why we should NEVER cooperate with stalinism

[new democracy]

i will like to start this thread by asking a question: every member that could reply to this thread hates capitalism with all his heart, right? every member that could reply to this thread hates the system that exploit workers, right? this is why we should NEVER cooperate with stalinism. if anyone here doesn't know the story, my grandmother lived in poland. after 1,939, she escaped to the USSR along with other jewish refugees, and she stayed there until 1,945. i am probably the only member here that actually know someone that experienced stalinism. she told me this story: in her time in the USSR, she once go to a factory. in some part there was "don't look" sign. when nobody saw, she looked. and she saw that the workers there were children!!!! and what about the inhuman working conditions at his time? i don't see this as different from the way american corporations exploit people in the third world. in the third world they at least don't shoot you if you are late to work. this is why if you declare yourself a stalinist, you declare yourself as a supporter of one of the most horrible capitalists and exploiter. if you say "comrades unite"(though i must admit i was like this until lately)you are saying "let's cooperate with people that support one of the most horrible exploiter". this is why we should NEVER cooperate with anti working class stalinists.

(Edited by new democracy at 10:49 pm on Oct. 28, 2002)

[wittyleftistnamehere]

or the fact that stalinism was in no way communist. Here's what we do: force workers to work through direct coercion and propaganda, give as little to the working class, churn out shoddy and useless goods, export them to other countries to boost your economy, put all of the real anarchists and commnists in prisons, all while the leader lies through his teeth, saying he sticks to the idealogy he has perverted and bastardized. Wow!! this really sounds like communism to me!! Or maybe Stalin was a fascist dictator posing as a communist. Nothing more to it. The man signed a non aggression pact with hitler and killed millions of innocent people. Stalin is to capitalism as Ronald Reagan is to Thomas Paine.

[Felicia]

if you say "comrades unite"(though i must admit i was like this until lately)you are saying "let's cooperate with people that support one of the most horrible exploiter". this is why we should NEVER cooperate with anti working class stalinists.
Comrades can unite and it not be considered a union of stalinists, comrades can unite under marxism and have no fondness for stalinism. And what about "anti working class stalinists", aren't they the ones against child labour? Here aren't you opposing the stalinists that that support slave labour? I don't know.

[new democracy]

felicia, stalin himself used child labor!!!! when i told mazdak about it he said "drastic times need drastic measures". and he justified the anti working class conditions which workers sufferd from in the USSR.

[Felicia]

Quote: from new democracy on 7:04 pm on Oct. 28, 2002
felicia, stalin himself used child labor!!!! when i told mazdak about it he said "drastic times need drastic measures". and he justified the anti working class conditions which workers sufferd from in the USSR.
Stalin was an ass. But in all reality, there must be some suffering in the beginning to bring about prosperity in the end. It's sortof like in Cuba when the fields of agriculture had to be burned down for whatever reason and to aid the guerrillas. In order for the guerrillas to take power and to treat the people fairly, they had to suffer hunger in order to have food. Do you know what I mean? But just to make it clear, I don't support a lot of what Stalin did.


(Edited by felicia at 7:12 pm on Oct. 28, 2002)

[Felicia]

oops, double post

(Edited by felicia at 7:12 pm on Oct. 28, 2002)

[new democracy]

i know sometimes we must have some sacrifies, but what stalin did was anti working class. and the claim "stalin had to industriealized the USSR in an inhuman way is disproved by my comrade redstar, here: http://politics.host.sk/discussion/index.p...ct=ST&f=8&t=109 (http://politics.host.sk/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=109) . and also. read what i said there about his bourgeoisie anti working class theories. and check mazdak and boadicea88 position on the most exploited in our society, the prostitutes. and if you don't know there position it's "shooty shooty".

(Edited by new democracy at 11:21 pm on Oct. 28, 2002)

[Felicia]

Yeah, I took a peak at that. I'd read throught it all but they're mostly long posts and I get tired easily, speaking of being tired.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(sorry)

[Rob]

yeah, Stalin was evil, no question. I do believe in unity among pro-working class ("real", to use such a word) leftists.

[Palmares]

Stalin... the USSR's bourgeois dictator. If you dislike Stalin, try convincing a guy here called 'Cassius Clay'. If you do argue with him, please do not say who refer you to him. I do not want such crap thrown at me.

