Joe Stalin

[Comrade Corinna]

First of all:
Was Stalin a real Communist? I would say, fuck no, he was a murderous power loving asshole. What I mean was, how much of a communist was he? Did he really believe in government by the proletariat, because it seemed more like he just wanted to screw everything up, and kill everybody. Lenin, who was a real Communist, hated his guts as you know.
However, some may argue that Stalin was a great leader for making the Soviet Union the world power that it was.

My other question... is not based on a whole lot of fact, more of a "he said, she said, she read somewhere on the internet that somebody else said..." kind of thing.
It is rumored that Stalin was involved in I guess 1920's "porn" and would have sex with teenage girls and take pictures of it. Also, that Soviet women were infatuated with him and sent him love letters, begging him for sex? Is this true?

[Led Zeppelin]

Lenin, who was a real Communist, hated his guts as you know.


No he didn't.


It is rumored that Stalin was involved in I guess 1920's "porn" and would have sex with teenage girls and take pictures of it. Also, that Soviet women were infatuated with him and sent him love letters, begging him for sex? Is this true?

Tabloid nonsense.

Stalin made some mistakes, one of them being not doing what Lenin "wanted".

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 16 2005, 10:25 PM

Lenin, who was a real Communist, hated his guts as you know.


No he didn't.



Really?
I learned in history class in high school that Stalin and Lenin hated eachother... but then again, school history classes do teach a lot of bullshit when it has to do with communism.

Is the image of Stalin as "evil" a misconception?

[Roses in the Hospital]

It is rumored that Stalin was involved in I guess 1920's "porn" and would have sex with teenage girls and take pictures of it. Also, that Soviet women were infatuated with him and sent him love letters, begging him for sex? Is this true?

Haha! I've never heard this before, I don't know anything about Stalin's home porn, but I'd guess that with a personality cult as strong as his he would have been something of a sex symbol, in the same way that Hitler was.
Being serious for a moment however, Stalin was a paranoind megolamaniac, and even though he did do great things for Russia in terms of making her a superpower, in my opinion it didn't justify the blood that was spilt...

[Led Zeppelin]

Really?

Yes, I can find many quotes of Lenin praising Stalin, and even more of Stalin praising Lenin, both pre and post-revolution.


I learned in history class in high school that Stalin and Lenin hated eachother... but then again, school history classes do teach a lot of bullshit when it has to do with communism.


It is best to just forget what they teach you about Communism, it's basically not true.


Is the image of Stalin as "evil" a misconception?

Yes, he was not "evil", just wrong.

[Comrade Corinna]

HITLER was a sex symbol???

That's disgusting. I mean, I see how he spread all the Nazi-Fascist propaganda to all his mindless drones, but he was not even the least remotely attractive! And didnt he only have one testicle or something?

Stalin, at least, wasn't bad looking.... but Hitler, he was nasty. Then again, what can you say about the taste of Nazi women

[Morpheus]

I don't think Stalin was a communist. Or, if he was, his version of "communism" has little to do with the kind I advocate. However, I think it's more important to focus on the social conditions that led to Stalin's rule and the associated problems rather than just demonizing the man.

Most Soviet women weren't fans of Stalin. Most Soviet women were peasants displaced by his collectivization program, and they literally thought he was the anti-christ and that collectivization was the beginning of armageddon. See the book Peasant Rebels under Stalin by Lynne Viola. Dr. Viola is a professional historian & I believe a leftist, her book is based on research in the Soviet archives. However, some people did buy into Stalin's cult of personality so it would not surprise me if some women fantasized about sleeping with him (some gay men probably fantasized about it too).

This is the first time I've heard of these Stalin porn allegations. They sound like the kind of smear capitalists would make up. If there was actual evidence supporting the allegation it would probably be more widespread given how much Stalin is demonized in the West. So, I think they're probably false but I'm not 100% sure of that.

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 16 2005, 10:33 PM



Is the image of Stalin as "evil" a misconception?


Yeah I know, my post just got messed up, I edited it. Sorry about that

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Socialist Corinna+Oct 16 2005, 06:30 PM--> (Socialist Corinna @ Oct 16 2005, 06:30 PM)
Marxism-[email protected] 16 2005, 10:25 PM

Lenin, who was a real Communist, hated his guts as you know.


No he didn't.



