

If you dont belong to a cult of personality of Stalin, then why dont you change the name of your idealogy.

A strong centralised government sholud only exist as a vanguard, not to oppress the masses but to lead them to a society where the vanguard will no longer be needed (true communism). Stalin bulit the vanguard into an intelegensia, a fixed class of men that ruled the people.

Rice you should read in more depth the works of Marx and Engles, and even those of Guevara. YOull learn for yourself the contradicitions of Stalins rule.

[Vladimir]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:45 PM

First off hierarchy does not breed inequality if the hierarchial organization is used to deal with threats to equality: reaction, fascism, capitalist, etc.

you do realize that you just contradicted one of the base rules of communism by saying that, right?
Which rule is that act_5? I believe Comrade rice349 is talking about the state after the proletariat has seized power in a socialist revolution and then uses this apparatus to suppress the bourgeosie class and it&#39;s tendencies.

[Red Skyscraper]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:12 PM
Rice you should read in more depth the works of Marx and Engles, and even those of Guevara. YOull learn for yourself the contradicitions of Stalins rule.

I&#39;ll go you one better. Read Marx, Engels, Lenin, AND Stalin&#39;s works, and you&#39;ll see very clearly there was no contradiction at all.

[rice349]

I&#39;ll go you one better. Read Marx, Engels, Lenin, AND Stalin&#39;s works, and you&#39;ll see very clearly there was no contradiction at all.

Couldn&#39;t have put it better myself comrade :D

[MKS]

Where does Marx, Engles, Lenin, or Guevara support and condone genocide? Stalin used the Revolution in order to spread his sphere of influence and power, not to liberate the masses and usher in a true communist society.

Forget about the genocide and just look at the burecratic, and inefficent regime that hearlded triumphalist rhetoric while the masses starved.

Che even spoke out against the Soviet model of "communism" created under Stalin.

Stalin weakned the revolution and allowed the re-emergence of capitalism to begin in the USSR.

Lenin and Stalin may have had similar economic principles (which were flawed/ Lenin introduced capitalist forms of competition in the Soviet Union), but there were obvious diffrences in the two and thier implementation of Socialism.

How come no "Stalinist" has addressed the issue of genocide, or is that just a fact that is swept under the carpet?

[rice349]

How come no "Stalinist" has addressed the issue of genocide, or is that just a fact that is swept under the carpet?

I will happily address this issue. First, the numbers that anti-"Stalinists" throw out are usually far exceeding mere reason and logic. 65 million died? There have been a number of scholastic and historical experts who have refuted this number repeatedly. The only source in my life-time that I have seen that has quoted such an exaggerated number was Robert Conquest, Fox News, and a few U.S. text-books (that sums up communism with about 2 paragraphs and a section as to why &#39;Marx Was Wrong). WHile I will admit there were deaths (and many were deserving) it&#39;s very important to keep things in perspective. There are two components to adhere two: 1) there were a number of outside forces which greatly influenced the number of deceased (still far less than 65 million), such as famine and war (subsequently famine was a great result of war). 2) Comrade Stalin realized how fragile the situation the Soviet Union was enveloped in and realized that decisive action had to be taken against the reactionary forces (something many members on this site also advocate&#33;).

While you can believe what you want, to believe Stalin is a genocidal maniac doesn&#39;t even make much sense to capitalist scholars who have acknowledge how absurd some of the accusations against Stalin truly are.

[MKS]

13,000,000 people killed during the purges. that is the agreed number although the real numbers will never really be known (they are probably higher) You&#39;re telling me there were 13,000,000 reactionaries in the Soviet Union?

At the 20th All-Union Party Congress in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders attacked the cult of Stalin, confirming many accusations long current outside the USSR. They did not repudiate Stalin&#39;s economic policies, but accused him of tyranny and terror, falsification of history, and self-glorification. In 1961 the 22d Party Congress voted to remove Stalin&#39;s body from the Lenin mausoleum; he was then interred in the heroes&#39; cemetery near the Kremlin wall. The term Stalinist, first used to distinguish Stalin&#39;s policies from those of Trotsky and others, came to mean a brand of Communism that was both national and repressive. Since Stalin&#39;s death the tyrannical implications of the term have become primary.

[rice349]

came to mean a brand of Communism that was both national and repressive

Stalinism is not national, by that i&#39;m assuming you are referring to "socialism in one country" which is hardly nationalism-- and second of all not all stalinists subscribe to this. Secondly, Stalinism is not a brand of communism but a typology regarding how a government (the dictatorship of the proletariat) should be established during socialism. Stalinism is nothing more than Marxism-Leninism with a governmental twist that does become a bit more repressive. While as long as their is any state their will always be repression, perhaps this is the best we can hope to achieve by means of trying to preserve the revolution and fight of reactionary and bourgeois counter-attack.

Were there 13 million reactionaries in the Soviet Union, yes i&#39;m sure. Were they all in the party? No more than likely not. However, while i&#39;ve heard the 13 million argument made before, i can&#39;t remember who it was but it was an historian who made several studies of stalin, I believe it was Ulam (don&#39;t quote me on this) who tried to establish the fact that while many were "purged" from the party, it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean executed. Purged could mean simply being asked to resign your post from the party, and often times many were allowed back in. It&#39;s all relative to how you use the terms and how you wish to interpret history.

[NovelGentry]

Were there 13 million reactionaries in the Soviet Union, yes i&#39;m sure. Were they all in the party?

I&#39;d wager about 90% of the soviet population was "reactionary" -- that is to say, reactionary in terms of socialism. However, damn revolutionary in terms of feudalism&#33; :lol:

[rice349]

I&#39;d wager about 90% of the soviet population was "reactionary" -- that is to say, reactionary in terms of socialism. However, damn revolutionary in terms of feudalism&#33;

Lol can&#39;t help but laugh at that

[Guest1]

This topic has become serious enough of a theoretical discussion that it needs to be moved out of the lounge.

There aren&#39;t enough veteran members addressing some of the issues here, so I&#39;ve moved it to theory.

[redstar2000]

This is not a "theory thread" -- it&#39;s a "crimes of Stalin" thread.

Moved to the History forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

"the dictatorship of the proletariat"

When did they proletariat rule under stalin?
NEVER
It wasnt a dictatorship of the proletariat
It was a dictatorship of Stalin
if you would just acknowledge that, there is still hope for you

"This is not a "theory thread" -- it&#39;s a "crimes of Stalin" thread."

EXACTLY

[rice349]

"the dictatorship of the proletariat"

When did they proletariat rule under stalin?
NEVER
It wasnt a dictatorship of the proletariat
It was a dictatorship of Stalin
if you would just acknowledge that, there is still hope for you

"This is not a "theory thread" -- it&#39;s a "crimes of Stalin" thread

Remeber one thing, everything is subjective to one&#39;s own interpretation of things. My personal (and that of Stalin) does not equate to a literal translation of "dictatorship of the proletariat," but rather a "dictatorship in the name of the proletariat." While i don&#39;t believe i&#39;m in need of the "hope" you refer to, I feel a rational criticism of one&#39;s self is iportant if one wants to contribute intelligently to any discussion.

I honestly do believe that the Stalin sort of government can be used effectively to benefit the workers as i have stated numrous times throughout my time here on revleft. I sincerely believe Stalin did what he considered best for the poor of Russia and so on. I established this thread NOT as a discussion of crimes of stalin or any sort, but simply as a means of communicating with others who perhaps were interested in discussing things related to "stalinism" - whether pro or con. That is why i started it in the "lounge."

Personally, i didn&#39;t mind CyM moving it to theory. However, I am disappointed that it has degenerated into another "crimes of stalin" thread which will be thrown into history (not contending with the admins or anyhting just stating how i disapprove of the shift in which this thread as gone).

I do not want this to become a "crimes of stalin" thread as their are already many of them.; however, I am willing to defend many of the actions by STalin (not from a personality-cult point of view) but rather as a defender of socialist dictatorship in the name of the proletariat and the efficeint use of bureaucracy in post-revolutionary government.

[MKS]

The purges lead to deportation and exececution, almost all of the deportation to the Gulags resulted in death, much like the Nazi concentration camps.

When one man is responsible. for 13 million dead he is a tyrant. Even if those 13 million were reactionaries, which if they were just proves the point Stalin did not led the masses he oppressed them. (13 million are the masses).

It seems you have ignored the fact that the Soviet Union immediatley after Stalin&#39;s death began to renounce him.

Communism should never be oppressive of else it would not be communism.

[Red Skyscraper]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:18 PM
The purges lead to deportation and exececution, almost all of the deportation to the Gulags resulted in death, much like the Nazi concentration camps.