"Under all conditions well-organized violence seems to him (Stalin) the shortest distance between two points."
Leon Trotsky

[redstar2000]

I agree with ND's general views but I think we ought to make some distinctions.

Some folks become "stalinists" because it is literally the FIRST form of marxism they ever come into contact with (yeah, it's me I'm talking about). Once they learn a few things, they're usually fairly quick to start moving away from it. So I think it would be wrong to "write off" people too quickly, especially if they're young.

Another distinction I think we have to make is between people who are really serious, committed stalinists who are a REAL DANGER to the communist movement...and the folks who are really just "fans" of Joe who post on this site. They're no real danger to anyone and haven't really got past the "rock star" stage of political development. (I admit I was kind of slow not to pick up on this sooner; some of my early posts to this site took them WAY too seriously.)

But, as I say, should there arise again a really serious Stalinist political current, I agree with ND: they're poison and we should keep as far away from them as we can.

[Cassius Clay]

[quote]Quote: from Cthenthar on 1:19 am on Oct. 29, 2002
Stalin... the USSR's bourgeois dictator. If you dislike Stalin, try convincing a guy here called 'Cassius Clay'. If you do argue with him, please do not say who refer you to him. I do not want such crap thrown at me.''

LOL, although I had to admit your make a good undercover agent one day.

[Cassius Clay]

''i will like to start this thread by asking a question: every member that could reply to this thread hates capitalism with all his heart, right? every member that could reply to this thread hates the system that exploit workers, right?''

Right.

''this is why we should NEVER cooperate with stalinism.''

Now my dear comrade this is where we begin to disagree. To begin with there is no such thing as 'Stalinism', so the question is who do you define as a 'Stalinist'? Those that disagree with you on certain policies, those that might go against your ldeology or those that see that whoever is in charge is messing things up and gradually replacing a socialist system with a Capatalist one, they also have the support of the majority of the workers.

If so you are following the ideas of Nikita Khruschev.

More to the point the Marxist-Leninist parties around the world who do support Stalin have far more support from the working classes throughout the world than any other 'Leftist' faction. So the question is are they prepared to cooperate with you?

''if anyone here doesn't know the story, my grandmother lived in poland. after 1,939, she escaped to the USSR along with other jewish refugees, and she stayed there until 1,945. i am probably the only member here that actually know someone that experienced stalinism. she told me this story: in her time in the USSR, she once go to a factory. in some part there was "don't look" sign. when nobody saw, she looked. and she saw that the workers there were children!!!!''

Now is it just possible that your Grandmother has either misunderstood the situation or is only telling a half truth, not to mention the fact that I presume that she told you this recently, which means she saw this 60 years ago (BTW I'm not trying to offend you but as we are studying history here you have to take this into account).

Also I have not heard this before. Another point is that your Grandmother was there during wartime, yes? Is it also possible that these 'children' (they could of been anything from 10 to 16) did this because of a sense of patrotism? Afterall there are plenty of cases of Soviet people making enourmous sacrafices in WW2, why should a 13 year old be any different?

Finally just out of interest where abouts in the SU was your Grandmother? Now I assume east of say the Urals for the reasons that she was a Jewish refugge and she ain't going to be seeing any Soviet factories in the Ukraine.

Bare in mind that the Soveit government introduced 'Adult' punishment in the 1930's for those children above 12 because of a massive hooligan and crime problem, especially with 'youths' (and it happens today in the west, just check some estates here in the south of England, and that's one of the most prosperous areas). This was the generation whose parents had died in Civil War or had moved around due to Collectivisation not to mention the chaos of WW2.

''and what about the inhuman working conditions at his time?''

What 'Inhuman working conditions' are you reffering to? Except in the aftermath of the WW2 the average person had the basic freedom of employment, health care, education, housing minimum wage etc. I have no doubt that to our western eyes in the 21st Century the conditions would seem rather bleak. But compare the 'conditions' of a Soviet worker in 1917 to that of 1937, you see a imense improvment.

Compare this to the 'conditions' at the work place when England Industrialised in the 19th Century. Workers had far more freedom in SU under Stalin than GB under Victoria. Namely the fact that managers and directors COULD NOT sack a worker (if they wanted to they had to prove that he/she was really messing about) like it was a computer game. Infact workers had the right to hold the managers to account.