Really?
I learned in history class in high school that Stalin and Lenin hated eachother... but then again, school history classes do teach a lot of bullshit when it has to do with communism.

Is the image of Stalin as "evil" a misconception? [/b]
if he hated stalin, lenin as the head of the party wouldnt have let him get so far up

[Technique3055]

Stalin could've gone down in history as the greatest leader ever. Even with purging his own army, labor camps, massive humans rights violations, and being involved in the biggest war this world has seen, he STILL created an incredible industrialization of Russia. Without him, the Nazis definately would've won WW2. Yes, it's true, he was a pure asshole, and he made a good number of mistakes. Bad ones at that.

But even with all of that, look at what he still managed to do.

As for the sex things, they seem like ridiculous claims to me, but I couldn't be sure.

[Hiero]

It is rumored that Stalin was involved in I guess 1920's "porn" and would have sex with teenage girls and take pictures of it. Also, that Soviet women were infatuated with him and sent him love letters, begging him for sex? Is this true?

Why would you even say this? It is not even worth discussing, did you just make it up?


Most Soviet women were peasants

Yet again another stupid post. So does that mean most men were urban proleteriat?

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:38 AM

It is rumored that Stalin was involved in I guess 1920's "porn" and would have sex with teenage girls and take pictures of it. Also, that Soviet women were infatuated with him and sent him love letters, begging him for sex? Is this true?

Why would you even say this? It is not even worth discussing, did you just make it up?


Most Soviet women were peasants

Yet again another stupid post. So does that mean most men were urban proleteriat?
I told you, it was not something I believed, or made up, or found out myself. I said that I HEARD it was RUMORED. So basically I was saying "my friend said that his friend found on the internet that Stalin was sex crazed... is there any truth to this?" Im not saying "Ooooh I bet Stalin was one sex animal who liked porn! Is that true? Please tell me its true!" So, yeah... dont shoot the messenger.

the other thing, I didnt even say that!

[*PRC*Kensei]

i mainly think stalin shout have...died of something afther world war two, his task for the world whas done. afther that he only gave us a bad name :(

[workersunity]

I have a good post on this subject on my myspace, check it out, its just a shame that stalin didnt die earlier, he was reactionary scum

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't know if it was the revisionists who were responsible for the plight of Russia or Josep Stalin himself.

In all I disreguard Stalinism altogether, because it was baseless theoretically and only a product of extreme despirate impoverished objective conditions.

[danny android]

About lenin and stalin, lenin did not want stalin to become the head of the russian party and strongly warned against it, lenin's first choice was trotsky. Stalin however interveened in this by using his power to exile trotsky to siberia. So I don't know if you could say that lenin hated stalin but I think you could say he didn't like him that much.

As for stalin as a leader, any sane man could have done better. Stalin was a genocidal maniac and a paranoid schitsophrenic. He killed 10 million of his own people. I wouldn't be suprised if he was involved in child porn. But I don't believe it. (based on the fact that it is just a rumor)

[bezdomni]

Lenin was a hardcore perfectionist, and that would alienate him from his friends a lot. Both Stalin and Trotsky were very good friends of Lenin, but they would always get into fights, usually because they did something wrong that pissed Lenin off. By the end of Lenin's life, he thought that Stalin would be too rude and abrasive to be General Secretary, so he wanted Trotsky to take the position (even though he originally sided with the mensheviks).

Many Stalinists have claimed that we should disregaurd Lenin's will because he was starting to go out of his mind after he had his strokes. Their basis for this is that Lenin's widow was a supporter of Stalin.

[Led Zeppelin]

About lenin and stalin, lenin did not want stalin to become the head of the russian party and strongly warned against it, lenin's first choice was trotsky.

This is basically not true: Lenin's "Will" (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000).

[CrazyModerate]

I'm not a fan of corrupt tyrants myself.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:43 AM
I'm not a fan of corrupt tyrants myself.
I thought that corruption exploded after Stalin's death and that the bureaucracy was kept in check when he was alive. That's been my simplistic (and admittedly not very well read) view.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by fats+Oct 18 2005, 03:16 AM--> (fats @ Oct 18 2005, 03:16 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 02:43 AM
I'm not a fan of corrupt tyrants myself.
I thought that corruption exploded after Stalin's death and that the bureaucracy was kept in check when he was alive. That's been my simplistic (and admittedly not very well read) view. [/b]
Well thats why I've never been a fan of the Soviet Union.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:16 AM
I thought that corruption exploded after Stalin's death and that the bureaucracy was kept in check when he was alive. That's been my simplistic (and admittedly not very well read) view.
Interesting haven't heard that one before. Anyone care to elabourate how Stalin was a crusader against the Bureaucracy?

