LENIN, STALIN, CHE GUEVARA!!!

[interrupt 00h]

Hello. I am new to this forums (I came here from Soviet-Empire.com). I am leader of left-wing Russian party ATP (aka Adenosine Tri-Phosphate aka Army of Techno-Phanatics).

Why are you so hostile towards Stalinists? I consider myself Stalinist. I was anti-Stalinist many years ago, but as I studied Stalin era closely, I think now that Stalin was great man. He defeated fascism and created first truly socialist society. Under Stalin, there was no unequalty and corruption. Surely, he had to kill many counter-revolutionaries, but that is completely justifiable - just read Marx. Marx said that Russia is THE most counter-revolutionary state, because there were a lot of people who support capitalism and monarchy. And personally, I even think that Stalin was too softy!

Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara!

[new democracy]

welcome new stalinist. i am not a stalinist but i am friend of many of them. and also, malte don't like stalinists, you should be prepared to blatant discrimination against you.

[Frosty]

It would be great if you could write a little about stalinism. All i've heard is McCarthyist shit.

But i have to say, most people are scared of stalinism because of the violence against "counter-revolutionaries". And Stalin's Russia has given Communism as a whole a very bad reputation among even the least politically interested people.
OT:
"Surely, he had to kill many counter-revolutionaries, but that is completely justifiable"
I think that part is what piss most people off the most. Incuding myself.

[interrupt 00h]

According to capitalist sources (Walcom Corp) Stalin arrested approx. 600.000 counter-revolutionaries. Most of them were arrested during Great Patriotic War for cooperation with Nazis. That means 100.000-200.000 of non-Nazi counter-revolutionaries. From approx. 300.000.000 of people. That means that Stalin had to purge 0.000(3)% of population if I am not mistaken. What is scary about it?

How Stalinism is different from other forms of Socialism?

Here's basic formula of Stalinism system: "FROM EACH, ACCORDING TO ABILITY, TO EACH, ACCORDING TO HIS _DEEDS_". Payments were not equal. Good workers and soldiers, competent scientists and inventors received more money than lazy alchoholics or bureucrats.

Stalinism deny nationalism, instead it created Soviet Patriotism - patriotism not towards some country or ethnic group, but patriotism towards SOCIALIST SYSTEM itself. That means that Soviet Patriot will not abandon Communist goals even if he is forced to do so by hostile capitalist enviroment.

Stalinism is aimed at creating of Socialism in one state first, and then to export global revolution worldwide, so it is highly militarised system. Military service is seen as one of the most highly-valued things. That is because combat is one of the greatest tests of human spirit.

Stalinism is also aimed at technological progress. Why? Because Marx wrote that Communism can only be achieved by creating new productive forces. That can be done only through new technologies. So, Stalinism is quite technocentristic system.

[LOIC]

"From approx. 300.000.000 of people. That means that Stalin had to purge 0.000(3)% of population if I am not mistaken. What is scary about it? "

So if you are the leader of a very populated country, you can kill more opponents of the system than the leader of a less populated country?
Weird theory.

[Frosty]

Interesting interrupt 00h, but i don't consider myself a stalinist.

"Weird theory."
You've probably heard this one from Stalin:
"a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is statistic"
:biggrin:

[trebboR]

interrupt 00h you say that Stalin killed many man, and that that is justifiable because according to Marx Russia is the most coutner revolution state. But did Marx said then that you should kill those people?

And if not everyone get's paid the same, then there isn't total equality or am I wrong there?

I'm not attacking Stalinism or anything, I don't know very much about it so I wanted to ask you some questions about it to learn some more about it.

[Iepilei]

Save the mass purges of political dissidents for fascist nations, like Nazi Germany and the US.

[Mahdavikia]

Quote: from interrupt 00h on 6:21 pm on Oct. 1, 2002

According to capitalist sources (Walcom Corp) Stalin arrested approx. 600.000 counter-revolutionaries. Most of them were arrested during Great Patriotic War for cooperation with Nazis. That means 100.000-200.000 of non-Nazi counter-revolutionaries. From approx. 300.000.000 of people. That means that Stalin had to purge 0.000(3)% of population if I am not mistaken. What is scary about it?


That's you say is very shocking!!!! Really, I don't understand how you can support that!!!http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies/eekdiablo.gif

[Cassius Clay]

Welcome Comrade, I occasionaly visit Soviet Empire.com. That's quite a nice little community you have got going there, full of lively debate and disscussion.

I believe the correct figure of all those who died in the Soviet Prison system between 1934 and 1953 was 799,445. This was for all reasons a crucial one being lack of medicines (note that between 1950-53 modern medicine introduced= less people dying in prison) and the GPW. And at no time in history of SU were there more than 2.4% of adult population in prison, reaching it's height in 1946-48 due to poverty (which inevitably drives more people to crime) caused by GPW.

Oh yes I like your view of what Stalinism is. Contray to propaganda there is nothing 'Tolitiarian' about it. The Stakonivite (spell but I mean the famous worker) policy may of caused some inequality but in the end did motivate workers to higher production figures.

