Stalin, Good or Bad or In Between?

[DisIllusion]

I've always thought that Stalin was a bit of a dictator, maybe it's the leader worship I saw or the parallels he had with Hitler during the Great Patriotic War or maybe it's the capitalist propaganda that i've been brought up on speaking through me. But I really want to know about Stalin, was he good or bad in your eyes? And please comrades, no links or quotes, I want to know what you think about him and his ideals in your own words.

[red_che]

Stalin is a good leader. Only, he was demonized both by the bourgeoisie and the revisionists in the CPSU.

[Le People]

I believe Stalin was a murdering, dictoral, bureuacrat who was not a socailist, but literaly ran a bonaparteist dictatorship. His only difference form Hitler was he killed more people, and he had complete crack at explotating the worker's labors instead of spliting it amongst capitalists. His only plus was he knew how to dress.

[DisIllusion]

I believe Stalin was a murdering, dictoral, bureuacrat who was not a socailist, but literaly ran a bonaparteist dictatorship. His only difference form Hitler was he killed more people, and he had complete crack at explotating the worker's labors instead of spliting it amongst capitalists. His only plus was he knew how to dress.

lol. Thank you comrades Red_Che and Le People.

[Le People]

Next time, place something like this in the history section, Ok?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:22 PM
Stalin is a good leader. Only, he was demonized both by the bourgeoisie and the revisionists in the CPSU.
Are you seriously defending Stalin?

He was greater enemy of the working class than any capitalist ever was.

Ladies and gentleman, here is yet another insight into the totalitarian nature of Leninism.

[red_che]

Yeah, I am defending Stalin. Why? read this:

"14. The advent of Krushchov at the head of the CPSU was a historical turning point. Krushchov’s group set off his work of destruction by denigrating the revolutionary struggles carried out by the Communists led by Stalin in order to implement the principles and orientations bequeathed by Lenin.

15. It took revisionism, initiated by Krushchov’s group, more than 35 years to completely destroy the work accomplished by Lenin, Stalin and three generations of Bolsheviks!

16. Today, it is clear why Stalin has been subjected to bitter slander and calumny by the enemies of socialism. Stalin remained loyal to Leninism. Under his leadership the Soviet people accomplished miracles. After Stalin's death, the revisionists and mainly Krushchov and Gorbachov rejected Leninist principles and went from failure to failure.

17. History proved that the fight against the ideas and the revolutionary practice of Stalin was a fight against communism.

18. The 20th, 21st and 22nd congresses of the CPSU were marked by the revision of Marxism-Leninism, setting off ideological and political degeneration and bureaucratism at the head of the State and Party.

19. Krushchov directly took many reactionary ideas from the renegade Tito. Krushchov's theories about the "State of the whole people" and the "Party of the whole people" led to the liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the ceasing of class struggle against the bourgeois forces and influences. The theory of "the cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace" inflicted blows on the anti-imperialist struggle. The theory of "peaceful and parliamentary paths towards socialism" strengthened the social-democratic currents in several communist parties.

20. Brezhnev put an end to some of the extreme forms of Krushchev's revisionism but he never questioned the revisionist programmes of the 20th, 21st and 22nd Congresses. Brezhnev put an end to the policy of open capitulation to american imperialism and he supported on the international stage different forces, which were fighting that imperialism. Under Brezhnev, a new petty bourgeoisie has arised from the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia and was the largest social basis of revisionism. It encouraged the development of a ‘shadow’ capitalist sector and stimulated a process of degeneration in the socialist enterprises.

21. Gorbachov's revisionism ultimately took outright anticommunist forms. The forces he led, supported by the international bourgeoisie, completed the counter-revolutionary process in the Soviet Union and led to the open restoration of capitalism in its crudest forms. Gorbachov and Yeltsin have been the executors of a triumph for the forces of imperialism and reaction of international importance.

22. Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha and other eminent communist leaders, such as Kim Il Sung, Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh, brought their contribution to the struggle against revisionism. Their anti-revisionist struggle prepared the ground for a renewal of the communist movement on genuinely revolutionary foundations. Divergent opinions exist in the international communist movement about their respective contributions.

23. The open restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union proves that revisionism effectively is the most dangerous enemy of Marxism-Leninism. Life has proved that revisionism introduces the bourgeoisie into the communist movement and brings the latter under the leadership of the bourgeoisie."

Read the complete text on this link: www.wpb.be (http://www.wpb.be/icm/99en/DECL99DefEN.htm)

[Comrade Corinna]

Hmmm.... Stalin.... everyone has good points and bad points, I suppose.

Okay, my Josef Vissarionovich Dzughashvilli analysis

BAD:
He killed anyone who he thought would have a remote chance of losing him power.
He was NOT a communist... do you see any equal distribution there? Was there government by the proletariat? Was anything leading to the eventual diminish of power of the state? Hmm let me think- NO!
He was paranoid which is a major part of the reason why he killed people
He draws comparisons to Hitler as the "communist" closest to Fascism. (Look at the diagrams at the Political Compass website. Stalin is closer to Fascism than Communism!)
IMO he screwed up something that had a lot of potential (Soviet socialism)
He gives communism a bad name.
Gulags.
The "Five Year Plan"
Supposedly he liked to sleep around.
He ate a LOT while others starved. Hmmm how Communist is THAT? Oh wait, its not nope definately CAPITALIST to the extreme
He was pretentiously refered to as Stalin= man of steel

GOOD:
In his young years, Stalin was quite handsome.
Murders aside, he helped the Soviet Union become a world power. So what if he had to kill a few people in the process? (sarcasm)
He was a loving father to Svetlana.

[Hiero]

It is no doubt Stalin is a good communist. He's leadership overshadowed the advancement of a nation from semi feudal to industrial which advances the proletariat, kept industry under social property, collectivised farming which is the next step to making it social property, commodotity production worked according to socialist laws, made the USSR a strong united force which defeated the Nazi's. These are just some reason that make Stalin a good communist.

I feel the need to say some things on Comrade Corinna trashy post.


He killed anyone who he thought would have a remote chance of losing him power.


Not true. Stalin had no power to kill anyone. What he did was lead the Marxist-Leninist attack against anti soviet forces in the country. The Polit Buro, Central Commitee and the NKVD decided and invistigated if someone was a threat. Then they would be demoted and face trial. There is no link between thoose who were purged and their availability to power. However there is a link between thoose who were purged their ideas and actions. If Stalin was purging for the reason you have given they would be more random purges and he would of purged people who were on his side.


He was NOT a communist... do you see any equal distribution there? Was there government by the proletariat?

First off in Russia there was no way you could have complete equal distribution. It wasn't adavanced enough. What we do find however is the moves towards this.

We see under Stalin's leadership the moves to reduce the difference between town and country by initiating programs to industrialise the farms. The state still owning machines would send them to the farms, the farmers never had to pay for them.

Also during Stalin's rule the advancement of the USSR brought better living standards creating a more equal soceity. The means of production were social property, that means that they worked on accordance to the countries needs, not based on prices. Which is a must fo producing a more equal society.

So under Stalin the USSR distrubited equal as physical possible.


Was anything leading to the eventual diminish of power of the state? Hmm let me think- NO!

Maybe you need to read some more Marx and Lenin. I think in the Gotha Program by Marx he talks about the conditions that the state withers away in. In Lenin's State and Revolution he talks about it and quotes Marx and Engels.

Basically there are certain conditions that the state withers away in, Stalin could not have just said "well we want it to wither away so we will take action to do this". That is idealist to think so.


He was paranoid which is a major part of the reason why he killed people

I have never heard of any medical report that says Stalin had paranoia.


He draws comparisons to Hitler as the "communist" closest to Fascism. (Look at the diagrams at the Political Compass website. Stalin is closer to Fascism than Communism!)

I score similar points to Anarchist on the compass and i support Stalin. The compass is useless.


IMO he screwed up something that had a lot of potential (Soviet socialism)

Yes your opinion, how great is that?


He gives communism a bad name.

Anti-communists, imperialist, capitalist, religious fundamentalist and ever reactionary under the sun gives Communism the bad name.


Gulags.

They were a good idea to put to good use of political and non political criminals.


The "Five Year Plan"

Five year plans are just used to plan ahead for five years. The ones that accured under Stalin were very successful.


Supposedly he liked to sleep around

This is just stupid lying, why would you even say such a thing?


He ate a LOT while others starved. Hmmm how Communist is THAT? Oh wait, its not nope definately CAPITALIST to the extreme

A capitalist is someone who owns the means of production.

Your bad and good points are not coming from a Marxist analysis, so they are useless and turns out to be nothing but lies.

I suggest you read some Lenin and Stalin, and get rid of you bourgeois magazines and books.

[Led Zeppelin]

He was greater enemy of the working class than any capitalist ever was.

Ignorance.

From a historical perspective Stalin was bad for the Communist movement, but he was "good" for progressing Russian society, so was Napoleon for France.

My point is that he should not be seen as a Communist, or for that matter a Leninist, but that he should be considered a progressive figure in terms of moving society forward, although in the wrong direction.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:15 AM
Ladies and gentleman, here is yet another insight into the totalitarian nature of Leninism.
Gee thanks. You want to draw anymore conclusions about a broad ideology from one poster? I've seen a few self-professed anarchists who weren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, does that mean all anarchists are braindead stoners?

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:36 AM
I feel the need to say some things on Comrade Corinna trashy post.


I am anti-Stalinist, and you should respect that, even if you are not. The only thing that Stalin did was help the USSR become a powerful nation. That in itself no doubt is a very GOOD thing, but you can't overlook the way he went about doing that.

Most people on this board, I believe are anti-Stalinist. I have no problem with you being a Stalinist so long as you are respectful, which you certainly were not.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Comrade Corinna+Nov 24 2005, 01:38 AM--> (Comrade Corinna @ Nov 24 2005, 01:38 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 11:36 AM
I feel the need to say some things on Comrade Corinna trashy post.


I am anti-Stalinist, and you should respect that, even if you are not. The only thing that Stalin did was help the USSR become a powerful nation. That in itself no doubt is a very GOOD thing, but you can't overlook the way he went about doing that.

Most people on this board, I believe are anti-Stalinist. I have no problem with you being a Stalinist so long as you are respectful, which you certainly were not. [/b]
Well i never called you trashy, i called your post trashy. I said that because you were mostly making things up or things based on poor bourgeois sources.

[jambajuice]

Stalin was someone good if you were a poor peasant in Soviet Russia who was never targeted for 're-education'. The really really old people, in thier 100s, now remember him fondly. They are also they ones who never got ordered to charge Nazi machineguns with only 1 bullet in your rifle, visit the gulag, or had a relative disappear for 're-education'. In the end the old people will be dead, the only thing left will be the history of gulags and secret police. Thus he did more to shoot down communism.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Oh dear.. somebody's been watching 'enemy at the gates' too often..is that where you guys who slag off stalin constantly get your info from?

[Wanted Man]

Quite often, it is. What a bullshit movie that was. Commissars shooting retreaters in the back with pistols or ordering machine-gunners to do so? That's ridiculous, Commissars were expected to fight at the front. If a Commissar behaved the way as was depicted in that movie(I love how self-declared anti-capitalists religiously eat whatever Hollywood throws into their pen), they would likely be the next to receive a bullet.

[red_che]

Comrade Hiero's points were sound and clear. All I've figured in this thread was that those attacking Stalin were merely echoing bourgeois propaganda against Stalin which are baseless, unfounded and mere character assasinations.


I am anti-Stalinist, and you should respect that, even if you are not

Of course, but please do not just post an encompassing, general statement which are not supported by facts.


From a historical perspective Stalin was bad for the Communist movement, but he was "good" for progressing Russian society,

What a wonderful analysis!(sarcasm)

Differing progressive against communism.

Where did you get that idea?

Russia progressed not merely because of Stalin, but because of the socialist programs which Stalin and the Russian proletariat pursued. They can't move forward if not through socialism.



My point is that he should not be seen as a Communist, or for that matter a Leninist, but that he should be considered a progressive figure in terms of moving society forward, although in the wrong direction.

Stalin is a true Marxist-Leninist, a Communist in all respect.


but that he should be considered a progressive figure in terms of moving society forward, although in the wrong direction

How is that? How could that happen? You can move forward in a wrong direction? Society's advance forward is going through socialism/communism, anything else is backwards.

[Le People]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 23 2005, 08:03 AM

He was greater enemy of the working class than any capitalist ever was.

Ignorance.

From a historical perspective Stalin was bad for the Communist movement, but he was "good" for progressing Russian society, so was Napoleon for France.

My point is that he should not be seen as a Communist, or for that matter a Leninist, but that he should be considered a progressive figure in terms of moving society forward, although in the wrong direction.
I just have to say, muders and war mongers are never good for any country.

[viva le revolution]

Echoing red che's post i would say that anti-stalinists at this thread have only posted one-liners. POST SOME FACTS PLEASE! In my view, Stalin was a true marxist-leninist and exactly what was needed at russia at that time. Russia wasn't all peaches and cherries, the resistance faced by the communist movement was brutal and the efforts to destroy it went to all lengths to do so. Again i would implore all to post facts and back up their statements or not to take the trouble and waste time regurgitating robert conquest.
Comrade Stalin was a true communist.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:17 PM
Quite often, it is. What a bullshit movie that was. Commissars shooting retreaters in the back with pistols or ordering machine-gunners to do so? That's ridiculous, Commissars were expected to fight at the front. If a Commissar behaved the way as was depicted in that movie(I love how self-declared anti-capitalists religiously eat whatever Hollywood throws into their pen), they would likely be the next to receive a bullet.
http://www.katyn.org.au/powp1.html

This website basically says the things I read from letters in the orignal Russian from the people who were there.

Sorry I can not point you any where else. It was years ago that I had the opportunity to read the letters as a student. I believe the letters. I don't believe the archives were fake. They were at some war mueseum/war memorial that I was passing through at a city once called Stalingrad. So yes, people did not charge into Nazi machineguns with one bullet in the rifle, but they did something very much like it.

To deny that this ever happened is to deny the bravery and sacrafice of the people who charged into the machineguns.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2005, 06:51 AM


GOOD:
In his young years, Stalin was quite handsome.
Murders aside, he helped the Soviet Union become a world power. So what if he had to kill a few people in the process? (sarcasm)
He was a loving father to Svetlana.
I take your word for his 'handsomeness'. But where did you get the idea that he was a good father to Svetalana ? Got a source for that ? Its a long time since I read it, but 20 Letters to a Friend, if I recall, tells a different story and the evidence since uncovered has been of a miserable family life - unless compared to Mao's !

We will, I guess, never know if it is true that Stalin worked as a spy for the Tsarist secret police. It was a widespread rumour in 1930s Russia, but now unprovable.

The one thing to be said for Stalin was that he was a man of sincere commitment to the cause he believed in. As Stalin would say, that is not enough.

I believe the damage he did to the USSR was recoverable until into the late 1940s. But the damage he did to the world communist movement with his bribes and assasinations and third/period/popular front policies was incalculable. China, Germany, Spain.....

[Delirium]

The ends do not justify the means.

You cannot claim to be working for the good of the people when you brutally use them in your own illusions of grandeur. Stalin was a murderer and a totalitarian. Dictatorship of the proletariot is bullshit anyway. You cannot preach communism and be a despot at the same time.

[DisIllusion]

Dictatorship of the proletariot is bullshit anyway.

How is it bullshit? It is part of the path to free communism, according to Marx.

[The Grey Blur]

Okay, poster's have said two things: his period of leadership was good for the USSR and that any deathtoll is exaggerated. Others have accused these posters of being unable to accept the truth and of stubborness.

I don't want you to make comparisons or accuse me of brainwashing (I also want you to leave aside the arguement of whether or not he was a true communist), I just want you to answer the question does the "good stuff" (beats back the Nazis, progress in productivity & technology) outweigh the "bad stuff" (society of fear, high death-toll)?

[Eoin Dubh]

Sealing off the Ukraine and starving the people into submission puts him in my bad book. His treatment of the Chechens has contributed to a legacy of resentment we see today.
Also the execution of Zinoviev (and other good comrades) during the show trials was evil.

[The Grey Blur]

Free Sean Garland signature... :o ...AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...AHHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...ahhhhh...omg...I can't wait till the rest of the Irish Republicans see this...

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Le People+Nov 24 2005, 07:59 AM--> (Le People @ Nov 24 2005, 07:59 AM)
Marxism-[email protected] 23 2005, 08:03 AM

He was greater enemy of the working class than any capitalist ever was.

Ignorance.