[ComradeOm]

It is true that the rampant corruption that later brought down the USSR didn't exist in the days of Stalin or, to a slightly lesser degree, Khrushchev. As for the bureaucracy, well in one sense Stalin was the champion of bureaucracy but at a higher political level it may have been less stiffling due to his complete control of the political scene. If Stalin told you to get something done you didn't worry about filling in forms.

[tatu]

All this reminds me of TROTSKYISM OR LENINISM? by Stalin. He (JS) goes on about how Trotsky was creeping over to the "social- chauvinists", to quote Lenin, and claiming a hero status for himself. Trotsky fought in the October uprising but only carried out his duties, the duties that were assigned to all the revolutionaries by the CC, and, apparently, never carried out a prominent role in the civil war. Stalin then says that Trotsky and other "social-chauvinists" were spreading rumours that the Central Committee was, initially, opposed to the October uprising. Those present at the CC meeting (the one where they were supposed to have slagged of the uprising) were: Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Dzerzhinsky, Kollontai, Bubnov, Sokolnikov, Lomov. Only two people voted against the uprising.

Also, here a couple of quotes of Lenin slagging off Trotsky:

"In Russia Trotsky, while also rejecting this idea, also defends unity with the opportunist and chauvinist Nasha Zarya group" from Socialism and War

"As we have already said, neither the Liquidators, nor a number of groups abroad (those of Plekhanov, Alexinsky. Trotsky and others), nor the so-called “national” (i.e., non-Great Russian) Social-Democrats have recognised our Conference of January 1911." from Socialism and War

[OleMarxco]

Arr, tarr, back to old times! Bash Schtalin, Bash Bosh, Bash Trotsky, Lenin and that little Cretin! And Bash Ole Kristian Basch! PROTECT A FELLOW COMRADE FROM SECRETARIANISM.....OOH, MOTHERLAND RUSSIA....Y'right, all our cause has to look back to United Soviet Socialist Russia, and never learn of mistakes, never form own history ;)

And at that, SCHTALIN? Heck, I don't want to protect no dubious guy with a moustache! Neither anyone else. Lenin, Trotsky, who gives a shit? This is no personality CULT! Knock that shit off. And those people usin' energy on
hackin' at other's pro-Stalin or anti-Stalin view's, get somethin' to do, ya? :D

As for my self, personally, I don't go around usin' much time on polishin' my view's on previous revolutionary's - maybe teach what my hold of it is to other keed's - more 'bout what's necessary. Than what I think about everyone - 'tho some people who live today, need some warnin'gainst, 'nuff said 'bout Bush and Avakian. But what I won't do, is to tell that the individuals - vanguard - of the revolution is more important than the CAUSE. As this indirectly implies.......there's spoken of issues sometimes, too, but nothin' near the person-worshippin' - or atleast talkin'bout 'em alot more than what's important. Cause...and Effect, to the benefit of regular Jane's and Joe's (Not Stalin) -àrfaQuas :ph34r:

[viva le revolution]

I personally am a supporter of Stalin and believe that what he did was good for the soviet union. There is no real; concrete arguement against his policies and objectives that can be backed up by proof. Just simplistic statements from an infantile perspective.
As for whether he was communist or not, What do you think? He was a communist, he gained power after the coiunter-revolution had been crushed, keep in mind that at that point the economic survival of the soviet union was the crucial point, not counting the fact that only when the soviet economy was robust enough, could foriegn revolutions be supported.
However anybody with a rational arguement is welcome to debate on Stalin.

[danny android]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 18 2005, 08:47 PM
There is no real; concrete arguement against his policies and objectives that can be backed up by proof
Not backed up by any proof?... How about history, or maybe 10 million graves?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:51 AM
Trotsky fought in the October uprising but only carried out his duties, the duties that were assigned to all the revolutionaries by the CC, and, apparently, never carried out a prominent role in the civil war.
Trotsky was head of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War so he obviously had a very prominent role.