Have you read any of Enver Hoxha? In one of articles he quite clearly emphasises the differerence between Stalinism and other 'Ism's'

[Xvall]

Last thing we need is another 'ism'. Just tell me this; are you an authoritarian?

[redstar2000]

"Combat is one of [the] greatest tests of the human spirit". Yeah, and the "human spirit" usually comes off loser.

A balanced evaluation of Stalin (and all of 20th century communism) is probably still far in the future. The passions still run pretty hot.

But I'm a little concerned about your own--what's the word I want here--fascination, glorification, something like that regarding combat.

There are times when combat may be necessary, may be unavoidable. But it is not glorious. It is not fascinating. It is, as one soldier put it, eons of bordom briefly interrupted by moments of sheer terror. It is very loud and smells very bad. It does not, in any sense, raise the human spirit...it reduces most people to the level of animals waiting to die in a slaughterhouse. Most of all, it is not like anything you ever saw in a movie or on tv.

As I said, combat may be necessary at times--but it should never be glorified or celebrated. Follow that road far enough and you end in the madness of fascism.

[LeninCCCP]

What about the part were Stalin killed his top generals because they threatened his power?

[Ian]

Stalin was a murderous bastard, Europe was lucky he was such a fool he devised 'Socialism in one country', otherwise all of Europe would have been in the shit.

He did a few good things like fight fascism, but he kowtowed to Hitler like a pussy obsequious bithch before Hitler did the obvious and invaded.

[LeninCCCP]

Stalin was a pussy who all the world bases communist leaders on. And the problem is most people think they are going to turn out to be murderous bastards like Stalin. Am I wrong?

[Xvall]

You are correct, Lenin; he gives communism a bad name. Even Lenin, founder of the Russian Revolution, did not want to place his trust in Stalin.

[munkey soup]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Stalinist Russia, were political dissidents of any kind allowed? I don't think so. There should always be room for dissidents. Stalin was a murderer.

Good post redstar2000.

[Social Democratic]

i was formelly a stalinist but after futher reading realised that an authoritarienb atate gives to much oppertunity to capitalist and plain corruption to seap in, In a democracy so open and public no one person can ever take charge and with stalinism, sure it provided a firm origenal economic base, but was the loss of civil freedom worth it?

[Iepilei]

social democracy eh? ;P isn't that just like, petty bourgeoise socialism?

[IHP]

In a book im reading at the moment, it said that Stalin ADMITTED (needless to say, there are probably many more) to Winston Churchill that 10 million people died of starvation and disease as a result of collectivisation.

can anyone else verify that?

--IHP

[Nic8]

"How Stalinism is different from other forms of Socialism?"

The question is not how is stalinism different from other forms of socialism. This implies that stalinism is a form of socialism. The question should be how is Stalinim different from ALL forms of socialism?

In socialism, the proletariat is in controll. In stalinism, a fascist dictator is in controll. There was no democracy in Stalinism. In socialism, there is democracy. The stalinist consider the USSR to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. How can the proletariat have a dictatorhip if they have no power? You can not justify killing thousands of people for the simple reason of disagreeing with the state. If some one has a different opinion then me, should I kill them? How can you have slavery, forced labour camps, in a workers state? Weren't the Nazis famous for that? Socialism strives for equality. Political equality is just as important as economical equality.

How the hell are we going to ever wage a revolution with Stalinist ideals? "Come on working class, support our "vanguard" and we'll build a dictatorship, treat you like shit, take your demcoracy, force some of you to work in slave camps and murder everyone who doesn't have blind faith in our fascist dictatorhsip."

Was Trotsky a counter revolutionary? I don't thinks so. He was a dedicated Marxist and was exiled because Stalin was an authoritarian who din't care about the proles or demcorcy. He was afraid that Trotsky might be athreat to his power.

Stalin was equally as evil as Hitler. I would much rather live in any capitalist country then under that motherfucker's fascist regime.

[Cassius Clay]

Lenin CCCP, those Generals were not simply killed because evil Stalin thought they were a threat to his power. They were executed after a trial and were found guilty by their own military officers (NOT the NKVD). 'Guilty' of what you might ask, well planing a right-wing military coup.

Churchill admits in his book 'THe Gathering Storm' that a military conspiracy existed and it was the Czech Intelligent (hardly pro-Soviet they just hated the Gestapo more) services that passed on some of the information onto the Soviet government. Not to mention one Nazi official when asked about the possibility of annexing Czechslovakia said 'You will not be able to rely on Stalin, soon there will be a change in Russia and that change will be pro-German'.

The Soviet government faced a choice. They could either hold the trials in the open and infront of the whole world (which would of meant exposing possible Soviet intelliegence and costing the lifes of the Red Army later on) or let the Army deal with the likes of Marshall Tuckachevsky.

They chose the latter.

Munkey Soup, yes criticism was allowed and there were dissidents who rountinly criticised the Soviet government. Examples in Stalin's time (which I presume you are talking about) would be the Christian scientist Pavlov who won the Nobel prize in 1904 and he often criticised the government yet nothing happened to him. In 1938 Stalin nominated Malkenkov to be head of the NKVD, the party then proccedded to nominated Beria.