From a historical perspective Stalin was bad for the Communist movement, but he was "good" for progressing Russian society, so was Napoleon for France.

My point is that he should not be seen as a Communist, or for that matter a Leninist, but that he should be considered a progressive figure in terms of moving society forward, although in the wrong direction.
I just have to say, muders and war mongers are never good for any country. [/b]
I agree 100% with you here. My best friend was born in the Soviet union and his parents and grandparents lived there and they, as well as he consider Stalin to be nothing more than a war monger and a murderer.

[DisIllusion]

I agree 100% with you here. My best friend was born in the Soviet union and his parents and grandparents lived there and they, as well as he consider Stalin to be nothing more than a war monger and a murderer.

Well are they fans of how the Soviet Union turned out? Ex: The Russian Federation?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 25 2005, 10:09 PM

Also the execution of Zinoviev (and other good comrades) during the show trials was evil.
Cant say the killing of such a self-important timeserver would rank high on my list - although he didn't deserve to be shot.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:36 PM

Dictatorship of the proletariot is bullshit anyway.

How is it bullshit? It is part of the path to free communism, according to Marx.
Marx is not a prophet sent from god, you cannot be dogmatic if you want to create a successful communistic nation. As i stated before the ends do not justify the means. Every experiment with communism has gone wrong at this point, power corrupts and if you vest that power in any one person, you will end up with lovely 'communist' states such as the ussr.

Dictatorship of the proletariat has been the downfall of all attempts at communism, but if we do things over and over again enough times, we may magickly get another result.

[Atlas Swallowed]

He was a paranoid nutcase, who was responsible for the murder and misery of millions of people. Most died for his insecurities and paranoia. I hope he rotting in hell with Ronald Reagan for company.

[Le People]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Nov 25 2005, 10:10 PM--> (Datura inoxia @ Nov 25 2005, 10:10 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 09:36 PM

Dictatorship of the proletariot is bullshit anyway.

How is it bullshit? It is part of the path to free communism, according to Marx.
Marx is not a prophet sent from god, you cannot be dogmatic if you want to create a successful communistic nation. As i stated before the ends do not justify the means. Every experiment with communism has gone wrong at this point, power corrupts and if you vest that power in any one person, you will end up with lovely 'communist' states such as the ussr.

Dictatorship of the proletariat has been the downfall of all attempts at communism, but if we do things over and over again enough times, we may magickly get another result. [/b]
You have a point. The real enemy is the dictatorship of the party, not of the working people. Anyone who says "one party,one class" is asking for power to corrupt the party. Power can not corrput the masses for the masses has always had power, but as of yet used it to it's fullest potential.

[Led Zeppelin]

What a wonderful analysis!(sarcasm)

Differing progressive against communism.


Yes, that's what real Marxists do, are you saying that Napoleon wasn't progressive? Are you saying that bourgeois democracy isn't progressive?

Please.


Where did you get that idea?


Marx, Engels, Lenin etc.


Russia progressed not merely because of Stalin, but because of the socialist programs which Stalin and the Russian proletariat pursued. They can't move forward if not through socialism.


Yes "they" can, they can move forward to Capitalism, right?

Maybe you forgot to think about that while you were conducting your "Marxist analysis", not a surprise though coming from a Maoist, you seem to have developed a "touch" for this.


Stalin is a true Marxist-Leninist, a Communist in all respect.


A true Marxist-Leninist who didn't believe in what Lenin theorized as Socialism, yes, that's a "true Marxist-Leninist" alright.


How is that? How could that happen? You can move forward in a wrong direction? Society's advance forward is going through socialism/communism, anything else is backwards.


:lol: Great Maoist logic at work there, of course Capitalism can't be progressive, how can Capitalism be progressive?

The answer is simple to anyone who has read at least some Marx, Engels or Lenin, Capitalism is progress over Feudalism, bourgeois democracy is progress over bourgeois dictatorship etc.

That's how it works, and since Stalin industrialized Russia, i.e., built the material conditions for Socialism, he was progressive, in the same way that Napoleon or Tsar Peter "The Great" were.


Well are they fans of how the Soviet Union turned out? Ex: The Russian Federation?


We are not saying that Russia "is better" today, of course Russia is worse off, that's what "uncontrolled Capitalism" does to any state, but just because we criticize the USSR doesn't mean we support the Russian Federation, guess what; we oppose both.

[viva le revolution]

I recommend the book: another view of stalin by ludo martens.
Amazing book that goes beyond the petty-bourgeois Trotskyist view of stalin and the imperialist blatant propaganda. Good read for comrades of all ideologies.

[tatu]

Stalin...

Stalin -- meaning Steel in Russian -- a name similar to the movement names adopted by most of the Bolsheviks who worked underground.

He smashed the German Nazis.

[red_che]

Yes, that's what real Marxists do, are you saying that Napoleon wasn't progressive? Are you saying that bourgeois democracy isn't progressive?

I was not referring to Napoleon! And I was not talking of bourgeois democracy either. Take a look at the thread and see what I referred to. You are out of context.


The answer is simple to anyone who has read at least some Marx, Engels or Lenin, Capitalism is progress over Feudalism, bourgeois democracy is progress over bourgeois dictatorship etc.

Yeah, but you didn't understand what you have read on them. You know, you seem to have forgotten how socialism works. I understand that you can't accept that Russia under Stalin was Socialist, but that is the reality.

Whether you like it or not. ;)

Comrade Armando Liwanag, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines have said this. Here, read it closely:

"They attacked Stalin in order to replace the principles of Lenin with the discredited fallacies of his social democratic opponents and claimed to make a "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism.


The total collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, has made it so much easier than before for Marxist-Leninists to sum up the emergence and development of socialism and the peaceful evolution of socialism into capitalism through modern revisionism. It is necessary to trace the entire historical trajectory and draw the correct lessons in the face of the ceaseless efforts of the detractors of Marxism-Leninism to sow ideological and political confusion within the ranks of the revolutionary movement.

Among the most common lines of attack are the following: "genuine" socialism never came into existence; if socialism ever existed, it was afflicted with or distorted by the "curse" of "Stalinism", which could never be exorcised by his anti-Stalin successors and therefore Stalin was responsible even for the anti-Stalin regimes after his death;...

... After his death, the positive achievements of Stalin (such as the socialist construction, the defense of the Soviet Union, the high rate of growth of the Soviet economy, the social guarantees, etc.) continued for a considerable while. So were his errors continued and exaggerated by his successors up to the point of discontinuing socialism. We refer to the denial of the existence and the resurgence of the exploiting classes and class struggle in Soviet society; and the unhindered propagation of the petty-bourgeois mode of thinking and the growth of the bureaucratism of the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie in command of the great mass of petty-bourgeois bureaucrats."

www.philippinerevolution.org (http://www.philippinerevolution.org/cgi-bin/cpp/pdocs.pl?id=stane;page=01)

:)

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 26 2005, 02:47 PM
I recommend the book: another view of stalin by ludo martens.
Amazing book that goes beyond the petty-bourgeois Trotskyist view of stalin and the imperialist blatant propaganda. Good read for comrades of all ideologies.
Read the full text of this book here (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html).

[Led Zeppelin]

I was not referring to Napoleon! And I was not talking of bourgeois democracy either. Take a look at the thread and see what I referred to. You are out of context.


No I am not out of context, I was just proving by showing evidence that non-Socialist movements/developments can be progressive historically.


Yeah, but you didn't understand what you have read on them.

Obviously I have better than you.


You know, you seem to have forgotten how socialism works. I understand that you can't accept that Russia under Stalin was Socialist, but that is the reality.


Oh really, so in Russia under Stalin officials received workman's wages? In Russia under Stalin all officials were directly elected and eligible for recall?

I don't think so.


Whether you like it or not.

Or whether Lenin "liked it or not".


They attacked Stalin in order to replace the principles of Lenin with the discredited fallacies of his social democratic opponents and claimed to make a "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism. [insert mindless propaganda]

I also do not support Russia post-Stalin, so I don't know why I should read that nonsense.

Oh and btw, I have read Another View of Stalin, that's why I'm not saying that Stalin killed "20 millions people" or that Stalin "caused the famine", I don't repeat bourgeois propaganda against him, I do however realize that he did not build Socialism and was anti-Leninist.

[Forward Union]

Supposedly he liked to sleep around

And?? :huh:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"I believe Stalin made big mistakes but also showed great wisdom.

In my opinion, blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible! I believe that the efforts of millions and millions of heroic people contributed to the USSR's development and to its relevant role in the world in favor of hundreds of millions of people.

I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework.

I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had.

I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history.

I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time.

During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor.

I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway. Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure.

I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake, from the standpoint of principles and international law.

Stalin made a series of mistakes that were criticized by a large part of the world, and which placed Communists - who were great friends of the USSR - in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes.

Since we are discussing this topic, I must tell you that I have never discussed it with any journalist (or on any other occasion, he added).

The things I mentioned are against principles and doctrine; they are even contrary to political wisdom. Although it is true that there was a period of one year and nine months from September 1939 to June 1941 during which the USSR could have rearmed itself, Hitler was the one who got stronger.

If Hitler had declared war on the USSR in 1939, the destruction would have been less than the destruction caused in 1941, and he would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon Bonaparte. With the people's participation in an irregular war, the USSR would have defeated Hitler.

Finally, Stalin's character, his terrible distrust of everything, made him commit several other mistakes: one of them was falling in the trap of German intrigue and conducting a terrible, bloody purge of the armed forces and practically beheading the Soviet Army on the eve of war.

[But] He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist.

One of Stalin's - and the team that supported him - greatest merits was the plan to transfer the war industry and main strategic industries to Siberia and deep into Soviet territory.

I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it.

I think there should be an impartial analysis of Stalin. Blaming him for everything that happened would be historical simplism." - Fidel Castro

[Andy Bowden]

Id like to see a justification for Stalins deportation of the entire Chechen population out of their homes for alleged "collaboration" with Nazis.

Or why Stalin felt the need to have Trotsky murdered, if indeed there were no Russian Communists in support of Trotsky.

[Janus]

Stalin was a paranoid and cruel dictator. The only good that he did would be stopping the Nazi invasion of the USSR despite causing it in the first place.

[DisIllusion]

Stalin did pwn the Nazis pretty hard in the Great Patriotic War, even though he lost 27 million men in the process.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Fidel Castro's analysis is quite objective, however I disagree with everal points in it.

"I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history."

Implemented sooner? It was implemented from the start of Soviet rule, while Lenin was in power. And the private little plots of land could not possible hav produced enough produce to feed the growing population and the groiwng Red Army. What other option was there?



"I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake"

Perhaps it was, but it pushed the border away from one of the USSR'S main cities - Leningrad. As it was before, it was within reach from Finnish bombers and long range artillery, and the finnish government was friendly with the Nazis.


"I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway"

Yes, the war did break out, but those couple of years gave the USSR crucial time to organise some sort of defence and prepare for war. Stalin knew that Hitler would attack at some point, he just didnt want to mobilise trrops so as not to provoke the massive German war machine. These are facts and can be found in archival statistics as well as directives from the 'Stavka' (military headquarters).

[DisIllusion]

"I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway"

Yes, the war did break out, but those couple of years gave the USSR crucial time to organise some sort of defence and prepare for war. Stalin knew that Hitler would attack at some point, he just didnt want to mobilise trrops so as not to provoke the massive German war machine. These are facts and can be found in archival statistics as well as directives from the 'Stavka' (military headquarters).

Are all the stories that say that Stalin was just waiting until he had enough strength to invade Nazi Germany true? Without American support at first of course, just to consolidate Soviet power.

[viva le revolution]

Disillusion: i would recommend you read, another view of stalin by ludo martens.
a great read to learn the actual truth of soviet russia and the 'great crimes' perpetrated by Stalin.

[Led Zeppelin]

The only good that he did would be stopping the Nazi invasion of the USSR despite causing it in the first place.

:blink: How did he cause it in the first place?

[Wiesty]

stalin was a crazed lunatic who wanted to make the ussr look good to the other nations but only on the backs of millions of civillians, and he caused the invasion into the ussr because he retreated his troops from the frontlines in operation barbarossa, giving up most of ukraine to the germans, actually i believe it was all of ukraine, and it was mostly the cold winter weather that stopped the germans.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Nov 26 2005, 02:16 AM--> (Datura inoxia @ Nov 26 2005, 02:16 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 09:36 PM

Dictatorship of the proletariot is bullshit anyway.

How is it bullshit? It is part of the path to free communism, according to Marx.
Marx is not a prophet sent from god, you cannot be dogmatic if you want to create a successful communistic nation. As i stated before the ends do not justify the means. Every experiment with communism has gone wrong at this point, power corrupts and if you vest that power in any one person, you will end up with lovely 'communist' states such as the ussr.

Dictatorship of the proletariat has been the downfall of all attempts at communism, but if we do things over and over again enough times, we may magickly get another result. [/b]
I think that Council Communism is what Marx meant by Dictatorship of the proletariat becuase the workers all have a say, and thats what the Russians originally had, but I think consolidating power into a party is bad, and Stalin did consolidate power more than Lenin had done.

[Ownthink]

Any asshole who hung gigantic ass banners of his face around the country in Big Brother like fashion sucks total ass.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:14 PM
Any asshole who hung gigantic ass banners of his face around the country in Big Brother like fashion sucks total ass.
Isn't that were Orwell got his idea for that(the Big Brother with his face all over)

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I don't know my views of Stalin, he seems bad at first glance, but when you really look he did do some good things and things nessacary. Russia before Lenin and the Revolution was still pretty much in a state of Feudalism, and Marx has stated that to get to Communism you have to pass through Capitalism, and Russia never having a real capitalist economy and not really having much industry, Stalin had to industrilize the country. I know Stalin was bad and he killed lots of innocent people, but I do think that if Russia had kept going on its path it would have become a real socialist country, but instead reformers came in such as Khrushev, and changed lots of policies. Some needed to be changed, but others didn't. So I am still debating myself whether I consider Stalin to be a communist because some of the policies he had were communistic and others where not. It is true that he doesn't get a fair representation, but he did some pretty bad things that are more noticable than the good he pulled off( besides how do you expect it to be fair in a country that is so blatently anti-communist, and had been sience the 1900's, the U.S. I am talking about, but the UK is just as bad I hear)

[red_che]

I was just proving by showing evidence that non-Socialist movements/developments can be progressive historically.

This is an insult to the October 1917 revolutionaries for you consider theirs only as a non-socialist movement. How come you believe to Lenin then? Yours is not progressive thinking or analysis, but rather a regressive one.


Obviously I have better than you.

Hail you,... Marxist expert! :P



I also do not support Russia post-Stalin, so I don't know why I should read that nonsense.

You honor :rolleyes: , that thing isn't a nonsense. It is a direct criticism for those who feel like they were the ones who know Marxism. Ouch, does it hurt you?

[Led Zeppelin]

This is an insult to the October 1917 revolutionaries for you consider theirs only as a non-socialist movement. How come you believe to Lenin then? Yours is not progressive thinking or analysis, but rather a regressive one.


What the hell are you talking about? I say that too much, but have a damn good reason for it!

I never said the "October 1917 revolutionaries" were not progressive, and I never said they were non-Socialist, I'm a Leninist for Marx sake (and please spare me the "no you're not" typical reply).


that thing isn't a nonsense. It is a direct criticism for those who feel like they were the ones who know Marxism. Ouch, does it hurt you?


No it definitely is nonsense, he is referring to the Kruschevites, i.e., modern revisionists, not the Trotskyists or Orthodox Leninists (I invented that word btw).


and he caused the invasion into the ussr because he retreated his troops from the frontlines in operation barbarossa, giving up most of ukraine to the germans, actually i believe it was all of ukraine, and it was mostly the cold winter weather that stopped the germans.

:blink: Wait, let me get this straight, it wasn't Hitler and the Nazi's or Imperialism which caused the war, but it was the leader of the nation which was attacked?

Are you feeling ok? Because you sure don't sound like you are.

[red_che]

What the hell are you talking about? I say that too much, but have a damn good reason for it!

I never said the "October 1917 revolutionaries" were not progressive, and I never said they were non-Socialist, I'm a Leninist for Marx sake (and please spare me the "no you're not" typical reply).

Isn't that you consider Stalin and the Stalin-era Russia a non-socialist movement? That's what I mean. The Stalin-era is the continuation of the Ovtober 1917 revolution and you call it a non-socialist movement, that is an insult to them.