[tatu]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Oct 19 2005, 01:28 AM--> (Morpheus @ Oct 19 2005, 01:28 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 11:51 AM
Trotsky fought in the October uprising but only carried out his duties, the duties that were assigned to all the revolutionaries by the CC, and, apparently, never carried out a prominent role in the civil war.
Trotsky was head of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War so he obviously had a very prominent role.[/b]

Silly me, here's me getting ahead myself. When I say prominent, I mean prominent in the context of a special role. To quote Stalin: "he merely carried out the will of the appropriate Party bodies".

"I am far from denying Trotsky's undoubtedly important role in the uprising. I must say, however, that Trotsky did not play any special role in the October uprising, nor could he do so; being chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, he merely carried out the will of the appropriate Party bodies, which directed every step that Trotsky took. To philistines like Sukhanov, all this may seem strange, but the facts, the true facts, wholly and fully confirm what I say."

"Is not all this somewhat "strange," as Sukhanov, or the Trotskyites, would say? And yet, strictly speaking, there is nothing strange about it, for neither in the Party, nor in the October uprising, did Trotsky play any special role, nor could he do so, for he was a relatively new man in our Party in the period of October. He, like all the responsible workers, merely carried out the will of the Central Committee and of its organs. Whoever is familiar with the mechanics of Bolshevik Party leadership will have no difficulty in understanding that it could not be otherwise: it would have been enough for Trotsky to have gone against the will of the Central Committee to have been deprived of influence on the course of events. This talk about Trotsky's special role is a legend that is being spread by obliging "Party" gossips."

"This, of course, does not mean that the October uprising did not have its inspirer. It did have its inspirer and leader, but this was Lenin, and none other than Lenin, that same Lenin whose resolutions the Central Committee adopted when deciding the question of the uprising, that same Lenin who, in spite of what Trotsky says, was not prevented by being in hiding from being the actual inspirer of the uprising. It is foolish and ridiculous to attempt now, by gossip about Lenin having been in hiding, to obscure the indubitable fact that the inspirer of the uprising was the leader of the Party, V. I. Lenin."

By Stalin (From TROTSKYISM OR LENINISM? (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TL24.html))

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 18 2005, 10:48 PM
Not backed up by any proof?... How about history, or maybe 10 million graves?
10 million graves is understandable if done for the right reasons. Stalin however simply purged those he suspected of treason in his paranoia. Compare with the blood on Lenin's hands.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 18 2005, 10:48 PM

Not backed up by any proof?... How about history, or maybe 10 million graves?
History written by whom? Khruschev? Gorbachev? The U.S.A perhaps?
Yes ten million graves magically appeared after Stalin died, not counting the deaths occuring from the imperialist invasion, or the Baltic revolutions, Or the numerous famines that hit Russia, or the Kulaks that militarily opposed collectivization nacessary for the development of Russia's industrial base. That by the way, allowed Russia to withstand fascist occupation.
Stalin admitted his mistakes before his death, like the bad advice given to Mao and the chinese etc. The sign of a true megalomaniac.
Danny i have the utmost respect for you, please i expect rational debate from you.

[danny android]

Sorry, I guess I do not agree with the bolshevick way of doing things, so I am a little biased on the issue of Stalin. I will however still argue that the mass murders caused by Stalin can not be over looked just because he made the USSR into a super power or because he apologized later. Hitler like Stalin took the country that he led out of a great depression and made it into a world power, also like Stalin, Hitler killed millions of people. I can not say that millions of deaths are worth creating a "communist" state, that is the kind of logic that nazi's use. (not meaning to offend anybody by relating stalinist thinking to nazi's, it's just how I see it)

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Socialist Corinna+Oct 17 2005, 11:48 AM--> (Socialist Corinna @ Oct 17 2005, 11:48 AM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 12:38 AM

It is rumored that Stalin was involved in I guess 1920's "porn" and would have sex with teenage girls and take pictures of it. Also, that Soviet women were infatuated with him and sent him love letters, begging him for sex? Is this true?

Why would you even say this? It is not even worth discussing, did you just make it up?


Most Soviet women were peasants

Yet again another stupid post. So does that mean most men were urban proleteriat?
I told you, it was not something I believed, or made up, or found out myself. I said that I HEARD it was RUMORED. So basically I was saying "my friend said that his friend found on the internet that Stalin was sex crazed... is there any truth to this?" Im not saying "Ooooh I bet Stalin was one sex animal who liked porn! Is that true? Please tell me its true!" So, yeah... dont shoot the messenger.

the other thing, I didnt even say that! [/b]
Then why even brin it up.