Also in 1927 there was a demonstration against Stalin organised in Leningrad by Trotsky and Zioneve (and no this was NOT what Zioneve was put to trial for). But the next month they lost the election anyway.

There is also the Kiev riots (likely caused by the poverty caused by the war) of 1950, when the local police simply dealed with it like police deal with riots all over the world. Cracking a few heads and charging with batons and water hoses.

And yes I agree with you (as did the Soviet Constitution of 1936) that dissent is a good thing. As John Reed said 'If you purge dissent you purge the Revolution'.

Nic8, you call Stalin a 'Fascist dictator'. Yet there was never any law making him a dictator or unquestioned leader. The party chose him (against the united opposition of Kamenev, Zioneve and Trotsky) and they could of jucked him out any time and all that Stalin could of done would of been to write some angry memoirs.

When he died tens of millions mourned, yet when the Fascist dictators Hitler and Mussolini died those who mourned were confinned to a few dozen. You say that the proletariat was NOT in controll, yet those same peasants and workers who grew up in the 1930's, 40's and 50's now vote in the Communists.

Was Trotsky a 'counter-Revolutionary'? Well in the sense that he called for the overthrow of the Soviet government after he had recieved little more than 1% of the votes in the December 1927 elections then yes. Make no mistake about it Trotsky was a fascist and a Imperialist. His whole idea of 'Labor Armies' and 'Military discipline in factories' has nothing to do with Socialism and is more akin to Pol Pot. Not to mention 'Permanent Revolution' being just another name for Imperialism.

Finally you all say that Stalin 'Murdered millions' and 'Forced labor' or whatever else. But the U$ currently has 0.5 % more people in prison than the Soviet Union ever did. THe archives (which the western media never reported on) state that 799,445 people died between 1930 and 1953. This was for all reasons including execution (which you may not agree with).

[Iepilei]

The US has more people in prison eh? An even better reason to be against such notions. Injustice does not justify injustice.

[Socialmalfunction]

damn, before i read this thread i knew shit about stalinism. now im not sure what i know but i will have plenty to think of tonight. thanks for all the info *tips hat*

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from Iepilei on 10:29 pm on Oct. 3, 2002
The US has more people in prison eh? An even better reason to be against such notions. Injustice does not justify injustice.


Injustice, what injustice. Do you not believe that rapists, murderers and other sought of criminalls should be put in prison? And that's what they were criminalls, only a very small minority were jailed under the term 'Counter-Revolutionary'. Oh I'm sure innocent people would of been put in jail, after all no legal system is perfect.

Do you believe that every person who is in jail in the U$ as of today is innocent? Ofcourse they aren't, but that appears to be what you are saying of the USSR between 1930-53/

[peaccenicked]

Criminalising dissent, to justify crimes.
Blatant idiocy!He murdered innocents galore including most of the 'old' Bolsheviks. The whole idea was to instill
fear in all of the citizens, not just the criminally intended but those who spoke for the 'disappeared' and question the need for 'socialism to act anti-democratically.

[redstar2000]

I think the most charitable thing that can possibly be said about "comrade Stalin" is that he suffered from paranoid delusions after 1930 or thereabouts...and that those intervals of paranoia became longer and more severe for the remainder of his life.

Of couse, he did have lucid periods. He was able to step back and let his generals beat the Germans. He was able, after a fashion, to coordinate the establishment of quasi-socialist countries in Eastern Europe (though his stupid feud with Tito resulted in the defeat of the Greek Revolution).

By Russian standards (not very high ones), Stalin was a good communist up to 1930 or so. Afterwards, it was mostly blunders, crimes, stupidities, and outrages. (Not all, but MOSTLY!)

It frankly surpasses belief that, at this late date, there are folks who are still trying to offer "comrade Stalin" as a posterboy for communist revolution. Fortunately, their numbers are dwindling (they do have a website at yahoo groups, if you're curious).

[Mazdak]

I would just like to say... don't listen to the lies of these older members. Stick to your loyalty with Stalin, we need more like you. I too am authoritarian.

[Iepilei]

conservative communists... heh

[Nateddi]

Ïðèâåò òîâàðèù!

ß òîæå æèë â ÑÑÑÐ. *ß ëþáëþ Ëåíèíà, Ñòàëèíà, ×, è ò.ä.

Áîëüøèíñòâî íà ýòîì ôîðóìå - ëèáåðàëüíûå èäèîòû!

[Malvinas Argentinas]

(sorry for the english, im argentine)
i dont understand how can people deffend stalinism.
First of all, his reach to power in contradiction to Lenin´s testament, which said that TRotsky should be the next leader, and to be careful with stalin.
Lets see how he reached to power. First he quietly, when was general secretary, put all his suporters in the state. CReating his cult of personality.
His oponent to reach power was Trotsky, they had to different ideals. Stalin believed in socialism in one country and then spread the revolution. That is to say make a very good ussr and then the other countries should take it as an example. TRotsky, instead believed that a world revolution should be carried out at a first instance.Trotsky is a an example of a socialist who worked for the greatness of the people and not for his own, as Stalin did.