No it definitely is nonsense, he is referring to the Kruschevites, i.e., modern revisionists, not the Trotskyists or Orthodox Leninists (I invented that word btw).

He is not merely referring to the Kruschevites, but all modern revisionists, i.e. Trotskyites and all who attacked the established Socialist societies, that's you, isn't it?


I'm a Leninist for Marx sake

No, you're not. :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Isn't that you consider Stalin and the Stalin-era Russia a non-socialist movement?

Yes.


The Stalin-era is the continuation of the Ovtober 1917 revolution

No it isn't, prove to me that Stalin implemented Leninism.


that is an insult to them.

So actually doing what Lenin theorized is an insult to Lenin, again, your Maoist logic astounds me.


He is not merely referring to the Kruschevites, but all modern revisionists, i.e. Trotskyites and all who attacked the established Socialist societies, that's you, isn't it?


No he's not, he's referring to those revisionists who "attacked Stalin in order to replace the principles of Lenin with the discredited fallacies of his social democratic opponents and claimed to make a "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism", that does not include Trotskyists and/or Orthodox Leninists, we don't "claim to make creative application of Marxism-Leninism", we claim that we are Marxist-Leninists.

[viva le revolution]

Actually Comrade Stalin was a true marxist-leninist. Marxist-lninist, you asked how Stalin was a marxist-leninist, when the similar positions adopted by both are astounding.

1. Stalin's 'theory' of socialism in one country is basically the same as Lenin's theory of uninterrupted revolution which stated that socialism developing in one country is a continous process and that nations will adhere to socialism one at a time instead of Trotsky's much flouted theory of permanent revolution. In this case Stalin basically adopts Lenin's position.

2. Lenin during the adoption of the NEP anounced that it was to be temporary short-lived policy. Anouncing that 'nep russia will become socialist russia' Stalin similarily according to Lenin's original plan withdrew the nep to begin socialist construction, much in contrast with Bukharin and Zinoviev, who argued that the NEP should be continued and followed through for a much longer term.

3. Lenin's famous slogan that " Communism is soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country" Lenin in this regard drew up a comprehensive plan for the electrification of Russia. Stalin adhered to this plan to a t. Stalin's implementation led to a success 233% better than Lenin had originally envisioned.

4. Lenin called for rapid industrialization, Stalin carried this out through the five-year plans.

5. Lenin advocated a 'cultural revolution' in the peasantry. Calling for the downplaying of the rural bourgeois, something that he could not do because of the existence of the NEP at that time. Stalin eliminated the rural bourgeoisie(kulaks) through kolkhozes(collective farming) and an aggressive policy of collectivization. another policy opposed by Bukharin and Zinoviev.

6. Lenin called for a worker-peasant alliance to bring about the october revolution, this was the policy of the bolsheviks, Stalin upon reading 'what is to be done', unhesitatingly joined whereas Trotsky, still a menshevik, called for the exclusion of the peasants as a revolutionary force.

7. Lenin in contrast with Trotsky argued that Russia's survival did not depend upon a victory for socialism in western europe, Stalin too held this belief.

8.Lenin opposed 'market socialism' as proposed by Kautsky and social democrats in his time, Similarily, Stalin opposed 'market socialism' as proposed by Bukharin and Zinoviev in his own time.

9. Stalin in true marxist-leninist fashion opposed Trotsky's proposal for the militarization of labour, a position shared by none other than Lenin himself.

10. Before death, Lenin had proposed the construction of large projects both industrial and agricultural, one of the results was the hydro-electric plant on the Dnieper riiver constructed in 1932 which was the largest power plant in the world.

[viva le revolution]

As for the whole Lenin's choice of successors. This has bben the worst display of opportunism:
The U.S Trotskyist Max Eastman published Lenin's "will" in 1925 alongwith laudory remarks about Trotsky. At the time Trotsky had to write a correction in the 'bolshevik' newspaper. Trotsky concerning the 'will' wrote:
" Eastman says that the central committee 'concealed' from the party....the so-called 'will'....there can be no other name for this than slander against the central comittee of our party...Vladimir illyich did not leave any 'will' and the very character of the party itself precluded the possibility of such a 'will'. What is usually referred to as a 'will' in the emigre and foreign bourgeois and menshevik press( in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyvich's letters containing advice on organizational matters. the thirteenth congress of the party paid the closest attention to that letter....all talk about concealing or violating a 'will' is a malicious invention"
Leon Trotsky.



However in his autobiography, a few years later, the very same Trotsky would harp on about how Stalin concealed the 'will' from the party and stole the leadership of the party from Trotsky.

[viva le revolution]

ML.... you Trotskyist now?

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually Comrade Stalin was a true marxist-leninist. Marxist-lninist, you asked how Stalin was a marxist-leninist, when the similar positions adopted by both are astounding.


Not really.

I actually agree with all your points, but here's something which Stalin did not do:


Originally posted by Lenin
All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.

That's not just "a small thing", that's a major "thing", he didn't democratize the state, that's a complete break from Lenin's theory of Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.


ML.... you Trotskyist now?

No, just a plain old Leninist.

[Janus]

[QUOTE]Wait, let me get this straight, it wasn't Hitler and the Nazi's or Imperialism which caused the war, but it was the leader of the nation which was attacked?

Of course it was Hitler who actually caused the invasion of the USSR. But who actually trusted Hitler? Who allowed the massive German buildup on his border and did nothing about it? Whose poor invasion of Finland caused Hitler to believe that the Red Army was totally overrated and that the Wehrmacht could easily conquer all of the Soviet Union? Most of all, who had his best officers purged and replaced with his old drinking buddies who didn't understand military strategy at all, thereby significantly weakening the Red Army? Hitler invaded the USSR but Stalin was the one who allowed him to get so far and cause so much destruction. Therefore, all of the sacrifices by the Soviet people were made to atone and correct Stalin's mistakes which he should never have made. Stalin's negligence and stupidity caused massive damage to his nation and his people. This combined with the terror and brutality enacted during his campaign make him a cruel dictator rather than the fatherly figurehead persona he tried to show.

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm supporting Stalin's actions is supporting the violence against peasants and murder, also Stalin lived a life of luxury compared to the average Russian later in his life, but i suppose he did have some good ideas like industrialisation but dealt with thm toooo-progressively which ended up costing the lifes of LOADS, plus did tht guy have a fetish for murder?

[DisIllusion]

Stalin and his buddies did seem to live what some would call a "bourgeoisie" lifestyle.

For example, when Che visited the U.S.S.R and dined with the Soviet leadership, he saw the fine china plates that they were served with and remarked, "Is this how the proletariat lives in Russia?"

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm i really cant see how Stalin has a following, the man didn't even have any compassion for man, and getting some1 to murder trosky is just wrong, plus he let soo many people starve to death in ukraine that hardly shows he has feelings towards his own species, no wonder his 1st wife commited suicide, also why kill Kulucks? thy rnt exactly rich there still peasants just with a bit more money, did Stalin want every1 to be starving poor? while he sat at home having a big meal... hmm sounds a bit dodgy too me

[Hiero]

For example, when Che visited the U.S.S.R and dined with the Soviet leadership, he saw the fine china plates that they were served with and remarked, "Is this how the proletariat lives in Russia?"

That was after Stalin.


plus he let soo many people starve to death in ukraine

What do you propose he do, magically grow food in short amount of time? It was famine in the Ukraine, it's no just so simplw as he let them starve.


also why kill Kulucks? thy rnt exactly rich there still peasants just with a bit more money,

They were a different class who had different goals. They found life more profitable for them to stay in a semi feudal society where they were the upper class. Socialism and collective farming took away there power and profit.

Marxism is based on class theory, the policy towards the Kulaks was one based on class theory and what was better for the peasants.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea but was it really neccesary ti kill the kuluks? why not just imprison thm till the situation is under control. i'm a leftist but i notice tht in many former socialist countries the power seems to remain in the gun , and no discussion

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2005, 11:42 PM

Of course it was Hitler who actually caused the invasion of the USSR. But who actually trusted Hitler? Who allowed the massive German buildup on his border and did nothing about it? Whose poor invasion of Finland caused Hitler to believe that the Red Army was totally overrated and that the Wehrmacht could easily conquer all of the Soviet Union? Most of all, who had his best officers purged and replaced with his old drinking buddies who didn't understand military strategy at all, thereby significantly weakening the Red Army? Hitler invaded the USSR but Stalin was the one who allowed him to get so far and cause so much destruction. Therefore, all of the sacrifices by the Soviet people were made to atone and correct Stalin's mistakes which he should never have made. Stalin's negligence and stupidity caused massive damage to his nation and his people. This combined with the terror and brutality enacted during his campaign make him a cruel dictator rather than the fatherly figurehead persona he tried to show.
Comrade Stalin's policy of allowing for time for preparation for the invasion was correct. Just take a look at the statistics: Despite enourmous losses and difficulties, Soviet industry churned out a collossal amount of armaments, almost 490 thousand guns and mortars, over 102 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, over 137 thousand military aircraft shows that soviet industry as well as military production were well co-ordinated. In fact, the soviet Kiushka rockets were the most efficent in the world at that time. Tell me if Stalin was 'stupid' and did not plan accordingly HOW WAS THIS POSSIBLE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!???
During the siege of Moscow, when the majority of the soviet leadership had moved to safer locations had fled, comrade Stalin actually stayed in moscow to increase morale. and through his organizational abilities, was able to launch a counter-attack upon the Germans, who then suffered their first setback and their first major losses, around 500,000 troops.
Comrade Stalin's policy of delaying german invasion was correct, this was proven by the actions of the western imperilaists, who to push Hitler's military machine eastward, agreed to give Hitler sudetenland (chekoslovakia).
The finnish were supplied not only by the germans but also by the british who supplied armaments and troops. True however, the Red army's performance was not top-notch.
Your criticism of the purge of the generals shows that you are not aware of their personal histories of counter-revolution, Major-general Trukhin, Malyshkin, Zakutny,Blagoveshchensky,Shapovalov, Meandrov, Zhilenkov, Maltsev,Zverrev,Nerianin,Buniachenko, all were supporters of the bukharinist camp, all were sympathetic to the kulak cause, all were implicated in tokaev's confession in a plot to assasinate comrade Kirov the number two man in the party before comrade Molotov, although ultimately another group assasinated him, all were militarists with ideas of a coup detat against the bolshevik government, and all had regular contact with Vlasov, the most famous of Russian military collaborators with the nazi regime. What do you think should have been done to them? or would you rather another vichy regime in russia should have took hold?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:24 AM
yea but was it really neccesary ti kill the kuluks? why not just imprison thm till the situation is under control. i'm a leftist but i notice tht in many former socialist countries the power seems to remain in the gun , and no discussion
Actually the kulaks weren't executed wholesale. There were three degrees of qualification, if you will.
in the first degree those who carried out industrial sabotage, incitement of peasants against the bolsheviks, raided bolshevik party offices and killed bolshevik activists and communist engineers etc. etc. were subjected to execution.
In the second degree, those who did not take part in direct confrontation but helped the kulak cause ideologically and materially were expelled from the party and deported.
in the third degree, those who were contacts of kulaks etc. and their families or who had past dealings, these were generally spared and even allowed to enter the party on probationary status.
In this regard i agree with the bolshevik method. The kulaks constituted the rural bourgeoisie and that is unacceptable in a country that claims to be socialist, the benefits of socialism do not extend till the industrial proletariat alone but also to the peasantry and rural areas. the existence of a bourgeoisie in any of these areas is unacceptable. any influence reatined by an upper class in any sphere in society is unacceptable in socialism. THIS IS THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND CLASS STRUGGLE!
As comrade Mao put it: a revolution is not a bed of roses, it is not poetry, nor knitting, it is not gentle nor magnanimous, it is an act of insurrection, of violence where one class dethrones another.

[alexidervin]

i think stalin was bad
he made the poeple poorer than they were and starved them
yeah he built a huge empire but you have to care for the people in the empire as well

[viva le revolution]

An actual arguement please. BACK UP YOUR STANCE!

[alexidervin]

whatever, i think stalin wasn't great, but he did bring a susbstantial living increase i guess. He just needed to make sure there was enoguh food for his people.

[viva le revolution]

Of course he wasn't perfect, like any other leader he made mistakes. but the trick is the objective approach to history Looking at stats divorced from material conditions and reality of that time is mistaken. The shortage of food in russia can be attributed to the following which contributed significantly to the rate of hunger in the soviet union:

1. During the peroid of collectivization, the kulak class(rural bourgeoisie) resisted because collectivization meant the loss of power of the kulak class. instead of giving p their grain and livestock to the soviet government for redistribution they burnt it to derail the process of collectivization. Alongwith with houses and barns. A few stats regarding the destruction rendered by the kulaks:
Of the 34 million horses in the country in 1928, there remained only 15 million in 1932.
of the 70.5 million head of cattle there remained only 40.7 million.
of the 26 million pigs only 11.6 million survived.
These statistics alone describe the massive destruction and sabotage carried out by the kulaks. these are the actions of criminals of the first degree. Yet stalin is blamed for repressing the kulaks who through their criminal actions rendered famine in russia.

2. The kulaks apart from destroying foodstuffs also attacked militant bolsheviks and party offices in the countryside thus making rural organization all the more difficult.

3. there was a natural famine in the Ukraine in the form of droughts that of course also played a part in the deathtoll.

4. Some of the mistakes committed can be attributed to weak presence of bolshevik cadres in the countryside. Before the kulaks basically had dominance in the countryside. the bolshevik presence was limited and their influence pre-collectivization was also pretty small.

5. Within the Bolshevik party, factions headed by Bukharin and Zinoviev, the 'brave communists' argued for the slowing down of collectivization and industrialization and opposed the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. This was ironically called 'humanist socialism' by Bukharin.

6. Industrial sabotage was rife in the soviet union during that time that made the process all the more difficult.

[Andy Bowden]

Surely Stalins actions against the people of Chechnya is in complete contradiction with the rights of nations to self-determination, and against the October 1917 revolutions goals of rights for minorities?

[viva le revolution]

Chechnya posed a poblem.During world war 2 many pro-fascist pockets sprung up all over the soviet union, in the military, vlasov and co., within the civil structure and within the party itself. There were pretty energetic fascists in the ukraine and chechnya. priority at the time was not civil liberties but to ensure that such dissident elements do not join the advancing german enemy. The soviet union already experienced this with general vlasov who formed a russian fascist partisan army. Thereforerelocation of populations and control had to take place. However post-world war 2, all these actions stopped. the present situation arose when Yeltsin and similarily Putin resolved to conquer chechnya not as an autonomous part of the russian federation but as another province in russia.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

In fact the only brief period of freedom for Chechnya came after the Russian revolution of 1917.

[Led Zeppelin]

viva le revolution, please respond to my post.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 2 2005, 04:51 PM
[QUOTE=Comrade Qiu,Dec 1 2005, 11:42 PM]
Your criticism of the purge of the generals shows that you are not aware of their personal histories of counter-revolution, Major-general Trukhin, Malyshkin, Zakutny,Blagoveshchensky,Shapovalov, Meandrov, Zhilenkov, Maltsev,Zverrev,Nerianin,Buniachenko, all were supporters of the bukharinist camp, all were sympathetic to the kulak cause, all were implicated in tokaev's confession in a plot to assasinate comrade Kirov the number two man in the party before comrade Molotov, although ultimately another group assasinated him, all were militarists with ideas of a coup detat against the bolshevik government, and all had regular contact with Vlasov, the most famous of Russian military collaborators with the nazi regime. What do you think should have been done to them? or would you rather another vichy regime in russia should have took hold?
THis is all complete nonsense from vive la revolution. No one, absolutely noone of any scholarly integrity who has examined these issues has EVER backed any of these claims against the generals. They are complete nonsense.

You dare to ask others for arguments, when all you present are grandiose assertions that rely only on bullyingly placing the obligations on others to seek out and replicate the mass of detail necessary to show that this is nonsense.

I suggest to you that you are involved in that sectish recycling of elusian mysteries that serves only to create a cement for cliquish organisation out of the denial of commonly held fact. Replicating your cementation thought-process on a public board is only displaying your dirty laundery.

You talk about insults to the October Revolution. This kind of post is an insult to that revolution and all the people of integrity who took part in it.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:04 AM
Stalin did pwn the Nazis pretty hard in the Great Patriotic War, even though he lost 27 million men in the process.
And Women.

[Comrade Jobbyman]

Comrade Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist that through his wholsome dedication to the revolution helped enact socialism for the first time. By doing this, he proved the Trotskyites and other counterrevolutionaries that socialism can be built in one country.