No, they didn&#39;t. And the gulags are not even to be put on the same level as the Nazi concentration camps because unlike the Nazis, the Soviets didn&#39;t kill their prisoners just for the fun of it. In the gulags, you got cigarettes, vodka to warm the blood, and a thick coat. You worked on construction, mining, and other labor projects to get the proletarian spirit inside you to have good work ethic, not laziness and to get rid of that criminal mentality. You were also given reading materials to re-educate yourself and then when your term was done you were sent back into society. The only people who died were those who committed the most serious of crimes, and they were simply shot and put out of their misery quickly, no torture or cruel punishment was tolerated. Millions did not die, the Soviet archives proved this and to deny this is to deny objective scholarship.



Communism should never be oppressive of else it would not be communism.

When you see the millions and millions of brutalities committed by capitalists against good people, then you&#39;ll realize that communist executions of extreme pro-capitalist traitors is little to fuss about but rather what was deserved.

[rice349]

Also, the Soviets NEVER used systematic killing techniques to slaughter people as the Nazis did. Hitler (who was a big admirer of the ultra-capitalist Henry Ford) took Henry Ford&#39;s idea of the assembly line and applied it to slaughtering people.

[Vinny Rafarino]

When one man is responsible. for 13 million dead he is a tyrant

:lol:

Keep sucking from the bottle esse; the right wing thanks you&#33;

[MKS]

13 million dead is a fact confirmed by Russian authorites. The gulags were forced labour camps, where enemies of the state were brought for "defying" Stalins narrow views and edicts. They were like concentration camps, because even if a man was brought there not to die, they still did because of the conditions they were subject to.
Not all people who died in the concentration camps died in the gas chambers.

Youre right the Soviets never used mechanised killing techniques, but Stalin did. Anyways why does it matter how you kill 13 million people?

Stalin was a tyrant and a maniac. If i could i would fly to Russia and urinate on his grave.

Those who stand for Stalin are a threat to liberty, and even to humanity.

[Vinny Rafarino]

13 million dead is a fact confirmed by Russian authorites.

No it isn&#39;t.

Nice try though.

[MKS]

I stand corrected. The Russians never discolsed an exact or offical number of dead.
"Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926–37 census results suggests 5–10 million deaths" Wikkepida

So tell me RAF is 5-10 million is not an act of genocide? It is not the act of a tyrant?

[A quote popularly attributed to Stalin is "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." (possibly said in response to Churchill at the Potsdam Conference in 1945] Wikkepedia Article

I can admit when Im wrong, why cant you?

[rice349]

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.

You completely took this out of contact. What&#39;s the simplest way to explain this to you...oh yes&#33; The Terri Schiavo case (one insignificant person) who may perhaps die soon (about fucking time) is creating all this furvor and turmoil in the media and is being called a tragedy; however, maybe not millions but definitely thousands are being slaughtered in the Sudan on ethnic grounds and we don&#39;t have any stories going on about it? Those deaths in the Sudan don&#39;t bother anybody here because it&#39;s blacks dying, plain and simple the American audience (for the most part) couldn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass.

You completely misinterpreted this quote. This quote is saying that a society can make such a big deal of one death based on particularly who that person is (i.e. Ronald Reagan&#39;s death). And, society can give a rat&#39;s ass about other deaths (death-toll of third-world civilians due ot American imperialism). Also it doesn&#39;t help that this quote is void of the rest of the speach (or whatever work) it was taken from. So i won&#39;t totally blame this on your ignorance.


... is 5-10 million is not an act of genocide? It is not the act of a tyrant?

You make it sound as if one man had all these people shot in the back of the throat maliciously, while plotting from his grand office in the Kremlin how all these people are plotting against him? You are confusing numbers from a death toll with a vast NUMBER of causes that maintain only one connection to Stalin: some of them occurred while he was in power. Nice try...

[MKS]

I didnt even offer an interpertation of the quote i just presented it. The quote maight even not have been said.

The millions of dead have only one cause. Stalin. He did plot from the Krelim the death of those he thought plotted against him.
If Stalin were not in power during that time and perhaps a more moderate leader was in power than the millions would not have died.

How many million were killed during Kruschevs "reign" none.


YOu should read some of the books written about Stalin, some written by the PEOPLE who lived during this time. People who lived in constant fear of Stalin and his secret police.

Why havent you commented on the fact of the Soviets almost complete comdenation of Stalin?

[rice349]

If Stalin were not in power during that time and perhaps a more moderate leader was in power than the millions would not have died.
Complete speculation.



How many million were killed during Kruschevs "reign" none
How many world wars took place during Khruschev&#39;s "reign?"


YOu should read some of the books written about Stalin, some written by the PEOPLE who lived during this time. People who lived in constant fear of Stalin and his secret police.
I have read a number of books specifically on Stalin, even by staunch anti-communists like Robert Conquest. Also, my grandparents lived directly under Stalin (they lived in Gori, Georgia) and they said their lives improved greatly). Not to mention i&#39;ve studied soviet history...


Why havent you commented on the fact of the Soviets almost complete comdenation of Stalin?
You mean all those Soviets lined up in tears near his body after his death?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:10 PM
This is not a "theory thread" -- it&#39;s a "crimes of Stalin" thread.

Moved to the History forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
you&#39;re right, I hadn&#39;t read the thread much, just skimmed through, I just knew it needed to be out of the lounge.

[MKS]

(exp. of Soviet denuciation of Stalin)-"At the 20th All-Union Party Congress in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders attacked the cult of Stalin, confirming many accusations long current outside the USSR. They did not repudiate Stalin&#39;s economic policies, but accused him of tyranny and terror, falsification of history, and self-glorification. In 1961 the 22d Party Congress voted to remove Stalin&#39;s body from the Lenin mausoleum; he was then interred in the heroes&#39; cemetery near the Kremlin wall. The term Stalinist, first used to distinguish Stalin&#39;s policies from those of Trotsky and others, came to mean a brand of Communism that was both national and repressive. Since Stalin&#39;s death the tyrannical implications of the term have become primary"- Internet (Yahoo&#33;)Encyclopedia Article

Stalin&#39;s Greatest Hits:

1928 - Stalin launches intensive industrialization program that results in the modernization of Soviet society but at a staggering cost in millions of human lives. Stalin&#39;s forced industrialization leads to a policy of man-made famine against unwilling segments of society in Russia and the Ukraine resulting in the deaths of more than 20,000,000 human beings.

1930s - Stalin&#39;s man made famines are followed by his orchestrated assassination of the popular Leningrad Soviet figure Sergei Kirov. He then conveniently uses Kirov&#39;s murder to purge the Communist Party of saboteurs and enemies of the people. The party purges and Moscow show trials are followed by a massive purge of the Soviet armed forces in which more than 43,000 officers (among them many of Russia&#39;s most capable senior commanders) are liquidated.

Under Stalin&#39;s reign of terror, a succession of secret police chiefs - Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria - erected a nationwide network of forced labor camps and extermination centers, to the extent that the Soviet Union itself under Stalin could be said to have become one vast concentration camp. A climate in which so little as an inadvertant gaze, the telling of a joke, falling asleep on the job, or accidentally dropping a portrait of Stalin, could result in one being condemned to years of back-breaking work in a forced labor camp such as a coal mine on near-starvation rations. A world in which millions were physically exterminated for their class origins or ethnic background.


Conclusion: Stalin was a monster who brought the Soviet people to the brink of destruction. His tyranny and oppression of the masses cannot be refuted. He was a brutal dictator who sought not the advance of communism, but the advance of his power and influence. He was the worst of humanity and will be forever remebered as such.

[rice349]

why are we still discussin this? first off, let me guess that was an internet source too huh? I&#39;ve heard all those arguments before and you&#39;re showing them too me does not solidify your argument. This thread wasn&#39;t created as a discussion of the "crimes of stalin" there&#39;s already one for that. I&#39;m over this.

[Hiero]

"Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926–37 census results suggests 5–10 million deaths" Wikkepida

You have to do better then wikkepida. Wikkepida is only good for a quick referencing.

[rice349]

You have to do better then wikkepida. Wikkepida is only good for a quick referencing.

true, but he&#39;s only going to accept what he wants to hear because ignorance is bliss.

[Enragé]

"I honestly do believe that the Stalin sort of government can be used effectively to benefit the workers as i have stated numrous times throughout my time here on revleft"

Such a government can only work if all think the same as "the great leader", firstly, such a thing is impossible, secondly, i dont think anyone wants to live in such a society, its exactly the reason why i am socialist/communist that i do not want a single minded people under a single dictator, it just sucks, on top of that it is insufficient

as for the rest, i agree with MKS

[rice349]

a dictatorship doesn&#39;t have to be by a single individual, nor does it mean everyone has to follow the doctrine of a single individual. There is a concept in political theory known as the "benevolent/enlightened dictator."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I&#39;m sorry MKS, but most of that is bullshit. Stalin was no angel, but he was far from a monster.