In the strugle for power, stalin first used Bukharin to get rid from trotsky, saying that he supported Lenin´s New Economic Policy. TRtsky believed that a more centralised economic model should be encoureged. The funny thing is that afterwards he used trotsky´s arguments to get rid of Bukharin!

Such as trotsky, he got rid of many other political oponents, intensifiying his cult of personality.

It is difficult to find photographs of stalin, for example in agropequary sectors, or in industries. He was most of his time inside the kremlin.His best tool for gaining popularity where propaganda. He changed all schoolbooks, and made the people believe he was the father of russia.

It is sorprendant the number of politicall leaders that were purged.ANd the people who opposed a little to the system, where, or simply killed, or sent to the labour camps, where it was difficult to survive more than10 years.

He introduced the 5 year plans, which, as many peple belive they went nearer to communism and further from capitalism.the GOSPLAN, organised each target to every industry, and to every collective farm.They were very succesful economicaly, In fact , a reason why they could defeat germany in ww2 were the 5 year plans. ANyway, do thoseeconomic goods have the value of even 1 person?
Stalinist say that they got nearer to commnism. They justifiy this by the simple argument that the economy was more centralised. Anyway communist society is governed by the people and for the people, in this case, it was governed by Stalin and for Stalin. We, people with left wing ideolgies, attack capitalist society, mainly due to the expltion of workers, and thus the inequality. So how can any of us refer to stanilism as a form of socialism, when in stalin years people was more exploited even that in capitalist countries?

I would rather live in the Bush´s USA than in Satlin´s USSR

[redstar2000]

Where is written down that we are compelled to choose our "favorite" shithole?

Isn't the point of all this to have a society/societies that are NOT shitholes?!

[Malvinas Argentinas]

I am just saying that stalinsm dont deserve any respect, as bush neither.
By being stanilist your defending a dictator, youre deffending the traitor to Lenin, you are defending a Shithole, Please dont be another one

[redstar2000]

M/A, please see my post on page 3 of this thread; I'm not a "stalinist".

But why the passion about this? Stalin has been DEAD for just under 50 years.(!)

Meanwhile, your country, Argentina, is undergoing an enormous capitalist crisis, an economic catastrophe that we in the U.S. haven't seen since the 1930s.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE???

Are there communist revolutionaries (of any kind)? Is a working class revolution possible there? Will people there accept having the chains of the International Monetary Fund wrapped around them once more? Please tell us!!!

We hear nothing of the people of Argentina here! All we get are World Bank press handouts and a bunch of whining and moaning by middle class people who can't get their savings out of the banks. Tell us what the workers of Argentina are thinking/doing!

See, that's what I really meant by my last post. There's no point in picking horses in a race that was over so long ago that there are only a few left alive who even remember. What's on the card for TOMORROW'S RACE?

[MJM]

There's no point in picking horses in a race that was over so long ago that there are only a few left alive who even remember. What's on the card for TOMORROW'S RACE?


*APPLAUSE*

[Cassius Clay]

(sorry for the english, im argentine)

Better than mine.

''i dont understand how can people deffend stalinism.''

I would to, if I actually believed all that stuff about him killing millions and purging anybody whom he didn't like and other such wild accusations.

''First of all, his reach to power in contradiction to Lenin´s testament, which said that TRotsky should be the next leader, and to be careful with stalin.''

The testament did not say that Trotsky should be in charge. The testament tells us (those who view it today) that Lenin at the time thought that Trotsky was the most capable leader, but it is not all full of praise for the man. And when he wrote about Stalin, Lenin's wife and Stalin had just had a row so naturally Lenin was not in a good mood about Stalin. You see how this can be taken out of context.

Also it is NOT up to Lenin who takes charge of the party, but up to the party itself who elected Stalin.

''Lets see how he reached to power. First he quietly, when was general secretary, put all his suporters in the state. CReating his cult of personality.''

This is little more than speculation. 'Put all his supporters in the state', so Stalin managed to put fill every party and state orginisation with his supporters. Yet you yourself (although may of been somebody else) admit that Stalin was barely known in 1922.

''His oponent to reach power was Trotsky, they had to different ideals. Stalin believed in socialism in one country and then spread the revolution. That is to say make a very good ussr and then the other countries should take it as an example. TRotsky, instead believed that a world revolution should be carried out at a first instance.Trotsky is a an example of a socialist who worked for the greatness of the people and not for his own, as Stalin did.''

I agree with all this except the last part. You say that Stalin just worked for his own greatness, in other words for power. If one was interested in power would they join the Bolsheviks in 1900 in Tsarist Russia? Stalin played a key role in saving Bolsheviks from financial collapse between 1905-17. Surely if he was motivated by power he would of taken a former Tsar's palace to live in (like Trotsky).

''In the strugle for power, stalin first used Bukharin to get rid from trotsky, saying that he supported Lenin´s New Economic Policy. TRtsky believed that a more centralised economic model should be encoureged. The funny thing is that afterwards he used trotsky´s arguments to get rid of Bukharin!''