The people that feel Stalin was bad are anti-communists and pseudo-Leftists that would rather support someone that was a Zionist, in bed with imperialism, and a puppet to Zionist bankers and their fascist conspiracy, i.e. Leon Trotsky.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2005, 02:26 PM
Comrade Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist that through his wholsome dedication to the revolution helped enact socialism for the first time. By doing this, he proved the Trotskyites and other counterrevolutionaries that socialism can be built in one country.

The people that feel Stalin was bad are anti-communists and pseudo-Leftists that would rather support someone that was a Zionist, in bed with imperialism, and a puppet to Zionist bankers and their fascist conspiracy, i.e. Leon Trotsky.
Can you say.... RESTRICT!

[Comrade Jobbyman]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 4 2005, 07:41 PM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 4 2005, 07:41 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 4 2005, 02:26 PM
Comrade Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist that through his wholsome dedication to the revolution helped enact socialism for the first time. By doing this, he proved the Trotskyites and other counterrevolutionaries that socialism can be built in one country.

The people that feel Stalin was bad are anti-communists and pseudo-Leftists that would rather support someone that was a Zionist, in bed with imperialism, and a puppet to Zionist bankers and their fascist conspiracy, i.e. Leon Trotsky.
Can you say.... RESTRICT! [/b]
I dare you, or any other sectarian Trot, to counter my points.

[Andy Bowden]

Do you have any evidence that Leon Trotsky was a Zionist?

[Janus]

[QUOTE]Comrade Stalin's policy of allowing for time for preparation for the invasion was correct. Just take a look at the statistics: Despite enourmous losses and difficulties, Soviet industry churned out a collossal amount of armaments, almost 490 thousand guns and mortars, over 102 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, over 137 thousand military aircraft shows that soviet industry as well as military production were well co-ordinated. In fact, the soviet Kiushka rockets were the most efficent in the world at that time. Tell me if Stalin was 'stupid' and did not plan accordingly HOW WAS THIS POSSIBLE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!???
During the siege of Moscow, when the majority of the soviet leadership had moved to safer locations had fled, comrade Stalin actually stayed in moscow to increase morale. and through his organizational abilities, was able to launch a counter-attack upon the Germans, who then suffered their first setback and their first major losses, around 500,000 troops.
Comrade Stalin's policy of delaying german invasion was correct, this was proven by the actions of the western imperilaists, who to push Hitler's military machine eastward, agreed to give Hitler sudetenland (chekoslovakia).
The finnish were supplied not only by the germans but also by the british who supplied armaments and troops. True however, the Red army's performance was not top-notch.
Your criticism of the purge of the generals shows that you are not aware of their personal histories of counter-revolution, Major-general Trukhin, Malyshkin, Zakutny,Blagoveshchensky,Shapovalov, Meandrov, Zhilenkov, Maltsev,Zverrev,Nerianin,Buniachenko, all were supporters of the bukharinist camp, all were sympathetic to the kulak cause, all were implicated in tokaev's confession in a plot to assasinate comrade Kirov the number two man in the party before comrade Molotov, although ultimately another group assasinated him, all were militarists with ideas of a coup detat against the bolshevik government, and all had regular contact with Vlasov, the most famous of Russian military collaborators with the nazi regime. What do you think should have been done to them? or would you rather another vichy regime in russia should have took hold?



Why would waiting for someone to invade your nation, thereby giving them the initiative, be correct; it is totally contrary to military strategy. I don't think that the large amount of material produced was due to any major brilliant planning on Stalin's part. Wasn't the 1932-1933 famine caused by his ineptitude and poor handling of collectivization? Rather, the huge amount of material produced by the industries was due to the huge sacrifices made by the Soviet people which is why the war is called the Great Patriotic War since Stalin knew the people would fight for the nation and independence rather than just to preserve his rule. Every worker was engrossed in passing the quotas and Stalin even ordered many of his factories to be moved further east. When you compare that to the German industry, which didn't even switch to total war production until 1944, you can easily see why the USSR triumphed over Germany in the end.

The victory at Moscow can not be solely attributed to Stalin either. By that time the German offensive had become bogged down and the Wehrmacht had not been provided with winter gear because of Hitler's vanity. Also, since the Soviets had discovered that a Japanese attack was not forthcoming, they were able to send many fresh Siberian units to help defend Moscow. The halt of the German offensive at Moscow was due to German mistakes and the desperate defense by the Soviet people rather than Stalin himself. The counterattack may have been planned by Stalin but it was mainly achieved because of the Soviet reinforcements and the fact that the Germans lines were too stretched and drawn out. Later on during the war, Stalin committed many mistakes in his counterattacks because he tried to make them too extravagant rather than focusing on just one. The end result being that none of them really succeded.

Furthermore, I see that you left out perhaps the most important general, Mikhail Tuchachevsky. However, I wasn't really criticizing Stalin's executions of the generals as much as I was criticizing his and his fellow cronies' handling of the war. One of the examples was the commissar policy, which was perhaps the worst case of military incompetency since you had politicians who had no clue of military strategy but had power over the commanding military officer.

I know that Stalin needed to allow time for preparation after the invasion had started but I believe that he should have been more careful before Operation Barbarossa. Therefore, I believe that he didn't handle the war well in the beginning though the situation did improve later on.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Comrade Jobbyman+Dec 4 2005, 02:49 PM--> (Comrade Jobbyman @ Dec 4 2005, 02:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:41 PM

Comrade [email protected] 4 2005, 02:26 PM
Comrade Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist that through his wholsome dedication to the revolution helped enact socialism for the first time. By doing this, he proved the Trotskyites and other counterrevolutionaries that socialism can be built in one country.

The people that feel Stalin was bad are anti-communists and pseudo-Leftists that would rather support someone that was a Zionist, in bed with imperialism, and a puppet to Zionist bankers and their fascist conspiracy, i.e. Leon Trotsky.
Can you say.... RESTRICT!
I dare you, or any other sectarian Trot, to counter my points. [/b]
Seeing as how I am not a Trotskyist...

[Comrade Martin]

My personal opinion on Stalin, which may be out of context now if the debate has strayed from its original topic, is that he managed the economy in such a way as to be perfectly Socialistic. I believe that Khrushchev's, Brezhnev's, and definently Gorbachev's economic reforms were all Capitalistic and eventually returned the Soviet Union to Capitalism in the end. However, Stalin did (And don't get me wrong - I've really read in to all of the facts about Stalin and what evils it wrought, I'm not one of those History channel fanatics who will say Stalin killed 800 million people [Okay, that's an exaggeration, but the History Channel likes to say 20 million]) kill millions (About 5 million, to be more exact) of people, which is absolutely inexcusable in a Socialist state, not to mention the ills inflicted by forcible collectivization, of the GULAG system (Thankfully abolished by Khrushchev), the oppression of homosexuals, the outlawing of sciences (Genetics and cybernetics, most notably), and the blatant disregard for human needs and rights throughout his era. Khrushchev was a great breath of fresh air for society after Stalin, but his economic policies left a bit to be desired. Mao was no different, and luckily for him, he had time to turn his ass around with the Hundred Flowers Campaign, but Maoists, to this day, remain idiots (I hope insulting Maoists is not bannable; I do it a lot, I will apologize if necessary) and don't really even follow Mao, just make crap up along the way ("All sex under Capitalism is rape", anyone?)

Stalin also made a number of governmental decisions which were wholly unacceptable. A friend of mine, Kenneth S. (Name unrevealed for his privacy) and I made this list together of problems under Stalin. I think it is appropriate here:

Great Purge
Stalinists often explain the necessity of the purges, and blame any excesses (As Stalin did) on Yezhov. It's incomprehensible, however, that Yezhov was the only culprit, especially when Stalin claimed to have no prior knowledge of the events until it was all revealed. How is it, exactly, that Stalin, as Khrushchev pointed out at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, couldn't have known until the end when such close friends of Stalin, such as Kossior, disappeared before him? The Great Purge was carried out with full authority by Stalin, and a great many lives, most of them totally innocent, were lost or deprived of their freedom, only to be rehabilitated much later, some not even until the Gorbachev era.

1936 Constitution Issues
The 1936 Constitution gave the Soviet people many rights that were later denied to them the very same year! Free speech, press, association, et al were all limited during the Great Purge and were never fully reinstated. The 1936 Constitution also said that the Supreme Soviet in Moscow was "the highest legislative power in the USSR", and this was not carried out fully. The Supreme Soviet seldom disagreed with the Central Committee and Politburo and was pretty much another “yes-man” institution.

Stalin's Influence
Stalin, while in no way a despot himself or holding any autocratic power insofar as legality was concerned, held far too much influence and he personally made many important decisions undemocratically. Discussions and debates were limited to agreeing with Stalin or possibly being persecuted, thus ending democratic discussion in the U.S.S.R. That much power should be in no one's hands, regardless of how right he or she might be.

Personality Cult
Proof exists that says that Stalin was not responsible for the personality cult, but there is skepticism regarding this. If it is true that he did not create it, Stalin and the party should have most definitely have discouraged it, as it is the sort of thing that we are struggling against. And not only Stalin's personality cult, but also Lenin's; Lenin was practically a god-like figure. His image and name everywhere. People looked at him with reverence and didn't view him as "one of us,” just like Stalin.

Science
A lot of scientific fields were suppressed thanks to Stalin’s adoption of Lysenkoism. He was clearly a loon. He tried to apply dialectics to agriculture and disbelieved in the possibility of inherited characteristics. Genetics, cybernetics (“Machines cannot think”), and other "bourgeois pseudo-sciences" were suppressed. Struggle in science must be answered scientifically and must NEVER be answered ideologically. Science is truth. If they thought something was wrong with Genetics or other theories, they should have studied it more and done research, not suppress it.

Class Consciousness
The degree of Central Committee in the U.S.S.R. was not all that great among the workers. They should have definitely been very focused on educating the masses so that complete workers democracy could have existed in the U.S.S.R.. This is one of the most important things and should be of the most importance to any Socialist state, and was ignored by Stalin.

Homosexuality
Homosexuality was outlawed by Soviet law, and, much as in China under Mao, declared to be a product of “Bourgeois decadence.” Homosexuality is a choice, not a mental disorder, and it should be treated accordingly.

Workers’ Rights
Independent workers’ unions were outlawed, the right to strike was removed, harsh conditions were placed on workers in order to speed up productivity, and all of this was done under the guise of “Labor Discipline” and the fight against Fascism. These rights were never fully restored.

Gulags
The poor conditions of the Gulags (While in itself a theoretically sound institution), which resulted in the deaths of some 800,000 prisoners. Despite their past misdeeds, no one truly deserves to die, particularly not when there is no cause.

Polish Communist Party
The Polish Communist Party was practically disassembled during Stalin's reign, when most of its members were rounded up while in Moscow during the Great Purge and imprisoned indefinitely.

Political Dissidents
Many political dissidents (Starting with the Great Purge [Which was exclusively a cleansing of the Party which later expanded to the whole of society]) were imprisoned or otherwise killed for their beliefs, regardless of their actual conduction of violent acts against the government or even plans to commit such things.

Finnish-Soviet War
The plunge in to Finland was ill-prepared and ill-conducted, since Stalin preferred to manage the move himself, rather than consult advisors (Most of which had been replaced during the Great Purge anyway.)

World War II Preparation
WWII was not prepared for well-enough, particularly because most military leaders had been removed during the Great Purge, and the Soviets, under Stalin’s command, lost a huge portion of their army in the fight against Finland.

Forced Collectivization
The forcing of collectivization of farming resulted in a famine as well as many deaths (Of private farm owners in the acquisition process and of people simply unable to obtain food in cities and even on the farms where the food was made!). Stalinists claim that the Petit-Bourgeois farmers had united to strike against the Soviet government and refused to sell their grain, but the make the mistake of assuming that the Petit-Bourgeoisie doesn’t vacillate between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie, and that it has its own class consciousness; Laughable sophistry at best.

Trotsky
Stalin exiled Trotsky without a reason other than his rivalry, which is not the Socialist way, as with many other major political rivals of Stalin, and the eventual assassination of Trotsky himself.

Acculturation
The rejection of such ideas as acculturation and refusing theories by such people as Professor Marr stating that languages, with the advance of Communism, as well as culture would begin to mix and meld until a new unifying language and culture existed in world Communism (Stalin's alternative was: Russian will be the world's language of the future! Which seems chauvinistic and nationalistic.)

Korean War
Stalin and Mao both gave Kim Il Sung permission to engage in the war, and promised support. Firstly, a great many lives were lost in that conflict needlessly, and the North complicated efforts for all future revolutionaries and Communists in South Korea. Secondly, even if you approved of the actions of the North, both Mao and Stalin broke their promises to Kim Il Sung and withdrew all advisors and troops from North Korea at the start of the invasion.

[Comrade Jobbyman]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 4 2005, 09:28 PM
Do you have any evidence that Leon Trotsky was a Zionist?
Yes I do. Beba Idelson's, the expelled Zionist from the USSR, recollections with Trotsky show his sympathy and support for that reactionary, racist, and colonial cause. He even likened Zionist "collective" farms to the Soviet kolkhoez.

Also he turned the Jewish Question into a National Question, which is simply wrong and Jewish chauvinism.

[viva le revolution]

Marxist-leninist, i am sorry i took so long to reply.
Comrade Stalin did indeed practice democratic centralism. Stalin did not gt power by conspiring with the beurocracy as espoused by Trotsky and other sources, he took power through an inner-party referendum, with only about one and a half percent of the bolsheviks identifying with Trotsky's permanent revolution theory, thus the party too was inclined towards lenin's uniterrupted revolution theory popularly categorized as Stalin's socialsm in one country.
Democractic centralism was an inherent aspect of the bolshevik party, with inner-party elections taking place even during the world war 2 years. Stalin was of course recallable in each circumstance.
As for beurocratism, Stalin contrary to Trotsky, tried to restrict the emergence of a party beurocracy. This is most evident in the fact that shortly after routing the Kulak class, a group of 25000 militant bolsheviks were sent from the urban areas to rural areas to discourage the emergence of a rural party beurocracy. Of this group of 25000 many came under attack and were in some cases even murdered by kulak-sympathizers and even rural beurocratic cadres.
Within the kolkhozes themselves ordinary party members and ordinary people were encouraged to sidestep red tapeism.
However as regards living wages of party members and higher cadres, i am not too enlightened on that so i apologize but i cannot refute your point.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:59 PM

[QUOTE=Comrade Qiu,Dec 1 2005, 11:42 PM]
Your criticism of the purge of the generals shows that you are not aware of their personal histories of counter-revolution, Major-general Trukhin, Malyshkin, Zakutny,Blagoveshchensky,Shapovalov, Meandrov, Zhilenkov, Maltsev,Zverrev,Nerianin,Buniachenko, all were supporters of the bukharinist camp, all were sympathetic to the kulak cause, all were implicated in tokaev's confession in a plot to assasinate comrade Kirov the number two man in the party before comrade Molotov, although ultimately another group assasinated him, all were militarists with ideas of a coup detat against the bolshevik government, and all had regular contact with Vlasov, the most famous of Russian military collaborators with the nazi regime. What do you think should have been done to them? or would you rather another vichy regime in russia should have took hold?
THis is all complete nonsense from vive la revolution. No one, absolutely noone of any scholarly integrity who has examined these issues has EVER backed any of these claims against the generals. They are complete nonsense.

You dare to ask others for arguments, when all you present are grandiose assertions that rely only on bullyingly placing the obligations on others to seek out and replicate the mass of detail necessary to show that this is nonsense.

I suggest to you that you are involved in that sectish recycling of elusian mysteries that serves only to create a cement for cliquish organisation out of the denial of commonly held fact. Replicating your cementation thought-process on a public board is only displaying your dirty laundery.

You talk about insults to the October Revolution. This kind of post is an insult to that revolution and all the people of integrity who took part in it.
So you deny that these military men were not implicated by Tokaev's testimony? That these men were not planning a military coup detat against the Bolshevik regime? Ok..... Bukharin himself in his testimony before the politburo acknowledged the existence of a plot to unseat Stalin and the Bolshevik's by the military, in his testimony he acknowledged that Trotsky's son Sedov was in contact with bukharists and zinovievites within the party. and that one of the top men in this conspiracy was Vlasov himself. Of course this was proven by Vlasov's, Frunze etc. collaborationism with the Nazi's.
Kindly elaborate on your stance.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2005, 12:19 AM




Why would waiting for someone to invade your nation, thereby giving them the initiative, be correct; it is totally contrary to military strategy. I don't think that the large amount of material produced was due to any major brilliant planning on Stalin's part. Wasn't the 1932-1933 famine caused by his ineptitude and poor handling of collectivization? Rather, the huge amount of material produced by the industries was due to the huge sacrifices made by the Soviet people which is why the war is called the Great Patriotic War since Stalin knew the people would fight for the nation and independence rather than just to preserve his rule. Every worker was engrossed in passing the quotas and Stalin even ordered many of his factories to be moved further east. When you compare that to the German industry, which didn't even switch to total war production until 1944, you can easily see why the USSR triumphed over Germany in the end.