''i don't see this as different from the way american corporations exploit people in the third world. in the third world they at least don't shoot you if you are late to work. this is why if you declare yourself a stalinist,''

Sorry but can you give me the name ONE person who was shot for turning up late for work? Actually to be more fair just one example or even account of this happening?

For all you Trotskyites I ask you a question. Are you aware that what ND has written is precisly what Trotsky wanted to do? Have you heard of 'Labor Armies' scheme and his call for 'Military discipline'?

A word of advice if you believe in workers democracy stop supporting Trotsky.


BTW you mentioned something about Prositutes. My opinion (and I have stated this before on this forum) is that they are as much exploited workers as a boy stuck in Cambodia. There is no need to 'shoot' them for the simple reason that the problem that causes them to turn to prostitution (poverty caused by Capatalism) will be eliminated.

Obviously if some continue to work/profit from the sex trade then it becomes a more difficult and complex issue. Personally as General Secretary I call everybody from the sociliogists and councillors (well it will give them something to do) to the secret service (obviously those pimps haven't got the message yet)

[redstar2000]

"What is a stalinist"?

That's actually a very good question. People do throw the word around pretty loosely...and they shouldn't.

Stalinism is ONE current of LENINISM. Trotskyism is ANOTHER current of Leninism.

So what we're really talking about is an acceptance or a repudiation of the whole communist tradition of the 20th century...namely, Leninism.

To be blunt, I REPUDIATE Leninism. I think it was a mistake...an attempt to creatively apply Marxism to Russian conditions that DIDN'T WORK.

That's why I find the arguments between Stalinists and Trotskyists so futile and sterile...they are arguing over minor differences in how to apply Leninism, when what really NEEDS to be done is to creatively apply Marxism to the modern world in the 21st century.

I could ramble on about this for a few thousand words if you absolutely insist. But to keep it brief, Lenin had a MILITARY conception of the revolutionary party; the party members were considered the "officer corps" of the proletariat; the central committee its "general staff", and the General Secretary of the Party--however humble his title--was the "Commander-in-Chief".

We can endlessly argue about the details of the careers of Stalin and Trotsky, while missing the main point: the MILITARY MODEL of the revolutionary party SUCKS!

Not only does it not work, it's hell on the membership (I speak from personal experience). We need to do it differently, better. I know that's not easy; a really new path is NEVER easy--that's why it's NEW.

Communism in the 21st century needs a new revolutionary paradigm. I hope I live long enough to see it!

[jpcupp]

i don't suppose any of these guevarists read any of his polemics on stalin, i.e. 80% correct, or hte great many poems he wrote on him, which later i will post that anti-stalinism in its undiscplined form is anti-guevarism,nor to menetion anti-marxist-leninism. i do not except you polemic on child labor based on your family member's eyes, and demand polemical proof. it is interestign to me for people from both the right and "left?" claiming that stalin was a dictoator who held sole control in his hands, and yet to claim his military genious had nothing to do with the deafeat of hitler. how can one say on one hand that a man is responsible for all that happens, which is a point i also dispute, and then to claim him not responsible for all good things. the ussr did not go forma feudal society to the second largest powerhouse on earth and then again after the fascists destroyed it, out of nowere. it is no accident that the soviet union went into decline and capitalism increased after stalin was eliminated. i agree that all socialist should be held to polemical critique, but you analysis of both che, and of stalin is eclectic petty menshavik anarchist and not marixist-leninist.
ps if trotsky was so right how did cuba, china, vietnam,korea,etc create socialism in one or more country?

[peaccenicked]

Stalinists shout all hail the soviet economy. Yankee imperialist shout all hail the US economy. Stalinists are just as shallow as the imperialists.

This is how a Marxist sees things.

Ticktin and the reconstruction of Trotskyism

By the 1970s, the chronic economic stagnation and gross economic inefficiencies of Brezhnev's Russia had become widely recognized. Few ‘sovietologists’ were not now sceptical of the production figures pumped out by the Soviet authorities; and everyone was aware of the long queues for basic necessities and the economic absurdities that seemed to characterize the USSR.