Stalin did not get rid of Trotsky, the party did. After three years of debate on party policy the united opposition got just 6,000 votes out of 725,000 votes cast. The split between Bukharin and Stalin came in the early 1930's when Stalin felt that the NEP had been used for it's pacific purpose and now it posed a actual threat to Socialism in USSR. And the party agreed with him.

''Such as trotsky, he got rid of many other political oponents, intensifiying his cult of personality.''

Who did he get rid of?

''It is difficult to find photographs of stalin, for example in agropequary sectors, or in industries. He was most of his time inside the kremlin.''

No you will see plenty of photographs and films of him in factories and work places. Especially before 1934.

''His best tool for gaining popularity where propaganda. He changed all schoolbooks, and made the people believe he was the father of russia.''

Sorry but which government doesn't use propaganda?

''It is sorprendant the number of politicall leaders that were purged.''

Whom did Stalin purge? Those trials were a way of dealing with people who had broken the law in the USSR.

''ANd the people who opposed a little to the system, where, or simply killed, or sent to the labour camps, where it was difficult to survive more than10 years.''

'Simply killed' rubbish. What about the Christian scientist Pavlov or Maxim Gorky or the female bolshevik Alexander Kollanti who all criticised the government.

He introduced the 5 year plans, which, as many peple belive they went nearer to communism and further from capitalism.the GOSPLAN, organised each target to every industry, and to every collective farm.They were very succesful economicaly, In fact , a reason why they could defeat germany in ww2 were the 5 year plans. ANyway, do thoseeconomic goods have the value of even 1 person?''

Ofcourse not, all death is a tragedy.

''Stalinist say that they got nearer to commnism. They justifiy this by the simple argument that the economy was more centralised. Anyway communist society is governed by the people and for the people, in this case, it was governed by Stalin and for Stalin. We, people with left wing ideolgies, attack capitalist society, mainly due to the expltion of workers, and thus the inequality. So how can any of us refer to stanilism as a form of socialism, when in stalin years people was more exploited even that in capitalist countries?

I justify Stalin and the USSR between 1930 and 1953 simply because it was free and democratic. You say there was inequality, well ofcourse there will be inequality when they are still in Socialism. But Stalin fought against Buecracy and corruption. And those same workers who you think were exploited now in old age vote for the Communists. They can't all of been bueracrates.
''I would rather live in the Bush´s USA than in Satlin´s USSR''

Well I wouldn't.

[redstar2000]

"Stalin fought corruption." True. Also, not good enough!

"Stalin fought bureaucracy."??? Funny line! Stalin fought bureaucracy the way George Bush fights oil monopolies; he kissed them to death!

"Five-year plans"--the way they were carried out, they should have been called "Five-year Guesses".

"USSR was free and democratic 1930-53"??? Stop it! I'm laughing so hard my ribs are hurting! I mean we all know how Pravda and Isvestia were just packed with political controversy throughout that period; how hard Stalin and his supporters had to fight to win the hotly contested elections to the Supreme Soviet; etc., etc. (!)

Seriously, I wonder if others have noticed that there is a kind of netcult of neo-stalinists emerging...people with a strange nostalgia for a long-gone and best-forgotten era in communist history. In the American South, there are actually people who re-stage (with as much authenticity as they can manage) the battles of the Civil War that the Confederates won, as if somehow the South would win the War if they just replayed history often enough.

There is something like this in the neo-stalinist netcult, something fusty, old, like an abandoned building. Very, very strange! And, kind of depressing...!

[Cassius Clay]

''True. Also, not good enough!''

I don't get this, you admit that Stalin fought against corruption but you say it's not good enough. What is the point you are making here? Yes I agree that one of the main reasons USSR fell apart was because of corruption, but that was Brezheve (and others) fault, not Stalin.

''Funny line! Stalin fought bureaucracy the way George Bush fights oil monopolies; he kissed them to death!''

Right, and the fact that party officials were NOT allowed the kind of special rations, wages and privalages that they would of later been allowed under Brezheve means nothing. In 1953 there were no millionaires in USSR, by 1975 there were over 2000. Make of that what you will (and you will probably say something stupid like Stalin shot anybody who made a extra rouble because he was paranoid).

Stalin had to fight against the heirachy created by Trotsky in the Red Army and the increasing inequality caused by NEP.

"Five-year plans"--the way they were carried out, they should have been called "Five-year Guesses".

Ha, ha, ha that's just so funny. And the best thing is it's based on FACTS and your obviously well researched study into that peice of history.

''Stop it! I'm laughing so hard my ribs are hurting! I mean we all know how Pravda and Isvestia were just packed with political controversy throughout that period; how hard Stalin and his supporters had to fight to win the hotly contested elections to the Supreme Soviet; etc., etc. (!)''

Well I would call a dozen or so ex leading Bolsheviks being found guilty of very serious crimes a controversy, oh but let me guess it was never reported in Pravda because evil Stalin didn't want the people to know. Oh you mean the 'Sensational Exclusives' and other such tabloid rubbish which the whole of the working classes in the west now feel they have to see. NO, I guess that didn't happen.