The victory at Moscow can not be solely attributed to Stalin either. By that time the German offensive had become bogged down and the Wehrmacht had not been provided with winter gear because of Hitler's vanity. Also, since the Soviets had discovered that a Japanese attack was not forthcoming, they were able to send many fresh Siberian units to help defend Moscow. The halt of the German offensive at Moscow was due to German mistakes and the desperate defense by the Soviet people rather than Stalin himself. The counterattack may have been planned by Stalin but it was mainly achieved because of the Soviet reinforcements and the fact that the Germans lines were too stretched and drawn out. Later on during the war, Stalin committed many mistakes in his counterattacks because he tried to make them too extravagant rather than focusing on just one. The end result being that none of them really succeded.

Furthermore, I see that you left out perhaps the most important general, Mikhail Tuchachevsky. However, I wasn't really criticizing Stalin's executions of the generals as much as I was criticizing his and his fellow cronies' handling of the war. One of the examples was the commissar policy, which was perhaps the worst case of military incompetency since you had politicians who had no clue of military strategy but had power over the commanding military officer.

I know that Stalin needed to allow time for preparation after the invasion had started but I believe that he should have been more careful before Operation Barbarossa. Therefore, I believe that he didn't handle the war well in the beginning though the situation did improve later on.
Firstly comrade, i mean no disrespect, i have noticed an inconsistency in your stance, you say that the industrial success was not stalin's accomplishment alone but the shortcomings are his responsibility alone. A little double standard isn't it?
However you are correct the industrial success is not stalin's accomplishment alone. The organization of the bolshevik cadres in the urban and industrial areas was strong, It is testamnet not to stalin's personality but to the structure of the marxist-leninist party. However that does not mean that Stalin did not have a part to play nonetheless as the head of state. However as regards the collectivization, these were addressed by my earlier posts however i will go over them again, the kulaks criminal destruction of livestock and crops contributed greatly to the famine. The figures are posted in my earlier posts. Another reason was that at the time of collectivization, the Bolshevik cadres had a very weak presence in the countryside as compared to urban areas thus organization was made more difficult, coupled with kulak sympathizers burning party offices in the countryside and attacking and sometimes killing militant bolsheviks. A vast host of material circumstances contributed to the famine.
Just as you say, in the end it is the masses and not the individual that makes success. This is true in every sense. Similarily, it is material conditions and not the individual that determines obstacles. Therefore commending Stalin alone for every success is historical simplism, and in that same note condemning him alone for difficulties and obstacles is also historical simplism.
As regards the commissar policy, at that point the goal wasn't about politicians dictating army men, it was to restrict the army's power. It boils down to the fundamental aspect of Marxism-leninism, the military is subservient to not above, the party. It took this particular form due to very real dangers of militarists planning to unseat the bolsheviks. Particularly the example of Vlasov joining the fascists. Therefore the bolsheviks were very rightly so concerned and took this step to keep an eye on the upper echelon of the military in an effort to prevent reapeats of vlasov's performance.
As for the war performance itself, The very fact that major industries were shifted east etc. show that soviet industry was well organizaed at that peroid. Hitler too made errors that made it easier for the soviets but the odds were still very high against the soviets. the soviet union was still undeveloped as compared to nazi germany. the very fact that 80% of the wehrmacht and the luftwaffe were active on the eastern front is enough for one to imagine the odds.

[fpeppett]

Stalin was a bad leader in my opinion. Someone so authortarian and ruthless just does not work in my mind, I may be leftsit, but Im still democratic and beleive someone who strives for what he sees as 'perfection' by killing millions is bordering on the 'insane'.

However I do beleive he had great organizational and tactical skills, but again such systamatic rule in the Second World War, may be acieving an aim; but just emapthizing with someone who would have been alive and fighting in the Russian army sends shivers down my spine.

[ReD_ReBeL]

good=repression of kuluks who didnt contribute to society, industrialisation to better society, defended Russia against the Nazi's

Bad='the great purges'. the order to assasinate trotsky, appauling political prisoner labour conditions ie. The Road Of Bones, lived much better than the average Russian

there's alot more but there some i thought like putting

[Janus]

[QUOTE]Firstly comrade, i mean no disrespect, i have noticed an inconsistency in your stance, you say that the industrial success was not stalin's accomplishment alone but the shortcomings are his responsibility alone. A little double standard isn't it?


Yes, some of the industrial success has to be atrributed to Stalin of course. The shortcomings of the USSR in dealing with Germany cannot be fully blamed on Stalin either. I understand all of that, I was simply trying to make people aware that Stalin shouldn't be thought of as the perfect savior of the USSR as some people may believe him to be. Of course he made mistakes but he was able to make amends for them in the end by defeating Nazi Germany. That is my stance.

[Led Zeppelin]

Marxist-leninist, i am sorry i took so long to reply.
Comrade Stalin did indeed practice democratic centralism.

So every official was directly elected, subject to recall at all times, and received a workman's wage?

I don't think so.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 6 2005, 11:49 AM

Marxist-leninist, i am sorry i took so long to reply.
Comrade Stalin did indeed practice democratic centralism.

So every official was directly elected, subject to recall at all times, and received a workman's wage?

I don't think so.
Fortunately then history is not shaped by opinion.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh, you have historical evidence to prove that they were? Please show them.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2005, 10:18 PM



Yes, some of the industrial success has to be atrributed to Stalin of course. The shortcomings of the USSR in dealing with Germany cannot be fully blamed on Stalin either. I understand all of that, I was simply trying to make people aware that Stalin shouldn't be thought of as the perfect savior of the USSR as some people may believe him to be. Of course he made mistakes but he was able to make amends for them in the end by defeating Nazi Germany. That is my stance.
Yes comrade that is a correct view of history. No leader was perfect, Stalin wasn't, neither was Lenin. The object here is to view history objectively. What material conditions and difficulties plagued and guided the bolshevik's policies and how effectively were they handled. In the beginning the bolsheviks and Stalin were indeed bogged down by material difficulties and mistaken decisions. But were in the end, somehow successful in handling the situation. The lesson of that episode was not the organizational capabilities of the bolsheviks or of Stalin, but were indicative of the superiority of the socialist system and the inherent strength of the marxist-leninist structure of the party. To give all the credit to Stalin alone for success is foolish so too is balming him solely for everything under the sun. Historical objectivity is what is needed.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 6 2005, 04:40 PM
Oh, you have historical evidence to prove that they were? Please show them.
Yes the fact that inner-party elections were carried out regularly, the fact that in each Stalin was recallable. That is the inherent aspect of a marxist-leninist party. The fact that after the assasination of comrade Kirov, comrade Molotov was elected and not nominated by Stalin. The fact that this practice was continued even during the war years, when in the U.S.A and britain elections were halted.
It is easy to ask for sources to quell the debate so i ask you for yours. What historical evidence do you have to prove that this was not the case.

[Led Zeppelin]

What on earth are you talking about?

General elections were never taken in the USSR, Stalin and the CC were not directly elected by the people, I don't care about them being elected by the party, the party is not the people, unless you can prove that the vast majority of people were party members and took part in the process.

I know you can't.

My source is basic knowledge of history, Stalin and the CC were not directly elected by the people and not one recall vote was started on any of them.

And they sure as hell didn't receive workman's wages, Stalin having two dacha's and all.

[viva le revolution]

There were no general elections there was democratic centralism! umm... do you even know what the hell democratic centralism is?

[Led Zeppelin]

:lol: You don't know what democratic centralism is, you don't even know how the USSR's system was built

Democratic centralism is "for the party", the state was a seperate entity from the party....the bad part was that only party members --the unelected elite-- filled in state positions.

Sure the party must be based on democratic centralism, and was based on it, but not the state, as Lenin explained himself in The State and Revolution.

[viva le revolution]

" not one recall vote was started on any of them".

So? If they had the confidence of the general party members and populatiions, no recall vote would be undertaken. Unless of course you would want to prove that democracy was present by equating democratic centralism with bourgeois parliamentarism and somehow trying to argue that just because the people in charge were not dipshits and thus not subject to recall therefore that makes the country their personal fiefdom.

[Led Zeppelin]

The people couldn't start a recall vote, nor could "normal party members", only the "national assembly" or something to that effect.

I never said that several parties should've been allowed, so you can't equate it with bourgeois-democracy or parliamentarism.

[viva le revolution]

Actually a recall vote could be started by any party organ at the district level or above. Of course that depended upon whether the entire district shared the grievance. Also a majority would be needed amongst the cadres. Ordinary party members the main voting body. The majority's decision of course being the operative one. Therefore comrade Stalin was recallable at all times. the war years were no exception.

[Led Zeppelin]

First of all prove it, secondly; who cares? Were all people party members? How many recall votes were started? None? Why, because everyone loved Stalin? If they did why were so many people expelled from the party?

Just face it, you are denying historical reality, your anti-Leninism is showing.

[viva le revolution]

Firstly, i care because the question to begin with, was he recallable.
Second, you assume that people were expelled because Stalin disliked them or had a grievance with them personally. Party purges are nothing new. In fact Lenin even carried out frequent party purges to get rid of undesirable elements such as drunks, wife-beaters, social-democrats, christian democrats, kautskyites etc. So your likening of the party purge to personal animosity has no basis.

[Led Zeppelin]

Thanks for not addressing any of my points in your post, so basically what you're saying is that everyone in the party liked Stalin, which is horseshit of course.

The point still stands, people could not initiate recall votes, and even if normal party members could, it doesn't matter, since they never did it, probably because it was "taboo" or something.

Let me reiterate however that you have yet to prove that they were eligible for recall.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 6 2005, 06:30 PM


The point still stands, people could not initiate recall votes, and even if normal party members could, it doesn't matter, since they never did it, probably because it was "taboo" or something.

so you want to pass this off as a concrete arguement?

[viva le revolution]

I have already stated that recall votes could be initiated at district level party organs. That inner-party elections took place. THIS IS HISTORICAL FACT! Your refusal to acknowledge or even consider this shows your commitment to objectivity. You then go on saying that Stalin purged anyone based on personal issues, when in fact party purges were routine since Lenin's time as head of the CPSU. Then you state that it is inconcequential just because noone took the initiative of booting out stalin. So Stalin had to be kicked out to satisfy your objective view of history. Maybe noone booted him out because there was no other alternative leader as effective as he was. You as well as anybody should know that party elections have to do with ideology and practical policy and not petty personal rivalry. However that does not matter just because noone felt the need to exercise it doesn't mean that that anenue of action did not not exist. You then go on to try to justify your position by likening it to a taboo! hmm...

[gilhyle]

[QUOTE=Comrade Qiu,Dec 1 2005, 11:42 PM]
Your criticism of the purge of the generals shows that you are not aware of their personal histories of counter-revolution, Major-general Trukhin, Malyshkin, Zakutny,Blagoveshchensky,Shapovalov, Meandrov, Zhilenkov, Maltsev,Zverrev,Nerianin,Buniachenko, all were supporters of the bukharinist camp, all were sympathetic to the kulak cause, all were implicated in tokaev's confession in a plot to assasinate comrade Kirov the number two man in the party before comrade Molotov, although ultimately another group assasinated him, all were militarists with ideas of a coup detat against the bolshevik government, and all had regular contact with Vlasov, the most famous of Russian military collaborators with the nazi regime. What do you think should have been done to them? or would you rather another vichy regime in russia should have took hold?
THis is all complete nonsense from vive la revolution. No one, absolutely noone of any scholarly integrity who has examined these issues has EVER backed any of these claims against the generals. They are complete nonsense.

You dare to ask others for arguments, when all you present are grandiose assertions that rely only on bullyingly placing the obligations on others to seek out and replicate the mass of detail necessary to show that this is nonsense.

I suggest to you that you are involved in that sectish recycling of elusian mysteries that serves only to create a cement for cliquish organisation out of the denial of commonly held fact. Replicating your cementation thought-process on a public board is only displaying your dirty laundery.

You talk about insults to the October Revolution. This kind of post is an insult to that revolution and all the people of integrity who took part in it.
So you deny that these military men were not implicated by Tokaev's testimony? That these men were not planning a military coup detat against the Bolshevik regime? Ok..... Bukharin himself in his testimony before the politburo acknowledged the existence of a plot to unseat Stalin and the Bolshevik's by the military, in his testimony he acknowledged that Trotsky's son Sedov was in contact with bukharists and zinovievites within the party. and that one of the top men in this conspiracy was Vlasov himself. Of course this was proven by Vlasov's, Frunze etc. collaborationism with the Nazi's.
Kindly elaborate on your stance.
It is as silly going back over this stuff as taking seriously the claim that Trotsky was a zionist. But, I guess a word or two can't hurt. Walter Schellenberg (a former Nazi spymaster) has outlned how Hitler on Heydrich's recommendation provoked Stalin into arresting Tukhachevsky and other generals, using a coup rumour, in order to undermine the Soviet army.

The relevant German spies Schpalke and Koestring both subsequently confirmed that the generals did not provide them with any information.

Uritsky, head of counterintelligence told Stalin at the time that the Nazi's were slandering the generals. Stalin disregarded this expert advice.

But Stalin was not fooled. Hitler's actions fitted with his own intentions. Krivitsky records that he had had instructions as early as late 1936 to build accusations against the generals.

The key accuser was a man called Skoblin. Documents discovered in his Paris flat showed that he worked for the NKVD. The Bulletin of the Opposition identified Skoblin as an NKVD agent within White Russian circles in December 1937.

Now you can deny all this and prefer the evidence of tortured men.

But then if that is what you want to believe you might as well believe the evidence of the interrogators who, during their own torture during 1938 all confessed to having tortured the evidence out of the witnesses. Similar evidence was given by others during investigations in the 1950s and 1960s. Tukachevsky's blood is spattered on the NKVD record of the interrogation.

You can if you wish leave all that aside. Then you are left with the twin absurdities of there still being a supposedly large scale trotsyist organisation in the USSR in 1936 and the willingness of the generals who had done so much to win the civl war, en masse, being willing to act on the orders of Hitler.

Do you seriously quote Bukharin's evidence which is famous for its ironic, conscious, self-contradition. Why do you pick that over Radek's evidence at his trial that Tukhachevsky was loyal.

Even then, there was not even a public show trial. A formal one day trial was held and Stalin ordered the Judge, Ulrich, in the presence of witnesses, what verdict and sentence to deliver.

Of course, underlying everything you say is the conclusion that Bukharin was counter-revolutionary. Bukharin was a weak-willed man, a bad Marxist in my view, with too much education and too little understanding....but he was no counter-revolutionary and the view that Bukharin should have been shot is tantamount to the view that there is no room for internal democracy in a revolutionary movement. That was Stalin's view.

[Led Zeppelin]

"viva le revolution" is a perfect example of a "Stalin kiddie", denying historical reality and dogmatically asserting Stalinist propaganda are his key characteristics.

He says that "all party members were allowed to start a recall vote", but at the same time he acknowledges that none were started! What does this prove? It proves that "viva le revolution" doesn't know anything about the history of the USSR, if he did know he would have realized that the left-opposition --who opposed Stalin-- would have started a recall vote if they could.

He can keep believing the Stalinist propaganda, and the Trotskyists can keep believing the Trotskyist propaganda about Stalin "killing 40 million people", true Marxists disregard both as crap, and make a clear Marxist analysis of him, and his historical role, I have done as such earlier in this thread, look it up.

[ReD_ReBeL]

argh this thread is starting to annoy me can everyone not make up there own minds about this man instead of asking other people. you are on the net so go look him up and come up with your own views gee lol

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 7 2005, 01:11 PM
"viva le revolution" is a perfect example of a "Stalin kiddie", denying historical reality and dogmatically asserting Stalinist propaganda are his key characteristics.

He says that "all party members were allowed to start a recall vote", but at the same time he acknowledges that none were started! What does this prove? It proves that "viva le revolution" doesn't know anything about the history of the USSR, if he did know he would have realized that the left-opposition --who opposed Stalin-- would have started a recall vote if they could.