Of course, Trotsky himself had argued that, in the absence of workers' democracy, centralized state planning would lead to waste and economic inefficiency. Yet, for Trotsky, it had been clear that, despite such inefficiencies, bureaucratic planning would necessarily be superior to the anarchy of the market. Yet it was now becoming apparent that the gross inefficiencies and stagnation of the economy of the USSR were of such a scale compared with economic performance in the West that its economic and social system could no longer be considered as being superior to free market capitalism.

In response to these perceptions of the USSR, orthodox Trotskyists, while accepting the inefficiencies of bureaucratic planning, could only argue that the reports of the economic situation in the Soviet Union were exaggerated and obscured its real and lasting achievements. Yet it was a line that not all Trotskyists found easy to defend.

As an academic Marxist specializing in the field of Russian and East European studies, Ticktin was could not ignore the critical analyses of the Soviet Union being developed by both liberal and conservative ‘sovietologists’. In the face of the mounting evidence of the dire state of the Russian economy it was therefore perhaps not so easy for Ticktin to simply defend the standard Trotskyist line. As a result Ticktin came to reject the orthodox Trotskyist theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state and the notion that the Soviet Union was objectively progressive that this theory implied.

However, while he rejected the theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state, Ticktin refused to accept the notion that the USSR was state capitalist. Immersed in the peculiarities of the Soviet Union, Ticktin maintained the orthodox Trotskyist position that state capitalist theories simply projected the categories of capitalism onto the USSR. Indeed, for Ticktin the failure of all Marxist theories of the Soviet Union was that they did not develop out of the empirical realities of the USSR. For Ticktin the task was to develop a Marxist theory of the USSR that was able to grasp the historical peculiarities of the Soviet Union without falling foul of the shallow empiricism of most bourgeois theories of the USSR.

However, in rejecting Trotsky's theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state Ticktin was obliged to undertake a major re-evaluation of Trotsky. After all, alongside his theory of permanent revolution and uneven and combined development, Trotsky's theory of the degenerated workers' state had been seen as central to both Trotsky and Trotskyism. As Cliff's adoption of a theory of state capitalism had shown, a rejection of the theory of a degenerated workers' state could prove problematic for anyone who sought to maintain a consistent Trotskyist position. However, as we shall see, through both his re-evaluation of Trotsky and the development of his theory of the USSR, Ticktin has been able to offer a reconstructed Trotskyism that, by freeing it from its critical support for the Soviet Union, has cut the umbilical cord with a declining Stalinism, providing the opportunity for a new lease of life for Leninism in the post-Stalinist era.

Ticktin and Trotsky's theory of the transitional epoch

For orthodox Trotskyism, the theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state stood alongside both the theory of combined and uneven development and the theory of permanent revolution as one of the central pillars of Trotsky's thought. For Ticktin, however, the key to understanding Trotsky's ideas was the notion of the transitional epoch. Indeed, for Ticktin, the notion of the transitional epoch was the keystone that held the entire structure of Trotsky's thought together, and it was only by fully grasping this notion that his various theories could be adequately understood.

Of course, the notion that capitalism had entered its final stage and was on the verge of giving way to socialism had been commonplace amongst Marxists at the beginning of this century. Indeed, it had been widely accepted by most leading theoreticians of the Second International that, with the emergence of monopoly capitalism in the 1870s, the era of classical capitalism studied by Marx had come to an end. As a result the contradictions between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of wealth were becoming ever more acute and could be only be resolved through the working class coming to power and creating a new socialist society.

Faced with the horrors and sheer barbarity of the first world war, many Marxists had come to the conclusion that capitalism had entered its final stage and was in decline. While nineteenth century capitalism, despite all its faults, had at least served to develop the forces of production at an unprecedented rate, capitalism now seemed to offer only chronic economic stagnation and total war. As capitalism entered its final stage the fundamental question could only be ‘war or revolution’, ‘socialism or barbarism’.

Yet while many Marxists had come to the conclusion that the first world war heralded the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism, Ticktin argues that it was Trotsky who went furthest in drawing out both the theoretical and political implications of this notion of the transitional epoch. Thus, whereas most Marxists had seen the question of transition principally in terms of particular nation-states, Trotsky emphasized capitalism as a world system. For Trotsky, it was capitalism as a world system that, with the first world war, had entered the transitional epoch. From this global perspective there was not some predetermined line of capitalist development which each nation-state had to pass through before it reached the threshold of socialism. On the contrary the development of more backward economies was conditioned by the development of the more advanced nations.