1928 - Stalin launches intensive industrialization program that results in the modernization of Soviet society but at a staggering cost in millions of human lives. Stalin&#39;s forced industrialization leads to a policy of man-made famine against unwilling segments of society in Russia and the Ukraine resulting in the deaths of more than 20,000,000 human beings.

I&#39;m sorry, but that is just rediculous. Had Stalin really killed millions during his industrialisation of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian famine (Which was the result of both poor planning and recalcitrance on the part of the peasants over collectivisation)
would have wiped out the population of Russia at the time, or reduced it significantly enough so that Russia would have quickly lost WWII. The reason the Red Army fared so badly early on was because of Stalin&#39;s purging of the officers, which removed many capable commanders. Russia was nowhere near as populated as it is now.


1930s - Stalin&#39;s man made famines are followed by his orchestrated assassination of the popular Leningrad Soviet figure Sergei Kirov. He then conveniently uses Kirov&#39;s murder to purge the Communist Party of saboteurs and enemies of the people. The party purges and Moscow show trials are followed by a massive purge of the Soviet armed forces in which more than 43,000 officers (among them many of Russia&#39;s most capable senior commanders) are liquidated.

This true, and was a grave error on Stalin&#39;s part.


Under Stalin&#39;s reign of terror, a succession of secret police chiefs - Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria - erected a nationwide network of forced labor camps and extermination centers, to the extent that the Soviet Union itself under Stalin could be said to have become one vast concentration camp. A climate in which so little as an inadvertant gaze, the telling of a joke, falling asleep on the job, or accidentally dropping a portrait of Stalin, could result in one being condemned to years of back-breaking work in a forced labor camp such as a coal mine on near-starvation rations. A world in which millions were physically exterminated for their class origins or ethnic background.

What a mountain of crap&#33; and most likely fabricated by the rabid anti-communist McCarthy. It sounds more like 1984 than any actual human society.


Conclusion: Stalin was a monster who brought the Soviet people to the brink of destruction. His tyranny and oppression of the masses cannot be refuted. He was a brutal dictator who sought not the advance of communism, but the advance of his power and influence. He was the worst of humanity and will be forever remebered as such.

Conclusion: too many outright lies have been written about Stalin. Considering what he actually achieved, Stalin was a miracle worker who fucked up enough times so that the shit the western governments threw at him would stick.

[Enragé]

"It sounds more like 1984 than any actual human society."

Orwell was no fool, on what kind of leaders did he base the leaders of IngSoc on do you think?

"There is a concept in political theory known as the "benevolent/enlightened dictator." "

That is true, still such a dictator would be sanctioned by the people.
Are you familiar with the ancient greek concept of a "Tyrannos" which would be appointed in times of extreme stress (war for instance)? Such over the whole were benevolent, but most also relinquished power after a couple of years (most of the time after a year), stalin did not, on top of that, he was an asshole, that is a fact. He killed many people who were first dumb enough to support him (not exactly counter revolutionaries) and sent trotsky into exile, later having him killed. He suppressed the ONE THING YOU NEED in a sovjet (council) republic, FREE SPEECH, without it, one cannot discuss, and without discussion, reason is lost to dogma, and freedom to oppression.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I&#39;m not saying he wasn&#39;t a dictator. I&#39;m point ing out the absurdity of the exaggerations made about him. Everytime someone brings up the subject of Stalin&#39;s crimes, the number of millions killed seems to grow.

[viva le revolution]

Stalin was an amazing leader who made a few mistakes of his own.His demonization in the west is the result of the imperialist control over the media.
We continuously hear about Stalin as a genocidal meglomaniac, how come we never hear about the frequent pogroms carried out by Russia&#39;s tsars in the countryside?
How come we never hear about Italy&#39;s concentration camps in Libya, where a vast majority of the country&#39;s bedouin population was starved and their women raped?
How come whenever the united states kills innocent civilians it is termed collateral damage, but when civilians are killed in actions conducted by the other side it is denounced as terrorism?
It is all propaganda spewed forth by the oligarch-controlled media&#33;
The only people who beleive these lies are the ones who believe the fox slogan "fair and balanced".

[aberos]

i only read the first couple pages of this post, and i know that i am already way off-topic of where the conversation has gone, but i have noticed increasingly that i align on a moderate level with stalinism. it seems to me to be connected to my strong guevaraist-maoist philosophies. although i do not advocate the subscribtion to any doctrine because we then have the tendency to become dogmatic and unwilling to see the merit of opposing arguments, i do feel comfortable in saying that i think that true stalinism, not the perverted form often followed by angsty young people, has more pros than cons.

[Redmau5]

The perverted form of Stalinism is the only form of Stalinism. Being a Stalinist means you advocate one-man dictatorship, a continuous bureaucratic structure and no withering away of the state. It means you put building new technology, industry etc. before the very workers you are meant to stand up for. It means you believe the state is the new ruling class.

What most Stalinists really talk about is Marxism-Leninism. A true Stalinist would only be concerned with maintaining power for themselves, not with any form of socialism. The very idea of socialism in one country goes against Marxist principles.

[rice349]

It means you put building new technology, industry etc. before the very workers you are meant to stand up for

Except that and the other vast amounts of public works are what help create 0% unemployment in places like the societ union, again, just a means of helping the workers.


What most Stalinists really talk about is Marxism-Leninism. A true Stalinist would only be concerned with maintaining power for themselves, not with any form of socialism

While I agree that Stalinists talk about marxism-leninism, you&#39;re confusing stalinism with megalomania (they are not synonymous). Stalinism is no brand of socialism whatsoever, it&#39;s a typology regarding government structure.


The very idea of socialism in one country goes against Marxist principles.

How so?

[guerilla89]

hey, foget stalin. lenin&#39;s the hero of communism

[workersunity]

ill stick with marx and debs thank you, people who just didnt slaughter tons of people

[rice349]

hey, foget stalin. lenin&#39;s the hero of communism

ill stick with marx and debs thank you, people who just didnt slaughter tons of people

I think it&#39;s good to have a varying level of degrees of admiration and respect for a variety of different leaders/theoreticians; however, this wasn&#39;t supposed to be a debate about stalin or his "crimes," which unfortunately is where it went.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:53 PM

The very idea of socialism in one country goes against Marxist principles.

How so?
Well socialism in one country won&#39;t work for a number of reasons. For a start, as long as there are equally strong or stronger capitaist nations you will always have reactionry elements in your country. For example, in the USSR many people continued to hear about the US and the "American dream" and were therefore hostile to the "repressive" regime in place in the USSR.

Another reason is that one-country socialism is essentially nationalistic. The stress is placed on that country being all important and world-wide or permanent revolution is given little mention. If that isn&#39;t against Marxist principle i don&#39;t know what is.

After all, Karl Marx said " workers of the world, unite&#33;" not the workers in one country. <_<

[rice349]

Well socialism in one country won&#39;t work for a number of reasons. For a start, as long as there are equally strong or stronger capitaist nations you will always have reactionry elements in your country. For example, in the USSR many people continued to hear about the US and the "American dream" and were therefore hostile to the "repressive" regime in place in the USSR.

Another reason is that one-country socialism is essentially nationalistic. The stress is placed on that country being all important and world-wide or permanent revolution is given little mention. If that isn&#39;t against Marxist principle i don&#39;t know what is.

After all, Karl Marx said " workers of the world, unite&#33;" not the workers in one country.

Socialism in one country can work if the state continues to educate and enlighten the workforce as well as use some strict regulation of the media to not allow capitalist propaganda from infiltrating the workers. Secondly, i do not consider socialism in one country to be nationalistic, (nationalism, i agree, is hihgly reactionary). Socialism in one country doesn&#39;t mean that that nation is more important than any other, on the contrary, it simply means that a nation doesn&#39;t have to rely on the revolution of (for the most part) the First-world nations in order to survive. It establishes the principle that a third-world nation, must build socialism within its borders before it attempts to aide or initiate revolution in another country.