Yeah i know that you didn't say the other thing, sorry.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 21 2005, 12:02 AM
. I will however still argue that the mass murders caused by Stalin can not be over looked just because he made the USSR into a super power or because he apologized later. Hitler like Stalin took the country that he led out of a great depression and made it into a world power, also like Stalin, Hitler killed millions of people. I can not say that millions of deaths are worth creating a "communist" state, that is the kind of logic that nazi's use. (not meaning to offend anybody by relating stalinist thinking to nazi's, it's just how I see it)
Who said that he committed mass murders? Khruschev the revisionist who made this claim in his secret speech, committing character assasination against Stalin to sideline the marxist-leninist lobby in the politburo, allowing his revisionist faction to take over. This was a major cause of the sino-soviet split. As usch biographers and the media take for granted that Stalin was crazy or evil and try to legitimize their claims by only citing this reasoning.
What political sense does it make for Stalin to commit mass murders for no apparent reason. Again the reasoning adopted by many to criticize Mao. Any concievable reason would do. Hitler's reason was race hatred, Stalin's reason for committing mass murder is not known or acknowledged, save the close-minded arguement that he was insane.
As for whther the deaths occured, againwhat about the fascist invasion, the natural famines across Russia, or the baltic struggles, etc. etc. The proponents of the claim that Stalin killed millions for no apparent reason, fail to acknowledge that it is a possibility that these incidences had a part to play in the body count.
Such propaganda against Stalin is so child-like, perfectly exhibited in the HBO movie of Stalin. Where the only criticism that is made is about Stalin's personality, never his theory or reason. At that time even Khruschev could not criticize Stalin's reasoning and theory, just his personality, and of course the U.S which is just simple-minded character assasination, without taking into account material reality. His crimes are still not proven to be committed by him directly, only the silent assumption that he was insane and thus no furthur arguement is needed.

[norwegian commie]

Lenin, who was a real Communist, hated his guts as you know.




No he didn't.





Really?
I learned in history class in high school that Stalin and Lenin hated eachother... but then again, school history classes do teach a lot of bullshit when it has to do with communism.



Lenin didnt hate stalin, he praised him and said he was an exelent marxist.
but lenin warned about him and said that throtsky was the one.
and you cant belive your school books, they are full of lies and right wing propaganda. try too find out what communism is inn your school books, its all bullshit.

[danny android]

Who said that he committed mass murders? Khruschev the revisionist who made this claim in his secret speech, committing character assasination against Stalin to sideline the marxist-leninist lobby in the politburo, allowing his revisionist faction to take over.

Again this is nearly nazi like thinking to sugest that a historicle fact never occured and that the only reason for it's existance is media hype. The nazi's blame the jews and the stalinists blame revisionists like Khrushev. People still have numbers on there arms from concintration camps because of hitler, and Ukranian wemon still have memories of there parents being murdered because of Stalin.


What political sense does it make for Stalin to commit mass murders for no apparent reason.

The obvious one to me is to place fear into the hearts of the masses. When people fear you it is a lot easier to control them. Stalin knew this and that is why so many died because of him. He maid many people who did not agree with him "examples" because of this many feared him, therefore many did not turn against him.


As for whther the deaths occured, againwhat about the fascist invasion, the natural famines across Russia, or the baltic struggles, etc. etc.

Ok, I do exept that the possibility that the numbers have been a little exagerated possibly because of these events. However, you can not deny that he was responsible for many of the deaths of his own citizens.


His crimes are still not proven to be committed by him directly

As if any authoritarian dictator commits murders himself? I think they usually send their secret police out to do something like that.


Such propaganda against Stalin is so child-like,

the defense of or any admoration people have for stalin is childlike.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 22 2005, 03:28 PM


Again this is nearly nazi like thinking to sugest that a historicle fact never occured and that the only reason for it's existance is media hype. The nazi's blame the jews and the stalinists blame revisionists like Khrushev. People still have numbers on there arms from concintration camps because of hitler, and Ukranian wemon still have memories of there parents being murdered because of Stalin.



The obvious one to me is to place fear into the hearts of the masses. When people fear you it is a lot easier to control them. Stalin knew this and that is why so many died because of him. He maid many people who did not agree with him "examples" because of this many feared him, therefore many did not turn against him.