''Seriously, I wonder if others have noticed that there is a kind of netcult of neo-stalinists emerging...people with a strange nostalgia for a long-gone and best-forgotten era in communist history. In the American South, there are actually people who re-stage (with as much authenticity as they can manage) the battles of the Civil War that the Confederates won, as if somehow the South would win the War if they just replayed history often enough.''

Well that civil war comparision has done it for me, I have now seen the light Stalin was infact just a slavemaster in disguise.

''There is something like this in the neo-stalinist netcult, something fusty, old, like an abandoned building. Very, very strange! And, kind of depressing...!''

A cult, please this is just petty insults. Let's talk about a cult, how about a group of spoiled upper class kids thinking that May-Day means breaking windows at McDonalds. It is just a small (but growing) number of people who refuse to accept this view of Stalin as a evil Tyrant told to us by Captalists, Trotskyites and Nazis. Just try looking into history and you might be surprised.

BTW redstar2000, how was your opinion of Stalin shaped? By your school history books, by Trotskyite articles. They ain't worth nothing.

[redstar2000]

"How was my opinion of Stalin shaped?" Same as yours or most people's: just read a lot of stuff, talked to a lot of people (with different positions), decided who made sense and who was blowing smoke out their ass. Yes, I've actually read Joe (History of the CPSU/B Short Course; Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR; and the thing he did on Leninism in 1924--can't remember the name). Of course, I've also read Trotsky...and Mao and Castro and Lenin and so many lefties that I couldn't begin to remember them all. I suspect that will not satisfy you; it does me.

If all you were trying to say is that the USSR from 1930-53 under Stalin was NOT the monstrous hellhole that it was portrayed to be in the capitalist media, we wouldn't have an argument. (I wouldn't argue the capitalist media NEVER gets anything right; I just suspect that when they do get something right, it's an accident.)

But as I understand the neo-stalinist position, that's not enough. If Stalin was not an "evil tyrant", THEN he MUST have been a working class SAINT.

That's not politics, comrade Clay, that's hagiography...and historically a howling absurdity.

Funny, you should mention the "trials"--funny kind of trials where all these veteran communists "confess" to being agents of the 3rd Reich. If you can swallow that, telemarketers must LOVE to call you. You'll buy ANYTHING, you poor bastard.

Come to think of it, you already have.

[cynical]

offcourse you all know that stalin was hitlers ally for a while?and those people he killed,most of them wasn´t against socialism,just against stalin creating USSr in his own world,where all people must adore the supreme,allknowing,righteus leader.fuck stalin,fuck mao fuck castro,fuck sandero luminoso,fuck north korea,fuck vietnam(socialist country where my sisters nike shoes are made).trocky rules!(another victim of stalin,a socialist victim)

[Cassius Clay]

''How was my opinion of Stalin shaped?" Same as yours or most people's: just read a lot of stuff, talked to a lot of people (with different positions), decided who made sense and who was blowing smoke out their ass. Yes, I've actually read Joe (History of the CPSU/B Short Course; Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR; and the thing he did on Leninism in 1924--can't remember the name). Of course, I've also read Trotsky...and Mao and Castro and Lenin and so many lefties that I couldn't begin to remember them all. I suspect that will not satisfy you; it does me.''

Well if that's true and you have actually done a bit of research and NOT just accepted what your schoolbooks say and still hold the view that you don't like Stalin that's fine and I respect your opinion. I just happened to come to the opposite point of view.

''If all you were trying to say is that the USSR from 1930-53 under Stalin was NOT the monstrous hellhole that it was portrayed to be in the capitalist media, we wouldn't have an argument. (I wouldn't argue the capitalist media NEVER gets anything right; I just suspect that when they do get something right, it's an accident.)''

Not an 'Argument' but a mangnificent debate.

''But as I understand the neo-stalinist position, that's not enough. If Stalin was not an "evil tyrant", THEN he MUST have been a working class SAINT.''

Like most things the truth probably lies somewhere in between but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept the outright lies told about Stalin. Anyway as I said in another thread in the History section, do you think I agree with such things as the deportations of the Crimean Tartars and the Chechens? Ofcourse I don't.

''Funny, you should mention the "trials"--funny kind of trials where all these veteran communists "confess" to being agents of the 3rd Reich. If you can swallow that, telemarketers must LOVE to call you. You'll buy ANYTHING, you poor bastard.''

What I don't 'swallow' is being told as FACT that those Trials were just shams. All the evidence you (or anyone else) has appears to be 'Oh look they confessed, so surely they must of been tortured and forced into saying those things.' Yet you have NO evidence for this.

It is like what Goebbels once said 'If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth'.