Originally, orthodox marxism did call for global revolution by the world-wide proletariat. However, changes (due to changes in the world-wide spectrum of things) forced creations of new theories (marxism-leninism). Socialism in one country wasn&#39;t conceived until it was realized that the Soviet Union was going to be the only socialist state for the time being. Germany was close, as was a few other European nations, but this never happened and the Soviet Union had to develop socialism in one country out of necessity. Socialism in one country developed into the idea that socialist revolutions will happen on a national level first, weakening the imperialist capitalist western nations. Socialism in one country was developed as a response to forcing the proletariat and peasantry of the third-world to wait for proletarian revolution in the highly industrialized nations in which we haven&#39;t seen yet today...

[NovelGentry]

Well socialism in one country won&#39;t work for a number of reasons. For a start, as long as there are equally strong or stronger capitaist nations you will always have reactionry elements in your country. For example, in the USSR many people continued to hear about the US and the "American dream" and were therefore hostile to the "repressive" regime in place in the USSR.

Of course, the real issue is not so much whether or not there is external influence from reactionary forces, the issue is that the internal forces too, are reactionary. In paring a nation such as Russia with the likes of Germany, the dependency need not be stressed in terms of material advancement from one to the other, but in terms of what kind of dependence this actually makes to the success of such a revolution.

Permanent revolution bares far too much dependence between the reactionary forces of under developed nations (even if they are working class *not necessarily proletariat*) and those of other nations. This is not to say nations with the goal of socialism should not help each other, but Trotsky&#39;s idea will place the burden of underdeveloped capitalism on those systems which have already experienced it&#39;s fruition; it is not so much a compensation for the bourgeois influence of external capitalist nations, but a compensation for the internal reactionary influence -- to be balanced by the truly revolutionary proletariat of more advanced nations.

This was something Russia needed to survive, and I would argue both Lenin and Trotsky understood this. But in doing what was done, the dependence was so high in Germany, that the revolution in Russia itself effectively depended on the success of another revolution.

Had Germany succeeded, would things be different? Unlikely.

Balancing reactionary with revolutionary powers does not fix the problem per se, mearly obfuscates it and dilutes the probability that it will become an issue, but in creating less probability for Russia to fail, it creates an equal amount of less probability that Germany will succeed. Of course, the classes of each need to be thought of as unified -- dropping national borders altogether, but even in doing so, the probability that the unified underdeveloped and advanced nation would succeed, drops far less (at least in terms of reactionary threat) than the liklihood of the single advanced capitalist nation having total success.

So what is the solution? Neither "socialism in one nation" or the full blown theory of permanent revolution should suffice. Instead, the proletariat of advanced capitalist nations should consistently seek socialism in other nations, but should never seek to make the advancement of one dependent on itself, or make the advancement of it&#39;s own dependent on another.

Two sovereign socialist entities, separated politically and economically with fair and equal trade of labor power.

[NovelGentry]

Socialism in one country can work if the state continues to educate and enlighten the workforce as well as use some strict regulation of the media to not allow capitalist propaganda from infiltrating the workers.

To pretend this is the only issue is a fallacy, as was Makaveli_05 only bringing this issue up. This is hardly the issue at all -- if your people are merely disinterested with socialism to the point they look towards capitalism, you have bigger problems and need to rethink the aspects of socialism which you have laid out.

If your people are however not merely disinterested, but actually reactionary, this problem will persist regardless of outside influence.

The issue to be overcome is a) the dependence in resources both labor and material, which capitalism has placed on nations by globalizing itself b) the issue of not being so overrun with reactionary influence that your nation is doomed from the start.

My previous post examined problem "b" -- pointing out that by diluting reactionary influence by unifying two nations only serves to deteriorate the more advanced nation with a more highly developed propletariat and their revolutionary consciousness. One must always think of class struggle in an international sense, but let&#39;s make sure it&#39;s the same class that is struggling. Combining proletariat with the peasantry in an underdeveloped nation is NOT unifying the class struggle. It is bridging the class struggle across two very different realms and points in the general history of class struggle.

That is to say, it seeks to make the battle of the proletariat, the battle of all working class people, and thus all working classes of earlier systems or lesser developed systems. Despite the possibility of being labeled and orthodox Marxist, bridging the class struggle between two classes from two completely separate historical perspectives is not going to be a solution nearly as much as it will be a problem. Those of the proletariat want something completely different from those of earlier working classes.

[Red Skyscraper]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 05:43 PM
The very idea of socialism in one country goes against Marxist principles.

Wrong.


Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world -- the capitalist world -- attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a demoeratie republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

From Lenin&#39;s "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe." This is exactly what the USSR was doing throughout its lifespan, even to a lesser degree in the revisionist years. Lenin and Stalin weren&#39;t just sitting around thinking only of Russia, they were planning to spread revolution to the rest of the world no matter how it was to be done. So much for "bourgeois nationalist" chauvinism, which didn&#39;t even exist, contrary to what Western liberals, orthodox dogmatic Marxists and Trotskyites say. :rolleyes:

[NovelGentry]

While you may consider me an orthodox dogmatic Marxist (not saying you do, you just may) -- there are other issues at hand, and while these words may ring true, " Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism." -- to automatically say it makes socialism in one nation possible, is not.

I&#39;m not saying I don&#39;t believe socialism isnt&#39; possible in one nation... in fact, I do. I very seriously believe there must be an independent national struggle that seeks to grow the international movement through it&#39;s own, much like what is said.

But whether or not the first asserts the other as truth, is a completely different question.

Capitalism, unlike socialism, grows from an extremely underdeveloped society -- one in which the mass consumption of material resources and labor power is trivial in comparison. Only when capitalism itself has outgrown it&#39;s local abilities, only when it seeks to stretch it&#39;s market through necessity, does it do so -- but because it does so does not mean it does so willfully. If it did not, it would stagnate, progress forward with heavier exploitation in it&#39;s isolated market, and meet an early demise.

Even if it did so willfully, one could not assume it can go back just as willfully without seeing a drastic change in the conditions of life, and quite possibly along with it, a change in material consciousness itself. There has to be a realization that technology itself has to surpass these strong dependences before we can move forward. The dependency on foreign oil. Is it possible to build infrastructures based around other forms of energy? yes, but not without time.

Is it certain nations cannot get oil if they socialize? No. In fact, I&#39;m quite certain there wouldn&#39;t be much of a problem importing oil from much of the same places existing capitalist nations get it now get it now, and probably an easier time with the likes of Venezuela.

However, there are other aspects that we are to look at. Indeed if we are to exist somewhere in the world market, we dlay the progression of socialism itself, and remove our ability to be void from exploited labor. One could certainly apply much the same argument we apply to individual socialists in the current world, however. It is simply impossible to existing amongst capitalism without adherring, in some respect, to it&#39;s nature. Although this is by far a lot easier an excuse for individuals, and by far a larger threat for nations as a whole, as capitalist nations do not simply see the business, they would see us "ocnverted" back again at their chance.

There is, thus, a far more complex relationship between nations in the existing world which must be examined. Again, I have no doubt that multiple paths are possible, including socialism in a single nation -- but it will come with compromise in a global capitalist market, or it will come at the risk of being underresourced for the type of system we are trying to immediately sustain.

While the answer may become visible with time, no doubt the eventual collision between our political and historical goals will conflict with economic necessity and cause some stage of inadequacy as we seek the proper road to socialism -- at least initially. Mind you inadequacy is not with regard to necessity or even simple luxury -- but it may very well not be what was expected.

[aztecklaw]

Well, I&#39;m rather new here and opening up to new ideas, but there are some certain problems I feel are out there. In regards to views, many have different views on communism and socialism, new concepts for me, and some have valid arguements, while others I feel would be counter productive to any movement.

Take for instance those that evoke the name Stalin to identify their views. Now although there are many things that Stalin did to improve the &#39;mechanics&#39; of the society, it undoubtedly lowered the consciousness to fear and paranoia that can be justified in his unforgiving murderous acts. To grant clemency to an enemy is one thing, but to kill all those suspected of having different ideals from Stalin is oppressive. It is very difficult to ask a very large body of individuals to share the very narrow scope of Stalin&#39;s views. Those that didn&#39;t fit the grain paid the ultimate price.

Now apply this to the world today, any movement that evokes the name Stalin would be immediately dismissed by the general public. There was no smear campaign on Stalin, the reputation he earned is well deserved and will always be considered an evil man. I am in favor of socialism and would like to see running on a fine tuned engine. What&#39;s fun about socialism is you have so many elements involved, you find lots of places where you can tweek it here and there.

Those that claim Stalin to be the champion of Communism, may have valid arguements, but his reputation alone will immediately strip him of that title. So even those that understand and studied Stalin will still be throwing up their arms not knowing what to think.

I guess I&#39;m having a hard time opening the Stalin door.