He can keep believing the Stalinist propaganda, and the Trotskyists can keep believing the Trotskyist propaganda about Stalin "killing 40 million people", true Marxists disregard both as crap, and make a clear Marxist analysis of him, and his historical role, I have done as such earlier in this thread, look it up.
1. Wow, personal attacks! nice marxist arguement.
2. I never said all party members, organs at the district level and above. Look at my previous posts.
3. What does it prove? maybe the members of a district party committee did not find it prudent to start a recall vote. dURING WW2 elections were cancelled in western europe and the U.S.A, does that mean that they did not exist? Your entire stance rests on subjective speculation.
4. " left opposition" as you so nicely put it, had no party support to begin with. The marxist-leninist faction headed by Stalin and Molotov had an overwhelming majority in the party.
5. As for your oh so scientific analysis...i have yet to see one that goes beyond mere speculation and soothsaying.
6. Or maybe scientific arguement, as you so nicely put it in your 'scientific'analysis, is 'taboo' for you.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Nobody's asking anyone about Stalin, people are expressing their opinions and discussing historical facts. I am finding all this very interesting, seriously, theres a lot of stuff I didn't even know about before.

[ReD_ReBeL]

alright sorry thats cool, well my opinion is he is an evil man who had some good ideas but these ideas usual resulted in the deaths of alot of people. i.e the purges my god tht is like some facist movement against all there opposition.Industrialisation good idea but usual work places had shit safety and on a daily bases ppl usto down doing there work. Ukranian famine-of course it was completely his fault but surely he coulda of done more to help, communist? erm i thought communists believed countrys should be free and independant and should rule them selfs, not ruling over other countries like tht of the eartern bloc, Stalin in my opinion is just a soviet imperialist.

[ReD_ReBeL]

soryr made some spelling mistakes i meant:
daily bases people usto die doing there work. and...
Ukranian famine-of course it wasn't completely his fault

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Lol yes, I was gonna say "of course it was all completely his fault"...

The point you are trying to make is insufficiently backed by arguments. "He was an evil man" is a personal insult, not an objective analysis.

"He had good idea which usually resulted in alot of deaths" - some examples maybe? (Please, without the stalin singlehandedly killed 20-30-50million innocent civilians)

Yes, he could have done more to help the Ukrainian famine, but it was largely the slow reaction of the distribution organs which worsened the crisis. The main reason, however, was crop failure and droughts.

He didn't "rule ofver countries in the Eastern bloc". They had their own leaders, often supported by the majority of the population.

[Martyr]

Although Stalin killed millions of people you have to admit that he took a country that was underdeveloped because of all the wars and corruption and turned it into a superpower challenging America. Iwould never want to have another ruler that of course killed millions of people however that ambition could be used in real life situations like in business. So although he was and evil tyrant he made his country ten times bigger than anyone would have imagined.

[Chavista]

Stalin takes a lot of heat over the deaths of opponents, etc. however what you need to remember is that the country had just been through a bloody revolution. If he were not so tight with his grip the Soviet Union would have been gone before you could say viva-la-anything. Need proof? Look what happened when they brought that looser Gorbachov in -and that was well past 1917!

[ReD_ReBeL]

yes true, but in reality Gorbachev had the most human free policies out of all the Soviet premiers, he was even gonna give russia general elections. Although the other leaders where strong at keeping together Russia they failed to give the people openness and democracy which is what real socialism is, in my opinion anyway. Even Boris Yeltin fought off a military coup which yeltin was backed by the majority of people. So if the USSR was so succecful why didnt most russians fight back for a socialist society?

[celticfire]

Gorbachev was nothing more than a capitalist. All capitalists talk about "democracy" in general, never answering democracy for who? -- look a G.W. Bush! How many times have you heard him say "defend democracy" when he means "defend imperialism"?
Lenin pointed this out over a hundred years ago now. I think he called it "wind-baggery."

Socialism is a lot more than general elections (which I agree with you - they are a good thing!) it is a dictatorship of the proletariat whereby the proletariat masses monopolize their dictatorship. Can you give an example of how Gorbachev acted on behalf of the proletiariat? He sure wanted general elections for the emerged capitalist class, not the masses. We have general elections in the U.S. and ask anyone on this board if there worth warm spit? All the canidates are very wealthy, the topics of discussion are controlled by corporations. When the 3 richest people in the US have a combined wealth equal to more than 115 million ordinary Americans, they are the ones who really run the country. With their economic decisions they determine the lives of millions of ordinary people, their job prospects, their access to health care, education, etc. When the interests of these big corporations are threatened they use the government to save them.

Yes, you can vote every few years in the presidential and congressional elections. But look at who stands in those elections. Only those who have enough money to do so. Who finances their campaigns? The big corporations. So you do not have a REAL choice. In practice, there is democracy only for the rich and powerful - bourgeois democracy.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Why Stalin was a BAD communist: He did not support independent working class struggle for the overthrow of capitalism
His idea of USSR-governed sattelite states had nothing to do with internationalism in Lenin's tradition and spreading the socialist revolution worldwide
There was no workers' democracy in the USSR nor in any of its' satellite states

[celticfire]

RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog: Good points comrade, but lets not forget the other side of the coin:

- Collectivized industry.
- Defended the SU from Nazi invasion
- Aided many other revolutionary struggles (although at times in a mechanical way, ie: Spain)
- Promoted equality among races and men and women.
- Industrialized the SU

I highly suggest everyone read The Stalin Era (http://www.plp.org/books/strong_stalin_era.pdf) by Anna Louise Strong. It mentions the great accomplishments and the real setbacks - including those from Stalin's leadership. For example, it talked about how the SU had the most democratic consitution in the world; and Stalin violated it. The only thing I want to emphaize is being dialectical, all around and not just repeat the slanders the bourgeoisie heap upon Stalin.

There is much to criticize in Stalin - but also some fundamentals to defend. It was right to collectivize, it was right to defend against counterrevolutionary and reactionary attacks -- all of which he did in a mechanical, undialectical way. He seperated himself from the masses, and used administrative measures to weed out counter-revolutionaries instead of calling on the people to defend themselves against them. So like I said before, I give Stalin 50/50.

Also I like On the Question of Stalin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/QS63.html) by the Communist Party of China (when it was really communist.)
It openly talks about Stalin's violation of socialist democracy, and violations of the party's democratic centralism.

[Zingu]

I would have supported Lenin and Stalin, as ML said, they brought Russia forward, forever dumping the backwardness of Feudal Aristrocracy.


What people are getting here is that we might have perfect theory, but we have a imperfect reality, the world won't present to us a perfect situation for revolution. So when 1905 and 1917, should have the Bolsheviks just sat on their asses crying "Oh, the masses should not have revolted yet! The proletariat are not ready!"

NO!

We must take advantage of every situation that presents itself and seize the day! The Russian revolutionary movement had been going for DECADES! They were not going to stop there!

Leninism was a coherant theory back in the first half of the 20th century, it brought forth backwards countries like China and Russia into the modern world, which has brought us one step closer to Communism. Would you have supported the Burgeoisie revolutions in the 1700s and 1800s? If you don't, then forget about ever getting to Communism. History is a progress, and therefore we must understand its lines of march of it.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:07 PM
RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog: Good points comrade, but lets not forget the other side of the coin:

- Collectivized industry.
- Defended the SU from Nazi invasion
- Aided many other revolutionary struggles (although at times in a mechanical way, ie: Spain)
- Promoted equality among races and men and women.
- Industrialized the SU

I highly suggest everyone read The Stalin Era (http://www.plp.org/books/strong_stalin_era.pdf) by Anna Louise Strong. It mentions the great accomplishments and the real setbacks - including those from Stalin's leadership. For example, it talked about how the SU had the most democratic consitution in the world; and Stalin violated it. The only thing I want to emphaize is being dialectical, all around and not just repeat the slanders the bourgeoisie heap upon Stalin.

There is much to criticize in Stalin - but also some fundamentals to defend. It was right to collectivize, it was right to defend against counterrevolutionary and reactionary attacks -- all of which he did in a mechanical, undialectical way. He seperated himself from the masses, and used administrative measures to weed out counter-revolutionaries instead of calling on the people to defend themselves against them. So like I said before, I give Stalin 50/50.

Also I like On the Question of Stalin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/QS63.html) by the Communist Party of China (when it was really communist.)
It openly talks about Stalin's violation of socialist democracy, and violations of the party's democratic centralism.
In my view Stalin´s faults outweigh his positive achievements: for one it is not Stalin alone who collectivised industry and industrialized the SU. All the good things he did would have probably been done better if in line with marxist ideas.

His faults were just flagrant breaches of marxist tactics.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:12 AM
Ukranian famine-of course it was completely his fault but surely he coulda of done more to help, communist?
This is the most annoying thing about the criticism of Stalin.

Ok you give me the reasons why it was his fault and what he should of done, while the whole time keeping a class analysis. If you can't do that then shut up already.

[red_che]

In my view Stalin´s faults outweigh his positive achievements: for one it is not Stalin alone who collectivised industry and industrialized the SU. All the good things he did would have probably been done better if in line with marxist ideas.

His faults were just flagrant breaches of marxist tactics.

Another vague, baseless accusation.

Most criticisms here on Stalin were mere character assassinations. They can't refute the fact that it was Stalin who made revolutionary advances to the Russian society, and socialist advances at that. I haven't seen one present factual argument that refutes this. Only vague accusations.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:09 AM

In my view Stalin´s faults outweigh his positive achievements: for one it is not Stalin alone who collectivised industry and industrialized the SU. All the good things he did would have probably been done better if in line with marxist ideas.

His faults were just flagrant breaches of marxist tactics.

Another vague, baseless accusation.

Most criticisms here on Stalin were mere character assassinations. They can't refute the fact that it was Stalin who made revolutionary advances to the Russian society, and socialist advances at that. I haven't seen one present factual argument that refutes this. Only vague accusations.
I haven't seen one non-vague statement proving this, which cannot be disputed based on the nationalist and burocratic stalinist government style.

[viva le revolution]

Are you fucking joking!!!??? please read the whole thread before spouting such dribble.

[ReD_ReBeL]

here..this my comrades is why i think Stalin could of done better to prevent the Ukranian Famine.....The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent. This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met. Stalin's decision and the methods used to implement it condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation.
heres the full story and shows more of why i didnt like the Stalin era...Ukranian Famine Link (http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html)

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 12 2005, 03:53 PM
Are you fucking joking!!!??? please read the whole thread before spouting such dribble.
Oh bla bla the Stalinist Falsification of History...

Stalin's faults outweighed his achievements...my opinion as I have said before based on the fact that whatever Stalin might have done well was clearly counter-productive and only lead to capitalist restoration because of the lack on internationalism and workers' democracy.

I give up wasting my time on this stalinist bunch...you are wrong...history has shown it..stalinism had lead to capitalist restoration, because by their wrong policies Stalin and his followers could not defend the SU against reaction. This is MARXIST analysis, based on the accent on workers democracy, planned economy and internationalism.

But in your eyes every critic is a bourgeois..f**king sectarians... :angry:

[viva le revolution]

redrebel, that link is just so rabidly anti-stalin and rabidly contradictory that i tried hard not to laugh. Just another example of petit-bourgeois character assasination without definitive proof nor historical detail. For example the last line sums up the ideological honesty and anti-materialit outlook of the entire article and proves the degree of it's objectivity " one soviet official said that collectivization showed the peasants who's boss and that it was here to stay". whoever wrote that has the literary and historical faculties of someone not over sixteen!
The effort to save grace and offer up an article so unscientific and unabashedly subjective only furthur proves the intellectual bankruptcy and infantile stubbornness of the mainstream critics of stalin. Again to reiterate redche, you still have not provided anything besides vague character assasination, relying on that article is just a pathetic attempt.
I would advise you to read ludo marten's another view of stalin.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by RevolutionarySocialist [email protected] 12 2005, 05:30 PM

1.Oh bla bla the Stalinist Falsification of History...

2.Stalin's faults outweighed his achievements...my opinion as I have said before based on the fact that whatever Stalin might have done well was clearly counter-productive and only lead to capitalist restoration because of the lack on internationalism and workers' democracy.

3.I give up wasting my time on this stalinist bunch...you are wrong...history has shown it..stalinism had lead to capitalist restoration, because by their wrong policies Stalin and his followers could not defend the SU against reaction. This is MARXIST analysis, based on the accent on workers democracy, planned economy and internationalism.

But in your eyes every critic is a bourgeois..f**king sectarians... :angry:
1. Again proves your commitment to an objective approach of history.
2. hmm.. lets see shall we? massive industrialization of russia, revokation of NEP, yes the foundations of capitalism, collectivization. Yes the foundations of capitalism :o
3. How are we wrong? Hmm.. lets see my learned friend shall we?
a). Khruschev attacks stalin in secret speech.
b). china breaks off relations with soviet union.
c) Khruschev halts stalin's industrial policy of direct consumer subsidies to capital industry.
d) soviet economy stagnates.
e). Brezhnev, follower of Khruschev, attacks Afghanistan.
f). Gorbachev follower of Khruschev institutes perestroika and glastnost, soviet economy comes crashing down.
Lets see what our 'marxist' friend's analysis is shall we?
a). stalin is root of all evil.
b) khruschev to gorbachev all were followers of stalin.
c) therefore fall of su was stalin's fault.


4. Seems to me theres a missing link here. Don't like the game friend?
Your lack of marxist analysis will not be sorely missed.

[Zeruzo]

Actually, the economy stagnated under Brezhnev, not Kruchev.

[red_che]

Redrebel: do you really believe that crap? It is blatantly one-sided and an obvious bourgeois propaganda and character attack against Stalin. No material proof was showed but mere estimates (which are bloated out of proportions) and a so-called quote from one unnamed author. It is easy to invent such accusation. But where is their evidence?

[Zeruzo]

http://www.epo.be/international/bookinfo.p...n=D1996-2204-19 (http://www.epo.be/international/bookinfo.php?isbn=D1996-2204-19)

and the on-line version:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

[viva le revolution]

Thank you for the correction zeruzo. I may be mistaken.
Thank you i have been recommending that book to everyone but couldn't find the link. Thank you for providing one.

[gilhyle]

Celticfire suggested it was correct to collectivise. I think this is the key point. It was wrong to collectivise. Collectivisation was done by violence. Any internal democracy within the Soviet State was impossible once collectivisation by violence started. The whole 1920s renaissance, the poets, the scientists, the musicians the writers, had to be suppressed to copperfasten collectivization. The former trotskyists and the right oppositions had to be imprisoned to defend it....and in the end the party itself had to be slaughtered because of it.

That violence made possible the pursuit of entirely unprincipled policies in the international arena, most notably the destruction of the Spanish REvolution which would not have been possible without the terror at home.

Forced collectivization is the heart of Stalinism and it is the heart of what was wrong with Stalin.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Was there an alternative to rapid collectivisation at that point? As Stalin said: "We must either catch up with the Western world in ten years, or we will be destroyed". And the USSR nearly was destroyed completely in WWII, where would it have been without collectivisation? There simply would not have been enough resources to feed the people and the massive army.

[commiecrusader]

Stalin was a powerful leader and led the USSR in a very strong way. I think it could even be argued that his heart was even in the right place. I don't think you can dispute however, that the Stalinist regime imposed on the USSR was further from, not closer to, a socialist or communist ideal than Lenin's era. I read somewhere that the gaps between the party members and everyone else in terms of quality of life, property and posessions increased during Stalins time, and this is the main basis for my argument.

Furthermore, whilst an iron fist may be required to rule a country initially after the revolution, there appears to be no attempt to reduce the amount of power held by the state until the de-stalinisation process, which was only going to end in disaster by contradicting one of the fundamental eras of the post-revolution state, something which you cannot afford to do in such a blatant way at least.

Hats off however, for Stalin's perseverance and ability to stand up to the West. This does apply to all the leaders save for Gorbachev though, the cappie prick.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2005, 12:15 PM
Was there an alternative to rapid collectivisation at that point? As Stalin said: "We must either catch up with the Western world in ten years, or we will be destroyed". And the USSR nearly was destroyed completely in WWII, where would it have been without collectivisation? There simply would not have been enough resources to feed the people and the massive army.
Yes, there was an alternative to rapid collectivization. Lenin had outlined it in setting out the NEP.
It is true that the NEP, apparently, implied less industrialization than Stalin's approach, but all the evidence is that the incredibile inefficiency and waste in Stalin's 'command economy' seriously undermined the effectiveness of forced collectivization in promoting industrial development. This is obviously a technical area and the relevant economic facts are clouded in history and misinformation. But all the evidence is that forced collectivization was driven not by any economic necessity, but by the political process of narrowing the base of the regime to enhance the power of Stalin's clique.