Come to think of it, you already have.
[/quote]

[EjercitoFidelista]

Yes Yes.. Really good.. I really dont know.. that many Stalisms.. But..In my opinion .. Stalin messed up the Soviet union .. The soviet Union was running really good.. when Lenin was in power.. and that my friend is a fact.. Vladimir followed the Karl MARX WAY.. Stalin didint.. Stalin customized his own way of Communism .. he put a little of Emperalism as well.. Stalin screwed things up by Killing alot of people.. including his own family.. H e was loosing trust of his fellow comrades and his followers.. he just assumed the peopl that hated him.. and just kileld them .. but yes dont get me wrong. Stalin was a ruler with great beliefs.. and ran the UNION for while in good shape.. but after .. He was really going down dramactly. WHere he really when down it was when he joined forces with Benito Musulini and Adolf Hitler.. Hitler betrayed him .. theres when he started to loose trust of his own people.. If Joseph never joined Adolf .. he would of done and been a better ruler.. Thats my opinion Fellow Brother.. But .. Joseph really cared about the peopel.. he always was with the peopel.. the middle class. Never gaved up .. and he was the most that was attacking hitler in WW2..

[redstar2000]

Well, comrade Clay, I think I see an inch or two of progress in this discussion...so perhaps a few more exchanges are in order.

I appreciate your committment to evidence and I share it. But what can we do when evidence is lacking?

For example, if someone says that people were tortured into confessing monstrous crimes during the Moscow trials, you respond: where is the evidence? In these kinds of circumstances, what evidence would you find convincing? As far as I know, everyone involved in the Moscow trials is dead; no one can come forward now and say: yeah, we squeezed their dicks until they sang the HorstWesselLied.

There may possibly be records in the USSR archives; but it's equally likely that any written records of coercion were destroyed after Stalin's death. Why would Khrushchev, et.al., want to keep that stuff around?

What I'm getting at here is that in political history, sometimes the only "evidence" we have is indirect. We have to make a judgment call based on the inherent probability of a given event, the most likely motives of the political actors, etc. (always understanding that our judgment call must be reversed if direct evidence emerges that we were wrong).

For veteran, life-long bolsheviks to turn into Nazi agents, I would assert, simply fails the test of probability. It's as wildly unlikely as if the Pope suddenly issued a proclamation calling for international proletarian revolution as the commandment of God. It's just TOO FAR OUT!

You will have noticed, I hope, that this by itself says nothing about torture. There are many ways to make people do what you want them to do without physical torture. One of the easiest is to tell your victim: cooperate with me and say what I tell you to say and your family will not be prosecuted.

I suppose I could be criticized for my overly rational approach to history; the assumption that historical events have to "make sense" to be accepted as true. But the alternative is really appalling: that history is utterly random and makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm aware that total meaninglessness is ultra-fashionable in our "post-modern" world...I just don't buy into that view.

[The work by Stalin that I couldn't remember the title: it's Foundations of Leninism, published in 1924.]

[Michael De Panama]

Why are you so hostile toward us???

You are not a communist.

The exploitative ruling class is the enemy of communism, even if it doesn't go by the name "bourgeoisie".

By advocating the upbringing of a new Stalinist ruling class, you are the enemy of communism.

You say that Stalin was a great man in that he helped defeat the fascists. I would like for you to explain to me what you think the difference is between the political structure of fascism, and that of Stalinism, because fundamentally they are completely identicle.

[Cassius Clay]

''Well, comrade Clay, I think I see an inch or two of progress in this discussion...so perhaps a few more exchanges are in order.''

Just out of interest where/why do you see 'progress'.

''I appreciate your committment to evidence and I share it. But what can we do when evidence is lacking?''

From a Capatalist perspective it is quite simple, just repeat the lie enough times until people just accept it as the truth.

''For example, if someone says that people were tortured into confessing monstrous crimes during the Moscow trials, you respond: where is the evidence? In these kinds of circumstances, what evidence would you find convincing? As far as I know, everyone involved in the Moscow trials is dead; no one can come forward now and say: yeah, we squeezed their dicks until they sang the HorstWesselLied.''

That's the point though, for those trials to of all been scripted before hand (minor note the prosecutor demands the death sentence for all, yet 13 out of 17 are actually executed) there would of had to of been hundreds if not thousands of people involved in the whole sham. Yet never under Gorby or Yelstin were there 'Exclusive's' or was somebody 'Finally allowed to speak the truth'.

What 'evidence' would I find acceptable. Well the simple fact is that if just one of them showed any signs of physical harm or torture and had even hinted that that was the case then your case would be helped alot.

''There may possibly be records in the USSR archives; but it's equally likely that any written records of coercion were destroyed after Stalin's death. Why would Khrushchev, et.al., want to keep that stuff around?''

So why not destroy the archives to the deportations of the Tartars or Chechens? That caused alot of suffering and killed plenty of people. If I was a evil Soviet dictator I would get rid of them.

''What I'm getting at here is that in political history, sometimes the only "evidence" we have is indirect. We have to make a judgment call based on the inherent probability of a given event, the most likely motives of the political actors, etc. (always understanding that our judgment call must be reversed if direct evidence emerges that we were wrong).''

A educated guess based on the FACTS before hand is one thing. Outright lies is another.

''For veteran, life-long bolsheviks to turn into Nazi agents, I would assert, simply fails the test of probability. It's as wildly unlikely as if the Pope suddenly issued a proclamation calling for international proletarian revolution as the commandment of God. It's just TOO FAR OUT!''