[aberos]

makveli_05 you should note that although marx did say "workers of the world unite&#33;" it was admitted in the introduction of a later publication that many of their ideas had become out of date due to changes in the global socio-economic status quo. one communist country in the world is not something to be viewed harshly, but, rather, with hope. hope that it will be the springboard and vanguard for others around the world. and as novel gentry said, if your people are looking longingly at capitalist countries, then you are in dire need of re-evaluating the status of your country and how your people are being treated because most people are not dumb enough to want to backslide into capitalism if they are a part of something beautiful.

[rice349]

It is very difficult to ask a very large body of individuals to share the very narrow scope of Stalin&#39;s views. Those that didn&#39;t fit the grain paid the ultimate price.

Stalin&#39;s views were basically marxist-leninism; the actual term Stalinism doesn&#39;t necessarily apply to socialism, that is why people who are considered "stalinists" don&#39;t necessarily refer to themselves as that, I simply used it as an identification agent. Stalinism, in its most basic form, is a typology of government structure that deals with the establishment of an authoritative bureaucracy deemed necessary to handle the pressures of a radically changing society...better yet fuck it and just read some of the other posts regarding "stalinism."


There was no smear campaign on Stalin, the reputation he earned is well deserved and will always be considered an evil man.

So you really believe Stalin killed over 60 million (or whatever other ridiculous number can be conjured up) people single-handedly? Because that&#39;s what the current American textbooks teach, sounds a bit like a smear campaign to me no?


I guess I&#39;m having a hard time opening the Stalin door.

You&#39;re not trying hard enough...

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:52 PM

Which I think is a shame as this board appears to have become a lot more lenient towards Stalinists - we have one as a moderator for goodness&#39; sake.
You say that as if it&#39;s a bad thing. :P
Well it seems to be to me, I htought this place was for leftis disucssion, not leftist and reactionaries that back dictators discussion.

[rice349]

Well it seems to be to me, I htought this place was for leftis disucssion, not leftist and reactionaries that back dictators discussion.

While I agree their shouldn&#39;t be any reactionaries that back dictators in this forum, what&#39;s wrong with leftists that back dictatorship? Totalitarianism is not exclusive to the right by any means. And, that does not mean that leftists who back totalitarianism do not want whats best for the proletarian; it simply means we see a different route to achieving communism than you.

[Phalanx]

Stalinists disgust me. How can you support one of the most merciless leaders in world history? Just because Che admired him doesn&#39;t mean you have to also. Fuck Stalin and his minions.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 1 2005, 05:07 PM
Just because Che admired him doesn&#39;t mean you have to also.
he didnt

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 1 2005, 05:07 PM
Just because Che admired him doesn&#39;t mean you have to also.
Where the fuck did you hear that ?

[NovelGentry]

Where the fuck did you hear that ?

Che implied it quite clearly in one of his letters.

[rice349]

Stalinists disgust me. How can you support one of the most merciless leaders in world history? Just because Che admired him doesn&#39;t mean you have to also. Fuck Stalin and his minions.

You disgust me Chinghis Khan. I don&#39;t admire/respect Stalin because Che did, in fact, I don&#39;t really give two-shits who or what Che liked, that&#39;s not how i make the basis for my ideas/preferences.

Secondly, Che was amongst a vast number of intellectuals in the west who admired and respected Stalin...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I think its true actually.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Apr 1 2005, 05:37 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Apr 1 2005, 05:37 PM)
Chinghis [email protected] 1 2005, 05:07 PM
Just because Che admired him doesn&#39;t mean you have to also.
Where the fuck did you hear that ? [/b]
Where did you hear that?

"He consulted... Josef Stalin on Marxism..." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 48, Paragraph 4)

"I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won&#39;t rest until I see those capitalist octopuses annihilated." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 126, Paragraph 6)

"In case poor Beatriz harbored any doubts about where he was coming from, he signed the letter &#39;Stalin II&#39;." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 167, Paragraph 6)

"In Che&#39;s critique of the Stalinist manual, he pointed out that since Lenins writings, little had been added to update the evaluations of Marxism except a few things written by Stalin and Mao." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 697, Paragraph 3)

[aztecklaw]

Good points made about Stalin, but if you want to create an effective movement towards socialism, I would avoid evoking his name. To erase everyone&#39;s perception about Stalin and reeducate all about him would be a tremendous task.

To debate about Stalin and putting it on the table within communist communities is good, but if you really want to move forward towards socialism and promote communism to a broader audience, I would steer clear of his name.

[rice349]

but if you really want to move forward towards socialism and promote communism to a broader audience, I would steer clear of his name.

True to some degree; however, we shouldn&#39;t abandon history nor ignore it just because the majority of people are completely uneducated (Americans) on real history that isn&#39;t tainted with the patriotic garbage.

[Black Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:56 AM
To debate about Stalin and putting it on the table within communist communities is good, but if you really want to move forward towards socialism and promote communism to a broader audience, I would steer clear of his name.
This is called oppurtunism. Communists should not lie or deliberately mislead people, it can only work against you. What we have is the truth on our side and if people ever take time to read what bourgeois scholars have said about what really happened, they will realize they have benn lied to.

Lied to big time. Which further helps our cause, because the lies the tell are attempts to hide things. When you read, you learn that what they were trying to hide: the successes of soviet socialism. The failures have been exagerated, or fabricated, but few know of any successes and that is on purpose.

Check my posts I have posted links to much good info.

[aztecklaw]

Originally posted by Black Radical+Apr 2 2005, 05:25 AM--> (Black Radical @ Apr 2 2005, 05:25 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 03:56 AM
To debate about Stalin and putting it on the table within communist communities is good, but if you really want to move forward towards socialism and promote communism to a broader audience, I would steer clear of his name.
This is called oppurtunism. Communists should not lie or deliberately mislead people, it can only work against you. What we have is the truth on our side and if people ever take time to read what bourgeois scholars have said about what really happened, they will realize they have benn lied to.

Lied to big time. Which further helps our cause, because the lies the tell are attempts to hide things. When you read, you learn that what they were trying to hide: the successes of soviet socialism. The failures have been exagerated, or fabricated, but few know of any successes and that is on purpose.

Check my posts I have posted links to much good info. [/b]
I agree with you about oppurtunism. If someone really wanted to promote socialism and communism, I wouldn&#39;t... hmm how can I say this...

Okay. If the communist movement were a book, I wouldn&#39;t want a picture of Stalin on the cover, but I would dedicate a couple of chapters to him... kinda make sense what I&#39;m trying to say? Hope so.. :lol:

I&#39;ve got an open mind about Stalin, if you can direct me to a couple of those posts that have links I would like to take a look at that.

In regards to Che, I can see why Che liked Stalin. Not only did Che appreciate Stalin&#39;s functioning and thriving society under communism, he also liked Stalin&#39;s attitude. Seeing how Che saw many injustices in the Americas, he grew a bit callous to those that committed injustices. Che was not known to grant clemency to them, this is why I feel that Che had an appreciation with Stalin&#39;s attitude towards the opposition. Che&#39;s vision was no mystery, he knew exactly what direction to take as far as social reform and he knew exactly who was in opposition to him and he wanted to effect change immediately... that&#39;s why I don&#39;t think I&#39;m far off the mark with my reason why Che had a keen interest in Stalin.

But today, If you were going out to promote communism, I would suggest presenting a "New Communism" to them, rather than promoting a revival of an old system.

I guess I&#39;m just trying to express what I&#39;ve been pondering. How would you get the wheels turning for a real communist movement? You would need a good size body of people just to get it going... how do you get these people?

[BigMik]

I&#39;m a Stalinist too, cause if I was your Dictator, you&#39;d all be massacered in your homes&#33; HURRAH&#33; :lol:

[rice349]

I&#39;m a Stalinist too, cause if I was your Dictator, you&#39;d all be massacered in your homes&#33; HURRAH&#33;

Done trying to get attention bigmik?

[BigMik]

I&#39;m gonna get banned anyway, Its 4:18 an I&#39;m not tired, and if I&#39;m pissing you off then you get a sticker&#33; :lol:

[rice349]

you&#39;re not pissing me off, i broke my leg 2 weeks ago and have been confined to my dorm room/computer ever since...i can&#39;t sleep either and i think you&#39;re funny and uneducated..i hope you don&#39;t get banned

[BigMik]

Go smoke a bowl and fall out your window, it&#39;ll be lots of fun :lol:

[Phalanx]

Yes, to a certain degree violence to attain our goals is acceptable. But something like, say, the Ukranian man made famine that claimed 7 million lives is not. They were killed purely because they were ukrainian. Sure, you might say that some could have become partisians, but i don&#39;t believe that this would happen if Stalin would have a speck of mercy. Besides, what was russia doing with Ukraine in the first place? Sounds like imperialism of the first degree to me. stalin gives us a horrid name. Castro should be the model to modern communists, not the evil twat stalin.