It was to explain how the development of the backward nations of the world were radically reshaped by the existence of more advanced nations that Trotsky developed his theory of combined and uneven development. It was then, on the basis of this theory of combined and uneven development, that Trotsky could come to the conclusion that the contradictions of the transitional epoch would become most acute, not in the most advanced capitalist economies as most Marxists had assumed, but in the more backward nations such as Russia that had yet to make the full transition to capitalism. It was this conclusion that then formed the basis of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in which Trotsky had argued that in a backward country such as Russia it would be necessary for any bourgeois revolution to develop at once into a proletarian revolution.

Thus, whereas most Marxists had assumed the revolution would break out in the most advanced capitalist nations and, by destroying imperialism, would spread to the rest of the world, Trotsky, through his notion of the transitional epoch, had come to the conclusion that the revolution was more likely to break out in the more backward nations. Yet Trotsky had insisted that any such proletarian revolution could only be successful if it served to spark proletarian revolution in the more advanced nations. Without the aid of revolutions in these more advanced nations any proletarian revolution in a backward country could only degenerate.

Hence Trotsky was later able to explain the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. The failure of the revolutionary movements that swept across Europe following the end of the first world war had left the Russian Revolution isolated. Trapped within its own economic and cultural backwardness and surrounded by hostile capitalist powers, the Russian workers' state could only degenerate. With this then we have the basis of Trotsky's theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state.

Yet the importance of Trotsky's notion of transitional epoch was not only that it allowed Trotsky to grasp the problems of transition on a world scale, but also that it implied the possibility that this transition could be a prolonged process. If proletarian revolutions were more likely at first to break out in less advanced countries it was possible that there could be several such revolutions before the contradictions within the more advanced nations reached such a point to ensure that such revolutionary outbreaks would lead to a world revolution. Further, as happened with the Russian Revolution, the isolation and subsequent degeneration of proletarian revolutions in the periphery could then serve to discredit and thereby retard the revolutionary process in the more advanced capitalist nations.

However, Ticktin argues that Trotsky failed to draw out such implications of his notion of the transitional epoch. As a result Trotsky severely underestimated the capacity of both social democracy and Stalinism in forestalling world revolution and the global transition to socialism. Armed with the hindsight of the post-war era, Ticktin has sought to overcome this failing in the thought of his great teacher.

For Ticktin then, the first world war indeed marked the beginning of the transitional epoch, an epoch in which there can be seen a growing struggle between the law of value and the immanent law of planning. With the Russian Revolution, and the revolutionary wave that swept Europe from 1918-24, the first attempt was made to overthrow capitalism on a world scale. With the defeat of the revolutionary wave in Europe and the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, capitalism found the means to prolong itself. In the more advanced capitalist nations, under the banner of social democracy, a combination of concessions to the working class and the nationalization of large sections of industry allowed capitalism to contain the sharpening social conflicts brought about by the heightening of its fundamental contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of wealth.

Yet these very means to prevent communism have only served to undermine capitalism in the longer term. Concessions to the working class, for example the development of a welfare state, and the nationalization of large sections of industry have served to restrict and, as Radical Chains put it, ‘partially suspend’ the operation of the law of value. With its basic regulatory principle - the law of value - being progressively made non-operational, capitalism is ultimately doomed. For Ticktin, even the more recent attempts by Thatcher and ‘neo-liberalism’ to reverse social democracy and re-impose the law of value over the last two decades can only be short lived. The clearest expression of this is the huge growth of parasitical finance capital whose growth can ultimately only be at the expense of development truly productive industrial capital.

As for Russia, Ticktin accepts Trotsky's position that the Russian Revolution overthrew capitalism and established a workers' state, and that with the failure of the revolutionary wave the Russian workers' state had degenerated. However, unlike Trotsky, Ticktin argues that with the triumph of Stalin in the 1930s the USSR ceased to be a workers' state. With Stalin the bureaucratic elite had taken power. Yet, unable to move back to capitalism without confronting the power of the Russian working class, and unable and unwilling to move forward socialism since this would undermine the elite's power and privileges, the USSR became stuck half-way between capitalism and socialism.