They were not charged simply with being Nazi agents, although plenty did have contact with the Gestapo. They were charged with assaination, plotting for acts of terriorism and trying to restore Capatalism in the USSR. I have no doubt that they didn't start of as Nazis but they were willing to sell their nation out on the condition that they could get power. Power that had been taken away from them by the party and the people.

''You will have noticed, I hope, that this by itself says nothing about torture. There are many ways to make people do what you want them to do without physical torture. One of the easiest is to tell your victim: cooperate with me and say what I tell you to say and your family will not be prosecuted.''

My first point is that if that were true then why didn't they alledge it? Afterall the whole of the worlds press are there as are normal workers and peasants aswell as a whole army of Western diplomats. So if they were to alledge this (and say that it were true for a second) and suddenly their respective family's find themselves locked up or having died in a 'Accident' (all of the families).

You see how badly this would reflect on Stalin and Soviet government.

''I suppose I could be criticized for my overly rational approach to history; the assumption that historical events have to "make sense" to be accepted as true. But the alternative is really appalling: that history is utterly random and makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm aware that total meaninglessness is ultra-fashionable in our "post-modern" world...I just don't buy into that view.''

Hmm I may of misuderstood this, but never the less I think I agree.





[The work by Stalin that I couldn't remember the title: it's Foundations of Leninism, published in 1924.]
[/quote]

[redstar2000]

I always think progress is being made, comrade Clay, whenever I discover moments of lucidity in an opposing argument. It suggests to me that in principle, if enough facts were brought to light, agreement would be possible and even inevitable.

I am not, of course, suggesting that capitalist lies about anyone should be mindlessly (or thoughtfully) repeated by me or anyone else. I am enormously sceptical about anything the capitalists and their publicists have to say, even on "non-political" matters. I think every communist should have that attitude.

But it seems to me that your response is somewhat evasive, to say the least.

Item: why didn't the defendents say in open court that their confessions had been coerced, either by torture or by threats to their families? Because coercion works! It's very effective, at least for a while. I could even guess (and make no mistake about it, we are both GUESSING here) that defendents were promised a commutation of sentence provided they cooperated in the charade.

Item: the trials, if scripted, involved hundreds or thousands of people. So? The forthcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq involves tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. And, if someone in the USSR WANTED to blow the whistle, who could they possibly have thought would hear it? It's not as if they could go to CNN and say: Joe faked the whole thing!

Besides which, it seems to me that you have so predetermined the outcome of this question that if someone had come forth, shown the evidence of torture, posed for photos and given detailed descriptions, you would simply say they are lying, that they too are agents of capitalist counter-revolution.

Item: the defendents at Moscow were charged with other crimes besides being German agents. So they were, and I'm willing to let history settle those charges. But that evades my main point: that veteran communists conspired with the 3rd Reich does not pass the test of reasonable probability. (But, in passing, neither do the charges of wanting to restore capitalism in the USSR; IF there was any "conspiracy" at all, it was no doubt the removal of one J.V. Stalin and his closest allies from high public/party office--that's NOT the same as restoring capitalism.)

There actually was an effort to provide opposing evidence in these cases; a commission headed by John Dewey held public hearings in New York on the details of the trials. I confess I have never consulted the published transcripts of the hearings (probably as a result of MY predeterminations), but I'm wondering if they could be found somewhere on the net and if you are curious enough about this period to look them up.

Truth is the daughter of time; some 70 years or so after these events, we still await her birth.

[the pen]

hey comrades
the problem with this is where to begin
1. Stalin was the figure head of the beurachy that arose aftrer the 21armies of imperialism decemated the working class. lenin in his last testament told the party to get rid of stalin but stalin managed to censor it. he the went on to seize total control of the party and isolated true revolutionaries like trotsky. he exiled trots and imprisioned or murdered all those who stood in his way. he shut down the soviets, the organs of workers democracy,.
2.he betrayed the republicians in the spanish civil war
3. he implemented the fucked up theory of socialism in one country which totally distorted marxs beliefs.
4. he helped am,erica smash the marxist anti-fascist resistance in greece after ww2.
AND SO ON

[redstar2000]

There are two points that ThePen raises that are certainly worthy of consideration.

When the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy sent troops and planes to support Franco, where WERE the Soviet forces? Franco would have lost that war if not for fascist "international solidarity"; could the Spanish anarchists/communists have won that war if Joe had stepped in and helped to the same limits?

And the Greek civil war: Russia WAS aiding communists but the munitions had to pass through Yugoslavia to reach the Greek partisans. Stalin's incredibly STUPID feud with Tito put a stop to that (though Tito is worthy of plenty of blame on this score as well; Stalin and Tito both forced the Greek communists to choose between them and the Greeks chose Stalin, so Tito blocked the aid. The Greeks blundered as well; they should have picked Tito.) The entire situation was one of idiocy on all sides...but Joe should have known better!

Indeed, the relations between the CPSU/B and the member parties of the Comintern/Cominform is an incredible can of worms...for which the primary responsibility must be laid at the feet of one J.V. Stalin.