[viva le revolution]

Yes Lenin introduced the NEP, but did so only as a temporary measure, nor did he recognize the NEP as something socialist nor did he beleive it to be, as most stalin critics do, as a measure of soft socialism. This is most clearly shown in lenin's speech introducing the NEP and in his famous quote, " NEP Russia will become socialist Russia".
This should put to rest any pomanticist distortions of history to somehow equate it with a form of socilaism, which is nothing other than the vulgarization of history.

[gilhyle]

It doesn't, in all honestly, matter to me whether Lenin thought it was a temporary measure or not. All economic policies are temporary. With respect, that isnt the point.

What I think is important is whether there was an alternative of building socialism without forced expropriation of the mass of the peasantry and the intense consequences of that for the party, the State and the population.

The relative success of NEP, while applied, indicates that there was. Indeed whether you look at the economic policy arguments of the left opposition (except Preobrazhesky) or the right opposition, you get - from all sides - a range of ideas that that were better than what happened.

Stalin pursued forced collectiviztion not because of any strategic assessment of the 'scissors problem' or anything like that, but because inept administration had decimated the market mechanism for supplying food to the cities. He collectivized because he had created such an administrative mess that he had no choice. Thus he broke the alliance of the hammer and the sickle, isolated the State further opened up the inevitable course to restoration. Until the forced collectivization, everything was reversible, improvable. From then on, the USSR was slowly doomed.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:07 PM
It doesn't, in all honestly, matter to me whether Lenin thought it was a temporary measure or not. All economic policies are temporary. With respect, that isnt the point.

What I think is important is whether there was an alternative of building socialism without forced expropriation of the mass of the peasantry and the intense consequences of that for the party, the State and the population.

The relative success of NEP, while applied, indicates that there was. Indeed whether you look at the economic policy arguments of the left opposition (except Preobrazhesky) or the right opposition, you get - from all sides - a range of ideas that that were better than what happened.

Stalin pursued forced collectiviztion not because of any strategic assessment of the 'scissors problem' or anything like that, but because inept administration had decimated the market mechanism for supplying food to the cities. He collectivized because he had created such an administrative mess that he had no choice. Thus he broke the alliance of the hammer and the sickle, isolated the State further opened up the inevitable course to restoration. Until the forced collectivization, everything was reversible, improvable. From then on, the USSR was slowly doomed.
1. Exproriation of the mass of pesants? Pardon me but weren't the mass of peasants landless serfs? The only ones with any sort of means of production were the kulaks. Which in turn employed those mass of peasants as labour. Collectivization was supported by the vast majority of the peasantry(the landless) as it brought the means of production under their collective control, this accounts for the possibility of undergoing such a measure, especially when the presence of the bolsheviks in the countryside was weak.

2. Oh really? The continuance of the NEP meant the continuance of the power of kulaks, it is because of the NEP that Lenin wasn't able to deal with the KUlaks. The results would have been ridiculous. Socialism in the citiezs and cpitalism in the countryside. Instead Stalin took away Kulak power and the result? when Stalin died, the soviet union was a rival superpower in only a matter of nine years.

[Krank]

"We threw out the old bureaucrats, but they've come back (...) they are wearing a red band in their buttonholes and crawls in to warm corners. What do we have to do about this? We have to fight this scum again and again, and if the scum have returned, we must again and again clean up, hunt it out, keep it under the watch of communist workers that we have known longer than a month, and longer than a year."

Lenin to the Petrogradsovjet 1919


Stalin was truly one of those bureucrats. Something that everyone should know Lenin also wrote in his "political will".

Stalin was indeed a bigger enemy to the working class and the whole sovjet people than the kulaks he was killing ever was, like the most of the sovjetunion leaders after 1924.

[gilhyle]

[QUOTE=gilhyle,Dec 17 2005, 09:07 PM]
1. Exproriation of the mass of pesants? Pardon me but weren't the mass of peasants landless serfs? The only ones with any sort of means of production were the kulaks. Which in turn employed those mass of peasants as labour. Collectivization was supported by the vast majority of the peasantry(the landless) as it brought the means of production under their collective control, this accounts for the possibility of undergoing such a measure, especially when the presence of the bolsheviks in the countryside was weak.

2. Oh really? The continuance of the NEP meant the continuance of the power of kulaks, it is because of the NEP that Lenin wasn't able to deal with the KUlaks. The results would have been ridiculous. Socialism in the citiezs and cpitalism in the countryside. Instead Stalin took away Kulak power and the result? when Stalin died, the soviet union was a rival superpower in only a matter of nine years.
No, the mass of peasants were not landless serfs. Serfdom was long since abolished. The pattern of land ownership varied greatly. There were areas, such as parts of the Ukraine where 10% of the peasantry owned 40% or more of the land and other areas where the revolutionary process had effectively redistributed the land on a large scale. There was no uniformity about land ownership patterns, or even about the extent of the revival of real Kulaks.

BUt that isnt the point. You make a 'tina' argument (there was no alternative) and that is what is patently false. It would have been quite straightforward for the State, through a range of policies, to control the growth of Kulaks if the State itself hadn't been severely weakened as an effective administration by the purging of the many experienced administrators who sided with Trotsky and the chaotic decision making process Stalin encouraged. If you set against the fact that there were alternatives, the price of collectivization (internal terror, the destruction of the party, unconstitutionalism), then you see the pivotal character of collectivization.

You raise the key issue when you say you cant have socialism in the cities and a market economy in the countryside. That is the key issue. IF you were correct on that then the price of socialism is Stalinism - mass terror and a revolution that eats its own children. This is because what you are saying is that the social revolution cannot be a drawn out process, but must move directly to the forceful resolution of all contradictions. Its actually hard to say that that is better than the evils of capitalism.

On the contrary, a revolutionary state needs to contain the contradictions its coming into existence creates for a significant period to facilitate a collective transition to socialist social relations over time. That involves displaying the superiority of collective agriculatural production - and before that learning how to make collective agricultural production superior, while preventing market forces dispossessing the small peasant and while protecting the rights of rural labourers.

How ironic it is to recall that Stalin's people accused Trotsky of underestimating the peasantry, which, unknown to everyone (and proven by both Stalin and Mao) meant that Trotsky underestimated the need to slaughter, dispossess and oppress them.

[viva le revolution]

There was an alternative? really? As you yourself said there was uneven development with some kulaks owning disproportionnate means of production. All the more reason for collectivization. uneven tracts of development in the rural area would have been counter-productive. As for your whole stance on mass terror against the peasants that is just bullshit, the only class in active opposition of collectivization were the kulaks who burned and culled crops and livestock to derail the collectoivization process.
As for the efficient administrators who supported trotsky, what a coincidence they were led by Bukharin and Zinoviev who opposed de-kulakization! Thats like saying that we should not unseat the bourgeoisie because it will destroy the party!
So let me get this straight, you say in your post that the superiority of collective agriculture must be displayed but oppose any moves that lead to it! How, in your opinion my learned friend is this possible!
How ironic a Trotskyite putting forth accusations of forced labour, seeing as how it was Trotsky who called for the militarization of labour in the first place.
Trotsky was no friend of the peasantry, he completely discounted them as a revolutionary force! in his view they were the extra baggage in russia.
Again all of your accusations against Stalin and Mao are regurgitated media lines without any historical backdrop.

[XI Stalin IX]

I am not a big fan of Stalin, he did alot for the USSR but he was a not a good communist. If it wasnt for his industrialization of the Soviet Union, it would not have emerged a super power and would have been crushed by Hitlers Army during WWII. He stayed in the Kremlin when the nazi's were at the gates of Moscow. They liberated Eastern Europe and without Stalin the captitalist countries would have been at war with Germany for along time. The USSR emerged as a great military super power after the war. Many of the veterens from WWII still admire Stalin for what he did for the USSR. Overall he was evil but like it had to be done.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by XI Stalin [email protected] 19 2005, 06:32 PM
I am not a big fan of Stalin.
So whats with the name?

[XI Stalin IX]

Well i needed a name so i picked stalin cuz it sounds cool

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by XI Stalin [email protected] 19 2005, 06:55 PM
Well i needed a name so i picked stalin cuz it sounds cool
You know I bet Stalin said the exact same thing all those years ago.

[ReD_ReBeL]

lol yea Stalin means Man of Steel, just incase sum ppl didnt know tht i thought like i'd point it out.

[gilhyle]

Besides the collectivization issue, there seem to be two arguments here:

1. anyone attacking Stalin needs to provide detailed proof.

2. the USSR became a super power/won WW2, therefore Stalin was brilliant

On 1. it is striking that the pro-Stalinists, so keen to call for their opponents to provide detailed proof provide none themselves. BUt the argument is, in any case, only message board bullying. If I start to look, for example, at Soviet agriculture in the 1930s I can show the disastrous consequences of Stalin's policies. If I look at the Stalinist planning process, I can show the systematic internal inconsistencies designed to facilitate the terrorization of the bureaucracy. If I look at the international movement, I can show the defeat of the Chinese revolution of 27, Spain etc and the descent of the Communist movement, at Stalin's behest, into reliance on bribery and lies. If I look at the purges I can show patently false confessions, evidence of extensive torture and totally implausible nonesense throughout. The list goes on. I can show this. Anyone who reads, can show this. The only obstacle is writing a message long enough (and spending the time) to do it. If that is all your politics rests on, it rests on very little.

On 2., if Stalin is to be judged by results, then let him be judged by the fate of the USSR. Stalin made Kruschev and Breznev as much as Thatcher made John Major. He made the planning process into one incapable of sustained economic development. He made the party into a den of yes men and bureaucrats. He made what happened because what he tried to do - to create a narrow clique that could sustain a workers state by terror was always a completely impractical, short-termist policy doomed to failure. What supporters of Stalin simply will not do, is take seriously any of the debates that went on in the USSR in the 1920s. What those debates show, is that there were many alternatives to Stalin's policies. Difficult alternatives, with no guarantees of success. But honourable alternatives which would not have left the red flag stained with the blood of its own people and which might have led to a better outcome.

[viva le revolution]

1. No sources for criticism of Stalin have been provided save vague character assasinations. All the difficuluties and problems in Russia loosely blamed on stalin personally and somehow linked with mental problems. The lines quoted are nothing but regurgitated nazi or profascist propaganda. all relying on 'shock value' to furthur your case. if thats all that your case rests on it indeed rests on nothing.

2. If results are the main determining factor, then it would be inconsequential that khruschev attacked stalin and departed from his policies, to sideline the marxist-leninist faction headed by molotov, by that score then even Trotsky can be held also reponsible for putting the bolsheviks in power in the first place! see the intellectual dishonesty inherent in such a tactic.

[commie anarchist rebel]

i belive that stalin was more bad than good here my reasons for both

bad-
killed more than hittler
didnt uphold communist ideals
was basicaly a fashist and capitalist
took stuff from the working class and gave it to himself

good-

Fought off hitler because if he hadnt we would have never beeten hiter because he'd have control of the largest county in the world

made considerable progession of russia even though he exployted the workers

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by commie anarchist [email protected] 21 2005, 02:39 PM
i belive that stalin was more bad than good here my reasons for both

bad-
killed more than hittler
didnt uphold communist ideals
was basicaly a fashist and capitalist
took stuff from the working class and gave it to himself

good-

Fought off hitler because if he hadnt we would have never beeten hiter because he'd have control of the largest county in the world

made considerable progession of russia even though he exployted the workers
Provide proof of your reasons, that's what we've been talking about. We've all heard that Stalin killed more people in his Gulags than Hitler killed in his concentration camps, but that just sounds like you're playing the devil's arithmetic; "Hitler's better than Stalin, because he killed less people than Stalin!"

I know Stalin wasn't exactly the chairman of Amnesty International, but do you really think that Hitler would have stopped killing people had he won World War II?

[red_che]

Originally posted by commie anarchist [email protected] 21 2005, 10:39 PM
i belive that stalin was more bad than good here my reasons for both

bad-
killed more than hittler
didnt uphold communist ideals
was basicaly a fashist and capitalist
took stuff from the working class and gave it to himself

good-

Fought off hitler because if he hadnt we would have never beeten hiter because he'd have control of the largest county in the world

made considerable progession of russia even though he exployted the workers
Blah blah blah blah. Where's your evidence? Show the proof. C'mon man! mere accusations are not enough in an intelligent discussion. Show the proof!

[gilhyle]

Prove Stalin was responsible for the successes. Sources, please, quoted in detail, page references, non-propaganda sources....can't, can you ? .....funny that

[Wanted Man]

No, CAR has to back up his points first. When you discuss, you don't say "This is what I think, try to refute it!" Burden of proof lies with the one who is the first to make a claim.

[Redmau5]

No Stalinist can say that Stalin was not guilty of mass purges. It's well documented and you would have to be both ignorant and stupid to deny such things. I agree that the extent of Stalin's crimes are probably exaggerated in order to slate communism even further, but he was, quite simply, a murdering bastard.

How can anyone justify the murdering of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin etc.? Or do you believe the Stalinist bullshit that they were all part of a Trotskyite conspiracy aiming to restore capitalism within the USSR?

Too many of the Old Guard were murdered, exiled or imprisoned by Stalin. It was not because they were counter-revolutionary, it was because they were a threat to Stalin's power.

[ReD_ReBeL]

argh how can people actualy hail this man? fair enough Stalin made some improvements but were the cost of all them millions of people worth it? For fuck sake even Saddam Hussein made alot of improvements to Iraq but people lived in fear and where massacred , so you support this man? Saddam even hails Stalin and is/was a Stalin fanatic. And is'nt a key part of being a socialist/communist, workers democracy? I dont see any of that in the Stalin era do you? to me it looks like it was a Bureaucracy just like how the whole entire country was. All that was relatively socialist was the planned economy and equal rights, but as far as calling it a workers state, no way. The only difference is we look at Stalin from a historic point of view so we see what good he has done and also the bad, but we look at Saddam and we see a tryant and a human right violater so he is quickly seen as bad, which he should be seen as.
What i'm trying to say is that Stalin is only regarded as a 'great leader of the nation' because most of us here wasnt alive wen he ruled and could not see what harm and suffering he caused to the people. We are just stuck with historic facts which makes him look like he has done some proud things and also some bad. The same thing will happen to Saddam in 40+ years. Stalin and Saddam are quite comparible in my opinion.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:10 AM
argh how can people actualy hail this man? fair enough Stalin made some improvements but were the cost of all them millions of people worth it? For fuck sake even Saddam Hussein made alot of improvements to Iraq but people lived in fear and where massacred , so you support this man? Saddam even hails Stalin and is/was a Stalin fanatic. And is'nt a key part of being a socialist/communist, workers democracy? I dont see any of that in the Stalin era do you? to me it looks like it was a Bureaucracy just like how the whole entire country was. All that was relatively socialist was the planned economy and equal rights, but as far as calling it a workers state, no way. The only difference is we look at Stalin from a historic point of view so we see what good he has done and also the bad, but we look at Saddam and we see a tryant and a human right violater so he is quickly seen as bad, which he should be seen as.
What i'm trying to say is that Stalin is only regarded as a 'great leader of the nation' because most of us here wasnt alive wen he ruled and could not see what harm and suffering he caused to the people. We are just stuck with historic facts which makes him look like he has done some proud things and also some bad. The same thing will happen to Saddam in 40+ years. Stalin and Saddam and quite comparible in my opinion.
Quite alot of Stalinists actually admire Saddam, which just shows what kind of "communists" they really are.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:14 AM
Quite alot of Stalinists actually admire Saddam, which just shows what kind of "communists" they really are.
You talking about real 'stalinists' or the little guys in your head?

For the proof-point, about every so-called argument on this forum against Stalin is discussed in 'another view of Stalin' by Ludo Martens. I once tried to actually overthrow arguments against Stalin... but reading the book consumes less time and is probably more convincing too.

As i have stated before you can buy it:

http://www.epo.be/international/bookinfo.p...n=D1996-2204-19 (http://www.epo.be/international/bookinfo.php?isbn=D1996-2204-19)

Or read it on the internet:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Now, if you have a original statement against Stalin that is not discussed in this book, i will be glad to hear it.

[gilhyle]

Its propaganda; I dont have to reply to it.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:47 PM
Its propaganda; I dont have to reply to it.
Propaganda = convincing someone of your political beliefs through a medium.