[rice349]

Yes, to a certain degree violence to attain our goals is acceptable. But something like, say, the Ukranian man made famine that claimed 7 million lives is not. They were killed purely because they were ukrainian. Sure, you might say that some could have become partisians, but i don&#39;t believe that this would happen if Stalin would have a speck of mercy. Besides, what was russia doing with Ukraine in the first place? Sounds like imperialism of the first degree to me. stalin gives us a horrid name. Castro should be the model to modern communists, not the evil twat stalin.

Wow. So you honestly think Stalin created (all by himself of course) a famine (just for the hell of it) that claimed the lives of 7 million people? The majority of the lies spread about the Ukrainian famine were purpetrated by the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). THese people (who adopted policies remarkably similar to Hitler). WHile there was some starvation due to collectivization, there became two records of deaths from the actions taken and the consequence for Ukraine during the first half of the 1930&#39;s. This brings about two different paths to be taken by the researcher looking for answers. According to a large number of soviet documents, the numbers of the "man-made" famine only arose to 1-2 million (yes alot, but this is not just starvation/malnutrition, but also premature deaths due to disease). The numbers put out by the OUN (which are synonymous with the numbers published by anti-communist authors/historians such as Robert Conquest) suggest over 5.5 million. The fact is, the OUN was terrified of the acecptance of communism amongst its people and was doing whatever it possibly could to put a scary face on it. THe Nationalists were blatant fascists and dealt with the Soviet Union with propaganda and lies.

[ComradeChris]

Rice...for someone who believes in an "enlighted leader" you sure scored low on the authoritarian side of politicalcompass.

[rice349]

Rice...for someone who believes in an "enlighted leader" you sure scored low on the authoritarian side of politicalcompass.

I know, when it comes to social issues i fall somewhat in the middle. I believe the state should be involved in the lives of the people but not in the traditional social way; the state i envision is one that doesn&#39;t wish to restrict the freedoms (other than religion) of the proletariat, while suppressing to the point of non-existance, those whom establish themselves as enemies of the proletariat.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:42 PM

Rice...for someone who believes in an "enlighted leader" you sure scored low on the authoritarian side of politicalcompass.

I know, when it comes to social issues i fall somewhat in the middle. I believe the state should be involved in the lives of the people but not in the traditional social way; the state i envision is one that doesn&#39;t wish to restrict the freedoms (other than religion) of the proletariat, while suppressing to the point of non-existance, those whom establish themselves as enemies of the proletariat.
Ok...I was just wondering. Sometime I think an enlightened leader would be the best...for a short period of time. Time and time again, having been vested with absolute power, people become corrupt.

But on the topic of this post, I do not believe that Stalin was by any means an enlightened leader.

[rice349]

while i do not think stalin was perfect, we&#39;ll agree to disagree.

[Questionauthority]

Not bored yet rice? I mean some people do hero worship (che-lives for example&#33;) but you take it to a whole new level.

[rice349]

i don&#39;t hero worship by any means, i just believe in looking at history objectively. I&#39;m not trying to get comradechris to agree with me, nor for him to change his views, i&#39;m simply stating that there are mistakes where he has found his information.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:26 PM
i don&#39;t hero worship by any means, i just believe in looking at history objectively. I&#39;m not trying to get comradechris to agree with me, nor for him to change his views, i&#39;m simply stating that there are mistakes where he has found his information.
If you could list the mistakes I&#39;d be eager to fix them. Afterall we&#39;re all looking for the truth (at least I hope we are).

[El_Revolucionario]

LOL. Stalinists are funny, y&#39;know with their historical revisionism bullshit. Stalin and Hitler may have been enemies, but their methods for "disappearing" their opponents were identical. Stalin sent millions to the gulags where millions died&#33; In Stalin&#39;s Russia, Stalin and Stalin only was the highest law. If you criticized Stalin, off to the gulags&#33; Stalin has defamed the socialist movement, and truth be told Stalin was no socialist. Stalin can only be called a Stalinist.

The soviet union was no worker&#39;s paradise, all the Russian Revolution did was replace one bourgeois class with another bourgeois class, except that this new bourgeois class called themselves Communists (they weren&#39;t).

that&#39;s my 2 cents.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:49 AM
LOL. Stalinists are funny, y&#39;know with their historical revisionism bullshit. Stalin and Hitler may have been enemies, but their methods for "disappearing" their opponents were identical. Stalin sent millions to the gulags where millions died&#33; In Stalin&#39;s Russia, Stalin and Stalin only was the highest law. If you criticized Stalin, off to the gulags&#33; Stalin has defamed the socialist movement, and truth be told Stalin was no socialist. Stalin can only be called a Stalinist.

The soviet union was no worker&#39;s paradise, all the Russian Revolution did was replace one bourgeois class with another bourgeois class, except that this new bourgeois class called themselves Communists (they weren&#39;t).

that&#39;s my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents felt more like 4 cents.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Apr 3 2005, 01:21 AM--> (Chairman Mao @ Apr 3 2005, 01:21 AM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 12:49 AM
LOL. Stalinists are funny, y&#39;know with their historical revisionism bullshit. Stalin and Hitler may have been enemies, but their methods for "disappearing" their opponents were identical. Stalin sent millions to the gulags where millions died&#33; In Stalin&#39;s Russia, Stalin and Stalin only was the highest law. If you criticized Stalin, off to the gulags&#33; Stalin has defamed the socialist movement, and truth be told Stalin was no socialist. Stalin can only be called a Stalinist.

The soviet union was no worker&#39;s paradise, all the Russian Revolution did was replace one bourgeois class with another bourgeois class, except that this new bourgeois class called themselves Communists (they weren&#39;t).

that&#39;s my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents felt more like 4 cents. [/b]
:blink: What is that supposed to mean?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by El_Revolucionario+Apr 3 2005, 12:23 PM--> (El_Revolucionario @ Apr 3 2005, 12:23 PM)
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2005, 01:21 AM

[email protected] 3 2005, 12:49 AM
LOL. Stalinists are funny, y&#39;know with their historical revisionism bullshit. Stalin and Hitler may have been enemies, but their methods for "disappearing" their opponents were identical. Stalin sent millions to the gulags where millions died&#33; In Stalin&#39;s Russia, Stalin and Stalin only was the highest law. If you criticized Stalin, off to the gulags&#33; Stalin has defamed the socialist movement, and truth be told Stalin was no socialist. Stalin can only be called a Stalinist.

The soviet union was no worker&#39;s paradise, all the Russian Revolution did was replace one bourgeois class with another bourgeois class, except that this new bourgeois class called themselves Communists (they weren&#39;t).

that&#39;s my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents felt more like 4 cents.
:blink: What is that supposed to mean? [/b]
Your 2 cents was a rambling.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by Hiero+Apr 3 2005, 01:29 AM--> (Hiero @ Apr 3 2005, 01:29 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2005, 01:21 AM

[email protected] 3 2005, 12:49 AM
LOL. Stalinists are funny, y&#39;know with their historical revisionism bullshit. Stalin and Hitler may have been enemies, but their methods for "disappearing" their opponents were identical. Stalin sent millions to the gulags where millions died&#33; In Stalin&#39;s Russia, Stalin and Stalin only was the highest law. If you criticized Stalin, off to the gulags&#33; Stalin has defamed the socialist movement, and truth be told Stalin was no socialist. Stalin can only be called a Stalinist.

The soviet union was no worker&#39;s paradise, all the Russian Revolution did was replace one bourgeois class with another bourgeois class, except that this new bourgeois class called themselves Communists (they weren&#39;t).

that&#39;s my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents felt more like 4 cents.
:blink: What is that supposed to mean?
Your 2 cents was a rambling. [/b]
Well next time I have a rambling I&#39;ll be sure to call it a rambling. If you disagree with me and want to say something, say it but please don&#39;t comment on the fact I said "that&#39;s my 2 cents" because that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying.

:angry:

[rice349]

Don&#39;t take it personal El_Revolucionario it&#39;s just that nobody repects you.

[MKS]

I respect El_Revolucionario. There is validity to the points he made.

It is refreshing to see some people here that will speak out against Stalin and the Stalinists.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:39 AM
I respect El_Revolucionario. There is validity to the points he made.

It is refreshing to see some people here that will speak out against Stalin and the Stalinists.
Thank you :D

[rice349]

It is refreshing to see some people here that will speak out against Stalin and the Stalinists.