Ok, I do exept that the possibility that the numbers have been a little exagerated possibly because of these events. However, you can not deny that he was responsible for many of the deaths of his own citizens.



As if any authoritarian dictator commits murders himself? I think they usually send their secret police out to do something like that.



the defense of or any admoration people have for stalin is childlike.
1. I am not denying the deaths did not occur, but to blame them on Stalin alone? That to say that stalin killed them out of a fear of losing power or that he was insane is an assumption many historians take based on proganda and depiction by western historians. It was easy to round up the body-count of millions and then blame stalin for them. The deaths did occur, but due to a wide multitude of reasons, eg. the fascist invasion. to again blame that on stalin is not thinking rationally. To compare Stalin to Hitler-itself is childlike. Nazi's blamed the Jews based on race hatred, and an open policy by the nazi government. Stalin joined the communist movement at age fifteen, and furthurmore, if he eliminated all political opponents, how in hell did the revisionists take over after that with a marxist-lenninist body still strong in the politburo. How come Khruschev did not consult with other communist leaders at the time. How come every communist movement was surprised and shocked at that sppeech. including the CPUSA which had direct dealings with Stalin and direct correspondence or the Chinese for that matter. Yes Hitler had concentration camps whose inmates qualified simply because they were jews, slavs and russians, What concentration camps did Stalin have? and on what basis were people sent there?
Allow me to elaborate: Khruschev came up with his denunciation of Stalin to sideline the marxist-leninist lobby in the politburo, whose figurehead was still Stalin and who claimed to uphold Stalin's ideals. You are free to see the speech is you like, you will find not ONE criticism of stalin's theory, just his personality and private life, and that is taken to be fact by pro-west historians.
During world war2, when hitler invaded Russia, there were pockets of pro-fascist elements, just as there were pockets of pro-soviet elements in the nazi leadership. Both had different ways of dealing with them most notable, Niedermayer. Germany killed theirs, Stalin transported them deeper into the soviet union to dissuade them from joining the nazi forces and bolstering support from local populations. These transportations took place only during the war years. Many claim that these forceful transportations continued even after the war years, as yet still have to come up with evidence or documentations, you are free to try as well.
As far as the Ukrarians go, it is historical fact that ukrarian nazis were the most rabid, large pockets of the ukararians were pro-fascist. This is also documented extensively and also attested to by various historians such as Jakob Kersten. Again i will remind you the jews had numbers on their arms, but in Stalins case, they are only stories. As yet no actual evidence, save testaments from dissidents such as Sakharov and Trotsky.
This is not nazi thinking, it is rational thinking, look beyond the propaganda and investigate for yourself. It is not all black and white, every thing must have reason or basis behind it. As such Khruschev did not supply any nor have western historians.

2. Possible, but it's pnly that mere contemplation as to it 'might have been' yet you place your entire confidence on that assumption. Again, i will ask you, if Stalin was such a bastard, why did china and most of the other communist regimes of that time disagree with Khruschev and distance themselves from the Soviet leadership. Again i commend you for your thinking processes but it's all it is, just thinking. Why didn't the whole international communist movement not breathe a sigh of relief that Stalin, why did it lead to division and conflict? Most of all, if Khruschev was so antagonistic to Stalin, why wasn't he one of those killed supposedly by Stalin?

3. I am not here to prove Stalin a blameless angel, no leader is. Other factors do play a part however, that lead to those decisions. The real triumph of knowledge is acknowledging their existence and looking at the whole picture, under what circumstances were they carried out. etc. etc. Simply resigning the arguement with mere statements that stalin was evil is only petit-bourgeois childishness and divorcing yourself from reality and reason. Again my point, find out for yourself don't rely on textbooks or simple hearsay to form your opinions and beliefs. Again, as communists and anarchists it is our duty to find out truth rationally.and argue on a rational basis as well.

4. Again you are relyinmg on word games to futhur your case, When i meant directly, as in ordered by stalin himself, like i said other causes may have added to the body count. Have you any evidence that the opposite is true? If so, why hasn't anybody come out with it. Save the arguement that he was 'insane'. a convenient arguement to quell any rational debate.