As a system that was nether fish nor foul - neither capitalism or socialism - the USSR was an unviable system. A system that could only preserve the gains of the October Revolution by petrifying them; and it was a system that could only preserve itself through the terror of the Gulag and the secret police.

Yet it was such a monstrous system that presented itself as being socialist and demanded the allegiance of large sections of the world's working class. As such it came to discredit socialism, and, through the dominance of Stalinism, cripple the revolutionary working class movement throughout the world for more than five decades. Thus, although the USSR served to restrict the international operation of the law of value by removing millions from the world market, particularly following the formation of the Eastern bloc and the Chinese Revolution, it also served to prolong the transitional epoch and the survival of capitalism.

By drawing out Trotsky's conception of the transitional epoch in this way, Tictkin attempted finally to cut the umbilical between Trotskyism and a declining Stalinism. Ticktin is thereby able to offer a reconstructed Trotskyism that is free to denounce unequivocally both Stalinism and the USSR. As we shall now see, in doing so Ticktin is led to both exalt Trotsky's theoretical capacities and pinpoint his theoretical weaknesses.

[Libertarius]

Stalin is to communism, as the Bush Admin. is to democracy!

[jpcupp]

peacceniked, you then do not see that stalinism is not breznevism, that with krushchev their was a coup, a break. i will demenstrate later that revision occured with kruschev, and that anti-stalinism was the excuse for departing from the revolutionary road.anti-stalinism, is a way of discrediting the first socialist nation on earth with laws making rascism illegal, no unemployment,universal health care, homelessness was unheard of,end to sexism, end to russian chauvenism over the other republics. stalin was the intellectual inspiration for w.e.b. dubois,che, mao, ho, hoxha,kim il-sung, claudia jones, paul robeson, and others.stalinism is not stalinism, but the continueation of marxist-leninism applied the era, and conditions. stalin was a military genious, guiding the partisan forces to victory in a war agqainst hitler.he did not make d peace with hitler when he did as an act of subverting revolution, but he new that the russian were badly illequiped and out industrialized by the germans and japanese. this gave him two valueable years for rapid industrialization, knowing a fight was coming, but insisting one not fight an enemy on the enemy's terms until needed. stalin lent his
wisdom to the spanish, chinese, and korean liberation struggles,as well as the anti-fascist united front in bulgaria, yugoslavia,albania,germany,hungary,poland,
czechloslavakia, and others. had the spanih anarchists and trots temporarily joined with the liberal bourgeisie against franco instead of fighting them they would probably have found victory. stalin like, lenin and marx before him, recognized that revolution is a two stage thing and prolonged, one must have a liberal bourgeise revolution befre a socialist one. stalin theorized a great bulk of the national liberation movmenet tactics and stradegies that would effect the next two tothree decades after his death. even now stalin is partly responsible for the tactics of many armed revolutionary groups,even those that completely reject his ideolology.

[peaccenicked]

I know that myth already. That is pure Stalinist propaganda. There was no first socialist State. That is a
Lie.
I dont think you answered ANY the points in my previous post.
I dont want anymore your brainless crap.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:42 am on Oct. 30, 2002)

[genniva]

Eh rebyata, a Russian would say --

now, I was born a citizen of the USSR, even if it was during the Brezhnevist decline. So I suppose my knowledge, and the stories my Grandma told me, are as firsthand as it can get. After all, Josif died way back in 1953.

Stalin was the worst enemy of his own people. Anyone with an intimate knowledge of Russian/Soviet history would tell you so.

Even before the Great Fatherland War, as the Soviet historians dubbed WWII, the Generalissimus (a former student of theology, he had never served in any military forces but he appointed himself the supreme commander of the Red Army) made a clean sweep among the upper ranks of his military. His brilliant agricultural plan reduced Soviet Union to buying grain from the USA for years and decades afterward: everyone who had worked themselves up and had a real interest in cultivating their land was proclaimed a 'kulak', meaning an individualist farmer almost like a feudal lord, and carted off to try and produce some crops in Siberia, women, children, the whole (often extended) family.