LOL, you act as if there are large numbers of us "stalinists" or if we were some monolithic entity all encompassing revleft :lol: ... I wish...but unfortunately not. Second of all, as soon as i get into the CC i will silence all of you *hahaha* (joking) :ph34r:

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:06 PM
Wow. So you honestly think Stalin created (all by himself of course) a famine (just for the hell of it) that claimed the lives of 7 million people? The majority of the lies spread about the Ukrainian famine were purpetrated by the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). THese people (who adopted policies remarkably similar to Hitler). WHile there was some starvation due to collectivization, there became two records of deaths from the actions taken and the consequence for Ukraine during the first half of the 1930&#39;s. This brings about two different paths to be taken by the researcher looking for answers. According to a large number of soviet documents, the numbers of the "man-made" famine only arose to 1-2 million (yes alot, but this is not just starvation/malnutrition, but also premature deaths due to disease). The numbers put out by the OUN (which are synonymous with the numbers published by anti-communist authors/historians such as Robert Conquest) suggest over 5.5 million. The fact is, the OUN was terrified of the acecptance of communism amongst its people and was doing whatever it possibly could to put a scary face on it. THe Nationalists were blatant fascists and dealt with the Soviet Union with propaganda and lies.
Yes I do. Even if the deaths were 1-2 million deaths, that is a shit load of people. Stalin was a disgusting insane fuck. Even if these numbers were exagerated by the Ukrainian nationalists, what was russia doing in Ukraine in the first place? I don&#39;t get any of my information from useless US textbooks, just nonbaised historical fact from various sources. I know i won&#39;t change your opinion of him, but i feel i must get this info out of the way before any other people fall in with the stalinist cult. I have no problem with any Stalinists personally, i just dispise the entire idea.

[Red Skyscraper]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 3 2005, 01:17 AM
Stalin was a disgusting insane fuck

No, he was a very intelligent genius who helped take Marxism-Leninism off the drawing board and make it a bedrock reality. He studied history, philosophy, the sciences, and lots of literature, and he was well-educated. He didn&#39;t get into the Orthodox Seminary at Tiflis by snapping his fingers, he actually worked hard. When one reads his works you don&#39;t see an "insane fuck" but a person as wise as Lenin and Mao and whose words make perfect sense.


what was russia doing in Ukraine in the first place

Helping the Ukrainians, which is what the Russians were supposed to be doing because the whole point of revolution was not only to help Russia but get as much assistance to the rest of the world as well. And since Ukraine was its next-door neighbor, it was helping it. And the Ukrainian people were happy for it, despite what bourgeois nationalists will say. <_<


just nonbaised historical fact from various sources

There is no such thing as an "unbiased source" because the world is not perfect. It&#39;s either bias towards the socialist side, or bias towards the capitalist side. And since bias towards the socialist side is the correct method of interpretation, that&#39;s what we&#39;re supposed to follow. The "various sources" were no doubt written by Western scholars who do not support communism. While we may read these sources the idea is to study them from a Marxist perspective against the capitalist one, and when a capitalist denounces Stalin anywhere it&#39;s time to put on our thinking caps and ponder why the cappies would do this, and then we come to our own conclusions.

[Maksym]

what was russia doing in Ukraine in the first place?

Russia was not in Ukraine as imply. The Soviet Union was a union of 15 Socialist Republics that accepted the union voluntarily.

[Red Skyscraper]

And not only 15 republics, but several autonomous national republics throughout the USSR as well.

[Hiero]

Well next time I have a rambling I&#39;ll be sure to call it a rambling. If you disagree with me and want to say something, say it but please don&#39;t comment on the fact I said "that&#39;s my 2 cents" because that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying.

I didn&#39;t, i tried to make sense of what Chairman Mao said by it was more like 4 cents.


It is refreshing to see some people here that will speak out against Stalin and the Stalinists.

Yes because it is so out of control people fear to speak out. Most of the threads that start of with Stalin or trotksy end up with a whole bunch of trots changing the subject back to "Stalin was a monster".

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:27 AM

It is refreshing to see some people here that will speak out against Stalin and the Stalinists.

Yes because it is so out of control people fear to speak out. Most of the threads that start of with Stalin or trotksy end up with a whole bunch of trots changing the subject back to "Stalin was a monster".
Well he was. Am I the only person here who&#39;s read the RL Guidelines? They don&#39;t seem to particularly like Stalinists.

[El_Revolucionario]

I remember a long time ago when I had an account on here when RL was still called the Che-Lives forum under Opposing Ideologies it had Stalinists listed as an opposing ideology. What happened to that? Was there a sudden influx of Stalinists?

[rice349]

Well he was. Am I the only person here who&#39;s read the RL Guidelines? They don&#39;t seem to particularly like Stalinists.

No you&#39;re not, second of all regardless of RL guidelines "Stalinists" are just as much communists as you or anyone else, you people continue to act as if "stalinism" was a type of ideology in contrast to communism and it&#39;s pretty ridiculous. Look up "stalinism" and do some readings by Stalin (www.marx2mao.com) before you try to argue against it.

[El_Revolucionario]

here&#39;s some pics of one of Stalin&#39;s labor camps:
http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta1_opt.jpg
http://www.videofact.com/english/wworkuta3_opt.jpg
http://www.videofact.com/english/workuta4_opt.jpg
A cemetery at a labor camp...I guess this picture speaks for itself
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/josef-stalin/gulag.jpg

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/showtrial1a.jpg
the trial where Stalin purged members of his own party

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/deportee1a.jpg
This Ukrainian just LOVES Stalin&#33; :rolleyes:

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/workers3a.jpg
So this is the fun Stalinist paradise you&#39;d love to live in, eh?

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/wheelbarrow.jpg
http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/gate.jpg
the entrance to the gulag

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/tower2a.jpg
a watchtower to shoot any citizens that try to escape

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:07 PM

Well he was. Am I the only person here who&#39;s read the RL Guidelines? They don&#39;t seem to particularly like Stalinists.

No you&#39;re not, second of all regardless of RL guidelines "Stalinists" are just as much communists as you or anyone else, you people continue to act as if "stalinism" was a type of ideology in contrast to communism and it&#39;s pretty ridiculous. Look up "stalinism" and do some readings by Stalin (www.marx2mao.com) before you try to argue against it.
I never said Stalinists weren&#39;t collectivized. Communism (Marxism) wasn&#39;t based on authoritarian control. Many people see communist states achieved through complete and direct democracy. Not by being told what to do with terror tactics.

[rice349]

Communism (Marxism) wasn&#39;t based on authoritarian control

Marx called for a "dictatorship of the proletariat." To me, this is up to individual interpretation.

[El_Revolucionario]

Marx did not advocate a dictatorship. when he said "dictatorship of the proletariat" he meant "rule by the people" which is the definition of true democracy. Stalinism was a "dictatorship of Stalin".

[ComradeChris]

Marx did not advocate a dictatorship. when he said "dictatorship of the proletariat" he meant "rule by the people" which is the definition of true democracy. Stalinism was a "dictatorship of Stalin".

THank you, that&#39;s what I was going to say. I&#39;m sure Marx knew of the apparentent corruptness of a one-party, authoritarian state.

[rice349]

It&#39;s all up to interpretation, besides, that doesn&#39;t mean additions and alterations can&#39;t be made towards orthodox marxism. I interpret dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship of myself and my party in the name of the proletariat.

[Black Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:21 PM
Marx did not advocate a dictatorship. when he said "dictatorship of the proletariat" he meant "rule by the people" which is the definition of true democracy. Stalinism was a "dictatorship of Stalin".
Archive based research by bourgeois scholars disprovves this. This isn&#39;t true. There was no dictatorship of Stalin.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Black Radical+Apr 3 2005, 08:56 PM--> (Black Radical &#064; Apr 3 2005, 08:56 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 11:21 PM
Marx did not advocate a dictatorship. when he said "dictatorship of the proletariat" he meant "rule by the people" which is the definition of true democracy. Stalinism was a "dictatorship of Stalin".
Archive based research by bourgeois scholars disprovves this. This isn&#39;t true. There was no dictatorship of Stalin. [/b]
:blink: ....What the hell are you talking about? What scholars have said this? And Bourgeois findings don&#39;t fly. Haven&#39;t you heard the latest refutal fad: "It&#39;s Bourgeois biased." :rolleyes:

[aztecklaw]

Well, Stalin was weary of American proposals. Smart man.

THE MARSHALL PLAN (1947)

On June 5, 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall spoke at Harvard University and outlined what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Europe, still devastated by the war, had just survived one of the worst winters on record. The nations of Europe had nothing to sell for hard currency, and the democratic socialist governments in most countries were unwilling to adopt the draconian proposals for recovery advocated by old-line classical economists. Something had to be done, both for humanitarian reasons and also to stop the potential spread of communism westward.