5. Yes win your debate with a cheap shot at the end. I did not expect this from you of all people. I have come out with my best to form a rational arguement, all i hear from your end are one-line statements and smileys, ended with cheap-shots. Again you are quelling the debate. Who is childish you tell me. Okay,i'll humour you, if admiration for stalin is childlike, you are basically negating the capabilities of all previous communist movements. including the person you claim to uphold, Che Guevara. If stalin was such a bastard then Guevara was child-like, right?
Lets bash Castro too while we are at it.
Let me conclude by asking you, what rational arguement have you presented save for history book drivel and one-line statements. In the end you pass off a cheap shot and claim that i am the one that is childish? You take into no account the material reality or conditions of that time and then simply base assertions and take assumptions as fact? with out researching or reading into Stalin yourself? Based on texts in your school curriculum? If you have a case PROVE IT!

[More Fire for the People]

I fundamentally assert that all numeric figures relating to Stalin are pulled out of one's ass.

[danny android]

5. Yes win your debate with a cheap shot at the end. I did not expect this from you of all people. I have come out with my best to form a rational arguement, all i hear from your end are one-line statements and smileys, ended with cheap-shots. Again you are quelling the debate. Who is childish you tell me. Okay,i'll humour you, if admiration for stalin is childlike, you are basically negating the capabilities of all previous communist movements. including the person you claim to uphold, Che Guevara. If stalin was such a bastard then Guevara was child-like, right?
Lets bash Castro too while we are at it.
Let me conclude by asking you, what rational arguement have you presented save for history book drivel and one-line statements. In the end you pass off a cheap shot and claim that i am the one that is childish? You take into no account the material reality or conditions of that time and then simply base assertions and take assumptions as fact? with out researching or reading into Stalin yourself? Based on texts in your school curriculum? If you have a case PROVE IT!

Alright so first off I would like to apologize for the childish one liner I made. Yeah ok I admit it was childish and irrelivant and really not backed by anything and I am sorry. In all honesty the I had just woke up when I wrote that and I tend to be a little grumpy when I first wake up. lol. So I apologize for that and hope that I can gain your respect again.


I fundamentally assert that all numeric figures relating to Stalin are pulled out of one's ass.

(speaking of irrelevant one liners.... I guess it goes both ways)


if Stalin was such a bastard, why did china and most of the other communist regimes of that time disagree with Khruschev and distance themselves from the Soviet leadership.

I can think of one reason why a communist regime would support Stalin at the time and not Khruschev, power. I'll give for my example the spanish civil war. From my understanding there were two main groups fighting the facists, communists and anarchists, the real political defferences between them being soviet support and the idea of if the revolution was to happen after the war or if it were to happen during the war. The communists supported and recieved weapons and supplies from the soviet union where as the anarchists did not. This soviet support gave the communists in spain more military power. The POUM which was a trotskyist organization was outlawed in spain by the communists wo supported stalin because it was falsly accused of being a tool of facism. The only reason for the support of the soviet union by the communists of spain (or cuba or china or anyother country where there has been communist revolution) that I can see is to gain more military power over their enemies. It didn't matter to them who was giving them support they needed to defeat the facists who were invading their country so they found that support from the soviet union.

(my source for this is mostly from the book by George Orwell "Homage to Catalonia" and some things off of wikipedia. However it has been a while since I have read this book and I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the spainish civil war. So some of the things I said may not be exactly right. Sorry if you find anything false about it)


if Khruschev was so antagonistic to Stalin, why wasn't he one of those killed supposedly by Stalin?

I have never really thought of that to much. I'll have to think about this a little and do some research on the relations between khruschev and Stalin concidering I don't know to much about it.

[viva le revolution]

Apology accepted.

[ComradeOm]

Again, i will ask you, if Stalin was such a bastard, why did china and most of the other communist regimes of that time disagree with Khruschev and distance themselves from the Soviet leadership. Again i commend you for your thinking processes but it's all it is, just thinking.
Most of the communist regimes? Apart from China few ruling “communist” parties immediately split with the Soviets. And those that did simply changed paymasters. In fact so few nations abandoned the Russian leadership that Mao was forced to go begging to the Americans for aid. As for why did Mao split? Simple, he assumed that on Stalin’s death the leadership of the socialist bloc would be his. Khrushchev of course had absolutely no intention of playing second fiddle to some tin pot dictator.