Yes, he managed to win that war. But how much easier had it been if he hadn't court-martialled Russia's best strategists, Russia's most charismatic generals, if he hadn't scared away or killed off Russia's most talented engineers and decimated the workforce in general? Also, during the war, he re-embraced the Russian Orthodox church (the original Leninists had been militant atheists), so soldiers again went to the front to die for God, father Stalin, and Mother Russia! (Oh well . . . in WW I they died for the Tsar instead of dear Father of Nations . . . big difference?) And his love for the Church faded again on Victory Day in May 10th, 1945.

After the war, Stalin became increasingly paranoid. As a winner, in Potsdam, his ambitions were as Imperialist as they could get. He received nice large pieces of Europe although very few people in those territories wished to join Stalin's Soviet Union. In the lands he managed to grab, he carried out ethnic cleansing in a much more effective way than Hitler did. (For those of you who have benefited from philosophy courses: remember Immanuel Kant who used to walk the seven bridges of Königsberg? This once Prussian/German town is called Kaliningrad, now, and no one in the city or in its vicinity speaks anything but Army Russian. Guess what happened there?) Many Russians, honest Russian Marxists not a minority among them, were shot or sent to serve many years in a concentration camp no better than Hitler's (however, Stalin didn't need gas. He had the Siberian winters) just because they attempted to do what they considered their duty as Communists or as human beings. Many more joined them for laughing or even coughing at the wrong moment, or just because someone with connections in the KGB wanted their apartment (housing shortage always follows a war).

Kolkhoz and sovkhoz workers, collective farmers, received passports as late as 1956. As the Soviet militia was eager to check papers on the streets and you had to present a passport even to buy a train ticket, those farmers were, during Stalin's time, still de facto serfs unable to leave the land they had to work. First, a Party instructor would arrive from Moscow, telling them that all Soviet farmers plant their summer crops, say, on 15th of March. So they had to plant these crops on this day regardless of drought or snow. However, if nothing came up (try planting wheat in knee-deep snow and see if something does come up), they were accused of sabotaging the great Soviet effort -- and some of them actually made it through the Siberian concentration camps unless they were summarily shot by the Party instructor at the place where they perpetrated their crime.

Khrushchev just tried to normalize things, to make a self-sustaining state of free persons out of this inhuman malfunctioning machine, but he was deposed by a conservative faction (mostly military btw) who wanted to re-establish their own authoritative version of Feudalism.

The Soviet Union I was born in was a curious Oligarchic cross between Bureaucracy and Feudalism. Gaining power, Gorbachev launched his first campaign against alcoholism -- do you think it was accidental? No one had hopes or wishes. Everyone was drinking: to forget, to cease thought. No one was working. Papers were everything, people didn't count. Mikhail Gorbachev probably was the first true Communist in power after Lenin died (he travelled all through the Soviet Union, he took an interest in what the people were thinking, he actually TALKED to people in the streets) --

But, as I was born in a small Soviet Republic, in fact in a land Stalin took by threats and brute force: I know why I consider Stalin the worst enemy of his people and of Communism. See, Estonia, my country, was an independent Capitalist state before WW II. As any Capitalist state would, especially with bright new workers' Russia just across the border, it had its own local Communists. Our Capitalist government imprisoned them for various crimes (disseminating Communist ideas was a most serious crime those days). As the Soviets had also caught some people the Capitalist Estonian Republic considered important, an exchange of prisoners was negotiated. It was to take place at a small border station called Irboska in early December, 1937.

Several witnesses, among them the only Communist who happened to survive (she turned and ran to the Estonian guards and pleaded to be taken back to prison) say the Soviets released their prisoners as agreed before. So did the Estonian guards. Then, when the Estonian Communists had advanced far enough, the Soviets started to shoot, not at their former prisoners but at their comrades hopefully walking towards what they thought to be freedom --

Our Soviet-era history books made much of those first Estonian Communists. There were their pictures and their names and the years of their birth and death. An awful lot of them had died in 1937. Officially, we were given no explanation.

So I write this post in the name of:
Jaan Anvelt -- 1898--1937
Hans Pöögelmann -- 1875--1937
Jaan Tomp -- 1895--1937
Julie Tellmann -- 1893--1937
and at least twenty others (Soviet Estonian Encyclopaedia too far at the moment).

Maybe these brave men and women can tell you from beyond their unmarked graves why Stalin the Mass Murderer of Irboska was the worst enemy of Communism, huh?