The United States offered up to &#036;20 billion for relief, but only if the European nations could get together and draw up a rational plan on how they would use the aid. For the first time, they would have to act as a single economic unit; they would have to cooperate with each other. Marshall also offered aid to the Soviet Union and its allies in eastern Europe, but Stalin denounced the program as a trick and refused to participate. The Russian rejection probably made passage of the measure through Congress possible.

The Marshall Plan, it should be noted, benefited the American economy as well. The money would be used to buy goods from the United States, and they had to be shipped across the Atlantic on American merchant vessels. But it worked. By 1953 the United States had pumped in &#036;13 billion, and Europe was standing on its feet again. Moreover, the Plan included West Germany, which was thus reintegrated into the European community. (The aid was all economic; it did not include military aid until after the Korean War.)

Aside from helping to put Europe back on its feet, the Marshall Plan led to the Schuman Plan, which in turn led to Euratom, then the Coal and Iron Community and the Common Market, and pointed to what may yet evolve into an economically and politically united Europe. In many ways, the Marshall Plan satisfied both those who wanted our foreign policy to be generous and idealistic and those who demanded realpolitik; it helped feed the starving and shelter the homeless, and at the same time stopped the spread of communism and put the European economy back on its feet.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/57.htm

[Hiero]

http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/tower2a.jpg

Don&#39;t you use any critical thinking when you post. Take a real hard look at this picture and then tell me again if you think this came from the Soviet Union in Stalins time.

[MKS]

The picture didnt, its obviously a picture of a historical artifact. Anyone can see that, the guard tower did exist in stalins soviet union.


I hope the tower wasnt in such bad condition when they used it, wouldnt have been so affective.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Personally, I do admire Stalin and I believe him to be one of the most significant figures in the development of socialism, but I am always willing to admit he made a number of mistakes, rather than glorifying his every waking breath.

Why would anyone admire Stalin? He was an anti-capitalist Fascist. The only thing I can say in his defence is that there is evidence that he suffered from mental illness.

[redstarshining]

With the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx was referring to a dictatorship of the working class over the remains of the ruling classes after the workers have seized power. He used that term in order to clearly distinguish his idea of a transitional society from democracy ( i.e. a rule of ALL people ). So no, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not just another word for democracy. Of course this doesn&#39;t mean that the workers can&#39;t organize themselves democratically ( workers democracy ) during the transitional period. Although Libertarian marxists and Leninists have different ideas on organizational issues obviously.


And Sir Aunty Christ, how can someone possibly be an anti-capitalist and a fascist at the same time? And what does Stalin have to do with fascism anyway ( other than that he was authoritarian) ?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

[QUOTE]And Sir Aunty Christ, how can someone possibly be an anti-capitalist and a fascist at the same time? And what does Stalin have to do with fascism anyway ( other than that he was authoritarian) ?[QUOTE]

I hear you redstarshining. Stalin wasn&#39;t a capitalist in the way it&#39;s generally understood. So if you look at capitalism in those narrow term, then the claim of Stalin being anti-capitalist stands up. However, Stalin was a state capitalist which, as far as I understand state capitalism, means that the free market did not exist but money was made by the rank-and-file CPSU members and non-party members for the benefit of those at the top. A bit like the "capitalist west" today really, except that then there was no pretence of a free flow of capital. As far as most people were concerned, the money was being used by the government for the good of the people.

State capitalism as I see it (again, I&#39;m not 100% about the details) shares the ultimate goal of Fascist corporatism and that is to create wealth for the benefit of the ruling class (in the case of the Soviet Union, those at the top of the CPSU and in Fascist Italy, the business leaders and Mussolini).

As for the authoritarianism, isn&#39;t the ultimate goal of communism freedom for the worker? which will never happen under capitalism. Fascism couldn&#39;t care less about workers&#39; liberty and neither did Stalin.

One final point, nationalism. Aren&#39;t communists supposed to believe in no borders and workers&#39; unity throughout the world?

[getfreedropout]

Stalinists are scum and should be treated as such.

[OleMarxco]

Restricted or banned, as they should be :P

[zendo]

Act_5 you are the typical example of a Wall St. Propaganda Brainwashed individual lost in a Socialist forum.

If you can provide me with a single source of factual data or proof that Stalin even killed 1 million of his own people, let alone 40 million(how ridiculous) then I will fedex you 40 Million Dollars.

The point is that the Demonization of Stalin and Mao has been an ongoing task taken very seriously by the Wall St. Capitalist Propaganda Machine.

Stalin&#39;s good deeds FAR OUTWEIGH his negative deeds.

STALIN INDUSTRIALIZED THE USSR

STALIN DOUBLED LIFE EXPECTANCY

STALIN INTRODUCED LITERACY TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEASANTS

STALIN LOWERED INFANT MORTALITY RATE OF THE USSR FROM 273 IN EVERY 1000 TO 68 IN EVERY 1000

STALIN&#39;S LEADERSHIP RESULTED IN THE DEFEAT OF THE NAZIS IN WWII

Finally I will end this post by confidently proclaiming that every true Marxist who has studied the historical timeline in which Stalin ruled the USSR will agree when I say that he deserves our admiration and respect.

Long live comrade Stalin&#33;

[The_Arowak_Indian]

i have nothing to add at this moment tot comrade Zendo sayings.

Indeed long live comrade Stalin&#33;

[More Fire for the People]

Stalin would have furthered the socialist cause by industrializing and modernizing Soviet Republics if he didn&#39;t put into place de facto totalitarianism.

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:12 AM

STALIN&#39;S LEADERSHIP RESULTED IN THE DEFEAT OF THE NAZIS IN WWII

I don&#39;t know how many times I have to say this but...... Stalin had nothing to do with the defeat of the Nazis.

[Donnie]

In my eye&#39;s a 100 or 1 million people dieing due to state repression obviously means the dictatorship of the proletariat is doing something wrong.

Many of my class struggle comrades were killed and imprisoned due to the Soviet regime.

[Xiao Banfa]

Stalinists should be taken seriously. Stalin did win the war against fascism from which the whole world benefited.

[Xiao Banfa]

A lot of stalinists are well meaning. I think patriotism and nationalism are derided unfairly in leftist circles. National pride has it&#39;s place in leftist thinking.
By nationalism I mean the negation of imperialism in favour of national identity.
Multiculturalism must exist within this context. Nationalism is a tool to break up imperialism but if the world finally unites under communism and human brotherhood, nations would be meaningless.

One disagreement with stalinists I have is that they believe in absolute state power under the control of a leader. Leadership is important but it needs a democratic mandate.

Another disagreement with stalinists is the gulag denial. You have people who have survived the gulags, purges and famine who were there like there are Auchwitz survivors. There are soviet historians who put Stalins victims at 16 million. I will say that Solzhenitzyns&#39; numbers were hysterical. He was a vicious right winger who was even criticised by Kissinger as wanting to go too far.

[Hiero]

The only thing I can say in his defence is that there is evidence that he suffered from mental illness.

I have never heard this out side this forum. Show me some proof.


One final point, nationalism. Aren&#39;t communists supposed to believe in no borders and workers&#39; unity throughout the world?

How was Stalin nationalist? There were many different nationalities in CPSU, Stalin wasn&#39;t even Russian, he was Georgian, and he never talked about Georgian nationalism.

[Donnie]

A lot of stalinists are well meaning. I think patriotism and nationalism are derided unfairly in leftist circles. National pride has it&#39;s place in leftist thinking.
By nationalism I mean the negation of imperialism in favour of national identity.
I believe nationalism should not be used to destroy imperialism. The only way I believe to destroy nationalism is on an international level. There needs to be International solidarity among the working class. Remember the working class has no country I have more in common with a Russian working class person than I do with a British yuppie.

If we challenge Imperialism with a Nationalist attitude you&#39;re going to end up with a liberal solution. Many liberals think that a country should not be ruled over or influenced by another as stated in Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points. The liberal Wilson believed in National self-determination. The only way to challenge anything like capitalism or imperialism is on an International level.

[Led Zeppelin]

50% of the so-called "Stalinists" are retards, they border on fascism, take a look at E-G.

They don&#39;t realize that Stalin was not some moron like themselves, he was a Marxist. They don&#39;t even understand basic Marxism, what more can you say about people who claim that the first phase of Communism existed? :lol:

[Hampton]

Since the person who resurrected this thread was told not to do so and did it anyway and how there are two active Stalin topics, on ebeing a sticky, this will be closed.

Bring it to another thread.