Why didn't the whole international communist movement not breathe a sigh of relief that Stalin, why did it lead to division and conflict? Most of all, if Khruschev was so antagonistic to Stalin, why wasn't he one of those killed supposedly by Stalin?
Since the early thirties every major communist party answered to Stalin. Back then Stalinism had yet to be so totally discredited and was still seen as a viable ideology. No one fully knew the extent of Stalin’s paranoid purges and the numbers of fresh graves he had filled. Those in power in Eastern Europe were die hard Stalinists, which led to the slightly comically scene of them backtracking on years of praise for the man who was now discredited. As for Mao, he was probably the only man alive who had killed more for less effect than Stalin.

Khrushchev was not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he was far from a fool. He had a peasant’s cunning and no doubt that was all that kept him alive during Stalin’s reign. Remember that Uncle Joe was no Lenin, to disagree with him was death. In fact even looking like you might disagree with him was death.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:46 PM

Most of the communist regimes? Apart from China few ruling “communist” parties immediately split with the Soviets. And those that did simply changed paymasters. In fact so few nations abandoned the Russian leadership that Mao was forced to go begging to the Americans for aid. As for why did Mao split? Simple, he assumed that on Stalin’s death the leadership of the socialist bloc would be his. Khrushchev of course had absolutely no intention of playing second fiddle to some tin pot dictator.


Since the early thirties every major communist party answered to Stalin. Back then Stalinism had yet to be so totally discredited and was still seen as a viable ideology. No one fully knew the extent of Stalin’s paranoid purges and the numbers of fresh graves he had filled. Those in power in Eastern Europe were die hard Stalinists, which led to the slightly comically scene of them backtracking on years of praise for the man who was now discredited. As for Mao, he was probably the only man alive who had killed more for less effect than Stalin.

Khrushchev was not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he was far from a fool. He had a peasant’s cunning and no doubt that was all that kept him alive during Stalin’s reign. Remember that Uncle Joe was no Lenin, to disagree with him was death. In fact even looking like you might disagree with him was death.
1. First off another mere assumption. Many communist parties, including the CPUSA sent letters to Khruschev demanding an explanation for his actions. FEW communist parties? how about the communisr parties in south asia, china, korea, vietnam, the struggling cambodian party, malaysia, the phillipines to name a few. and western europe, most particularly, the portugese, greek parties, turkish parties etc. etc. Even the american communist party moved away from khruschev's russia and demanded an explanation. Your atatement rests on the assumption that communist movements only existed in the Baltics and china.
Mao's china courted the U.S because of this very fact. Again Nixon only made ONE visit to China. Agian, it wasn't Mao who went to the U.S but the U.S coming to China to exploit the rift in the international communist movement.
As for Mao's intention to lead the communist movement as the reason for the split, possible, but again just an assertion. A matter of opinion, not fact.

2. Yes every major leninist party answered to Stalin. Because the USSR provided direct assistance to communist movements around the globe. Stalinism is not yet totally discredited, this is evident in the fact that Khruschev, did not state ONE criticism on the point of Stalin's theory or reason. Only his personality. which of course is the exact same line being followed in your post. You take for granted that yes Stalin killed so many indiscriminately because he was 'insane'or 'evil'. The results of Stalin's theory in the progress of Russia still cannot be refuted. Again your post in the second half makes the EXACT same assumption about Mao Zedong. Don't convince me with one-line statements it only proves the weakness of your case, please form a rational arguement.
Khruschev had a PEASANT'S CUNNING? ALL THAT KEPT HIM ALIVE DURING STALIN'S REIGN? do you hear yourself and on what basis you are basing your entire case?

[Entrails Konfetti]

If the Soviet Union funded various Communist Parties around the globe, why didn't this go against the policy of socialism in one country?

I don't know what you mean by Stalinism as a theory, it really didn't seem theoretical: if the global revolutions fail, what do you try do? Build up your own country.

There is no basis for socialism in one country, other than desperate circumstances. If such a thing did happen,because the revolutions didn't spread, all that would happen would be a country with a huge military machine trying to fend off imperialist invaders.Most of the money in the country would go towards defence, social programs would be of crappy quality, and they couldn't provide for anyone. In such a constant warring society, there would be measures put up to make sure that no one is a counter-revolutionary. All these measures would just be everyday-life, the military would become a parasitic caste. This would create a survival mentallity. And when its survival, your only thinking of yourself and your own.
That's not the mentallity of socialism.