Uhm... and why dont you have to reply to it?
Have you even tried to read it?
If you have, then you can see he uses very reliable data, why dont you want to reply to his argumentation and true believes that Stalin was a good man?
Do you think the author wrote this book per joke, or if he was lying that he was purposely lying?

edit:

the exact definition of propaganda:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

And as Matthijs put it:

Burden of proof lies with the one who is the first to make a claim.
I have given my proof, you give yours.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Zeruzo+Dec 23 2005, 03:08 PM--> (Zeruzo @ Dec 23 2005, 03:08 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 02:47 PM
Its propaganda; I dont have to reply to it.
Propaganda = convincing someone of your political beliefs through a medium.

Uhm... and why dont you have to reply to it?
Have you even tried to read it?
If you have, then you can see he uses very reliable data, why dont you want to reply to his argumentation and true believes that Stalin was a good man?
Do you think the author wrote this book per joke, or if he was lying that he was purposely lying?

edit:

the exact definition of propaganda:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

And as Matthijs put it:

Burden of proof lies with the one who is the first to make a claim.
I have given my proof, you give yours. [/b]
Do you think the hundred, thousands of people who have documented the lies, the inefficiencies, the waste, the defeats that Stalin caused wrote as a joke ? Yet you ignore them, in preference to hagiographic rant ?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:21 PM
You talking about real 'stalinists' or the little guys in your head?
I'm talking about real Stalinists. There used to be a message board full of them, the now defunct ######, and all they did was worship dictatorship.

[Red Rebel]

Everyone says that Stalin is great because he defeated the Nazis and made Russia into a superpower...

1. Stalin killed people to get absolute control. The USSR was not a dictatorship of the proletariat but rather a dictatorship.

2. Stalin’s industrialization occurred on the Eastern front. The area quickly conquered by the Germans and thus did not aide the Russians.

3. Stalin allied the USSR with the Germans who were on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

4. He purged most high ranking officers who served with the Czars. Thus Russia was completely overtaken by the Germans at the start of the war.

5. He misled the country away from communism.

Just some of my thoughts about Stalin.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24 2005, 12:38 AM
Everyone says that Stalin is great because he defeated the Nazis and made Russia into a superpower...

1. Stalin killed people to get absolute control. The USSR was not a dictatorship of the proletariat but rather a dictatorship.

2. Stalin’s industrialization occurred on the Eastern front. The area quickly conquered by the Germans and thus did not aide the Russians.

3. Stalin allied the USSR with the Germans who were on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

4. He purged most high ranking officers who served with the Czars. Thus Russia was completely overtaken by the Germans at the start of the war.

5. He misled the country away from communism.

Just some of my thoughts about Stalin.
Agreed, Stalin was a quazi fascist, parading as a communist.

[Red Rebel]

Stalin was a quazi fascist

He was no fascist.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24 2005, 12:44 AM

Stalin was a quazi fascist

He was no fascist.
Well, he was extremely authoritarian.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by gilhyle+Dec 23 2005, 07:07 PM--> (gilhyle @ Dec 23 2005, 07:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:47 PM
Its propaganda; I dont have to reply to it.
Propaganda = convincing someone of your political beliefs through a medium.

Uhm... and why dont you have to reply to it?
Have you even tried to read it?
If you have, then you can see he uses very reliable data, why dont you want to reply to his argumentation and true believes that Stalin was a good man?
Do you think the author wrote this book per joke, or if he was lying that he was purposely lying?

edit:

the exact definition of propaganda:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

And as Matthijs put it:

Burden of proof lies with the one who is the first to make a claim.
I have given my proof, you give yours.
Do you think the hundred, thousands of people who have documented the lies, the inefficiencies, the waste, the defeats that Stalin caused wrote as a joke ? Yet you ignore them, in preference to hagiographic rant ? [/b]
No, but they do use false information a lot. As you can read in the book i provided (it is not the only Stalin-biography i've read, believe me).


Red [email protected] 23 2005, 08:38 PM
Everyone says that Stalin is great because he defeated the Nazis and made Russia into a superpower...

1. Stalin killed people to get absolute control. The USSR was not a dictatorship of the proletariat but rather a dictatorship.

2. Stalin’s industrialization occurred on the Eastern front. The area quickly conquered by the Germans and thus did not aide the Russians.

3. Stalin allied the USSR with the Germans who were on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

4. He purged most high ranking officers who served with the Czars. Thus Russia was completely overtaken by the Germans at the start of the war.

5. He misled the country away from communism.

Just some of my thoughts about Stalin.
1. where's the proof?

2. Stalin's industrialization was nation-wide, where's your proof that it was merely on the eastern-front? Also the weapons were not stored on the eastern front, so it did help. Even if your claim is true then it's miracolous that the Soviets have defeated the Nazi's.

3. They did not ally with the Germans, they had a non-aggresion pact.

4. Uhm... that didn't make sence... High ranking officers that served with the Czars? You think they would even be able to get in the Red Army? As formed Czarists. That for a starters, then they were purges beceause they talked about collaboration with the Nazi's. Which you can all read in the nice little book i requisted you to read but you completely ignore.

5. how can he mislead a fuedal country AWAY from communism, even if the claims of people that he created State-capitalism is true, he could only have moved it towards communism. Beceause capitalism is a step closer to communism.

[Zeruzo]

I'm talking about real Stalinists. There used to be a message board full of them, the now defunct ######, and all they did was worship dictatorship.

Original title, but 'Stalinists' dont admire a dictatorship. Most 'Stalinists' believe Stalin tried to democratize the nation. Just so you know...
Those were probably fake 'stalinists'.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:17 PM


I'm talking about real Stalinists. There used to be a message board full of them, the now defunct ######, and all they did was worship dictatorship.

Original title, but 'Stalinists' dont admire a dictatorship. Most 'Stalinists' believe Stalin tried to democratize the nation. Just so you know...
:lol:

Are you serious? They believe he tried to democratize the nation? I've heard some wild claims on this message board but that has to be the best yet.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Dec 24 2005, 01:45 AM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Dec 24 2005, 01:45 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 11:17 PM


I'm talking about real Stalinists. There used to be a message board full of them, the now defunct ######, and all they did was worship dictatorship.

Original title, but 'Stalinists' dont admire a dictatorship. Most 'Stalinists' believe Stalin tried to democratize the nation. Just so you know...
:lol:

Are you serious? They believe he tried to democratize the nation? I've heard some wild claims on this message board but that has to be the best yet. [/b]
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43971

Pretty valid proof on it...

[gilhyle]

What defines Stalinism, now that the USSR is gone, is the preference for settling inner-party debates with a bullet behind the ear.

(go on quote Zhukov at me ).

Any 'true' Stalinists on this board would prefer to shoot the people they are debating here with.

Those Stalinists who would not prefer to do that....well the true Stalinists will shoot them too if they get the chance.

Of course when Stalinists dont have State power, they settle such issues by other means, but those means are all consistent with the key organisational concept of Stalinism which is the monolithic party

[Zeruzo]

Read the fucking book! please!
You all state things without giving any evidence and all your statements are overthrown in the book! READ IT!

[gilhyle]

I have actually tried to look at some of it. But when I see a Trotsky described (actually invented) who did not believe in the unconditinal defence of Soviet Union, when I see a Trotsky described (actually invented) who did not believe in a united front against fascism.....why should I read further ? The real Trotsky believed in both those things. Would you know it from this book ? No.

This book is propaganda, no more useful than the works of Sun Yung Moon (or whatever his name is - head of the moonies). Its deeply cultish. You have to be hidden away from the world, from the best academic literature and from any real class politics to take this seriously. You have to be enmeshed in, entranced by the inter-personal emotional reward culture of a cult to take this kind of stuff seriously. Even in the 1930s people laughed at this stuff.

Instead of me laboriously going through this, why don't you laboriously work your way through The Stalin School of Falsification.

The truth is this. Marxism, communism, socialism, these are political movements about ideas for building a socialist society. Its about ideas, about political methodologies that work to make peoples lives better.

Transforming it into a mindless debate over whether Stalin was good or bad is itself a form of political hero worship that is inimical to socialism. I don't treat Trotsky (or even Lenin, bless him) as a 'hero' . In the 1920s and 1930s the degeneration of the socialist movement, its descent towards defeat and degradation was reflected in the cults of Lenin, Stalin and even of Trotsky. The substitution of hero worship for political strategy is pointless.

The point about Stalin's time - and this is not about Stalin personally - is the role of the Soviet State in the 1930s in contributing to the loss of internal democracy in the labour movement throughtout the world, in contributing to the defeats of workers struggles throughout the world when this suited the foreign policy of the Soviet State, narrowly defined, in purging the revolutionary strata of the USSR itself and in creating such internal economic inefficiency and waste that even the massive boost to USSR economic development that planning allowed was blunted.....these are the record of the bureaucratisation of the workers revolution of 1917. They stand as a record of degeneration and, ultimatly, of defeat.

What interests me in this thread is the people who think, notwithstanding the purges etc., that the period of the 1930s was an economic success. I think that is not true. The USSR did not achieve more than a portion of what it could have achieved during that period. The record is one of massive waste. If I turn now to the works of Zaltesky or others to try to understand what planning can achieve, I find that there is little or nothing there. Because Soviet Planning was characterised by terror, waste, intentional inconsistency and the use of barbaric methods, we dont even have an example of basic planning methods.

What interests me is people who give some grudging credit to Stalin because they fail to see how devastatingly destructive the influence of the Soviet State was on communist movements around the world.

It is only by coming up with understandings of economic planning and internationalism that show up the intense failings of the Soviet State in the 1930s that we can even begin to rebuild a credible conceptualisation of Marxism as a viable political project. The grudging admiration some give to Stalin reflects how far we are away from that.

It is those who give that grudging respect to Stalin, while acknowedging aspects of his intense political failure, who interest me. The smattering of die-hard true-blue stalinists is just icing on that depressing cake - things are so bad, intellectually for Marxism, that out there on the fringes there are still people who believe the very worst nonsense that socialism (or maybe any political movement) has ever come up with.

Even the Christians have stopped trying to burn witches and yet Marxism still contains people who believe this stuff.

Someone pass me the pills.

[Zeruzo]

I have actually tried to look at some of it. But when I see a Trotsky described (actually invented) who did not believe in the unconditinal defence of Soviet Union, when I see a Trotsky described (actually invented) who did not believe in a united front against fascism.....why should I read further ? The real Trotsky believed in both those things. Would you know it from this book ? No.

The book clearly states Trotsky wanted a united fascist front, but shows how Trotsky is rather controversial on this issue when he asks for the abolition of all communist party's for the sake of the struggle against fascism while these parties are the biggest competitors of Fascism. And Trotsky did not believe in an unconditional defence of the USSR either.


This book is propaganda, no more useful than the works of Sun Yung Moon (or whatever his name is - head of the moonies). Its deeply cultish. You have to be hidden away from the world, from the best academic literature and from any real class politics to take this seriously. You have to be enmeshed in, entranced by the inter-personal emotional reward culture of a cult to take this kind of stuff seriously. Even in the 1930s people laughed at this stuff.

You said you read parts of the book you can check his sources. He provides a source for everything he says. A real marxist would continue reading and check the sources, apprantly your a trotskyist. When i started reading the book i thought of Stalin the same as you, but he makes a very convinsing defence. As the back of the book reads: "When the reader finishes reading this book, he will probably say: ‘Many things I thought I knew regarding Stalin are indeed lies.’" And i'll have to agree with this statement. At first it looks a lot like a complot-theory and parts of it are, but there are very valid arguments for the defenbce of Stalin in the book.


Instead of me laboriously going through this, why don't you laboriously work your way through The Stalin School of Falsification.

After you've followed the Trotsky School of Falsification?


The truth is this. Marxism, communism, socialism, these are political movements about ideas for building a socialist society. Its about ideas, about political methodologies that work to make peoples lives better.

And you think Stalin didn't try that?


Transforming it into a mindless debate over whether Stalin was good or bad is itself a form of political hero worship that is inimical to socialism. I don't treat Trotsky (or even Lenin, bless him) as a 'hero' . In the 1920s and 1930s the degeneration of the socialist movement, its descent towards defeat and degradation was reflected in the cults of Lenin, Stalin and even of Trotsky. The substitution of hero worship for political strategy is pointless.

It's not mindless at all, the defence of Stalin is a big part of socialism beceause it his him who is being attacked and who they use as an example of how bad socialism is! It's not really a substitution, it is merely a defence of someone that has done great things and should beceause of this be defended.


The point about Stalin's time - and this is not about Stalin personally - is the role of the Soviet State in the 1930s in contributing to the loss of internal democracy in the labour movement throughtout the world, in contributing to the defeats of workers struggles throughout the world when this suited the foreign policy of the Soviet State, narrowly defined, in purging the revolutionary strata of the USSR itself and in creating such internal economic inefficiency and waste that even the massive boost to USSR economic development that planning allowed was blunted.....these are the record of the bureaucratisation of the workers revolution of 1917. They stand as a record of degeneration and, ultimatly, of defeat.

If you read the book you can read that Stalin tried to do something about this, there was internal democracy though and they also defended the Spanish republic against Franco, which was not at all an area of interest for the Soviet state. Economic efficiency isn't really something to speak of, it was a very efficient economy and the Soviet economy grew at such a rapid rate that it did what the impeiralist states took a 100 years in merely 20 years. The bureaucratization was also something fought by Stalin and discussed in the book.



What interests me in this thread is the people who think, notwithstanding the purges etc., that the period of the 1930s was an economic success. I think that is not true. The USSR did not achieve more than a portion of what it could have achieved during that period. The record is one of massive waste. If I turn now to the works of Zaltesky or others to try to understand what planning can achieve, I find that there is little or nothing there. Because Soviet Planning was characterised by terror, waste, intentional inconsistency and the use of barbaric methods, we dont even have an example of basic planning methods.

I would like to see proof on this, you do realize that the plan of Lenin's electrification was finished by Stalin's 'inefficient' planing system for 233% in the same time-frame.


What interests me is people who give some grudging credit to Stalin because they fail to see how devastatingly destructive the influence of the Soviet State was on communist movements around the world.

It was not destructive at all, it boosted the communist movement. Before the USSR the communist movement felt like it was in a hopeless situation beceause the revolution was still not there, even though it was predicted. The USSR boosted the spirit and was an example for many heroic struggles around the world. As for example your probably beloved revisionist Cuba.

The rest was merely an attempt to insult 'stalinists', so i feel no need to reply to it.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Stalin was not a communist, someone point out to me where in the Stalin era was there workers democracy? he was a state capitalist, yeshe may of wrote that article on democratic reform but i didn't see it happen so it is ruled out! wasn't Homosexuals not prosectued in Stalinist Russian aswell? if so that is not equal rights, so that rules out communism. Stalinist Russia was also a Bucreuacy and not in workers control so therefore not communist!, also the consentration camps where terrible and loads of people died due to the cold weather, starvation etc. purged all the high ranking officers b4 the war against the NAzi's which resuslted in far more deaths than should have been. Healthcare may of been free(which is a good thing) but the healthcare in Russia during tht era had far lower standards than many other countries.
Also Stalinist Russia squashes the hungarian revolution which was a proper democratic revolution calling for 'power from below' as opposed to Stalinist 'power from above'.

EDIT:Oh yea and Stalin was the only soviet leader to put a fee on higher education.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:32 AM
1.Stalin was not a communist, someone point out to me where in the Stalin era was there workers democracy? he was a state capitalist, yeshe may of wrote that article on democratic reform but i didn't see it happen so it is ruled out! 2.wasn't Homosexuals not prosectued in Stalinist Russian aswell? if so that is not equal rights, so that rules out communism. 3.Stalinist Russia was also a Bucreuacy and not in workers control so therefore not communist!, also the consentration camps where terrible and loads of people died due to the cold weather, starvation etc. 4.purged all the high ranking officers b4 the war against the NAzi's which resuslted in far more deaths than should have been. 5. Healthcare may of been free(which is a good thing) but the healthcare in Russia during tht era had far lower standards than many other countries.
Also Stalinist Russia squashes the hungarian revolution which was a proper democratic revolution calling for 'power from below' as opposed to Stalinist 'power from above'.

EDIT:Oh yea and Stalin was the only soviet leader to put a fee on higher education.
1. That shows that you have not really read or attempted to read any of the evidence given forth. That article wasn't by Stalin!
2. Homosexuals in that time weren't accepted by any country. Not the USSR, China nor even Cuba. Homosexuals were accepted by Cuba only fairly recently. So blaming Stalin alone for that is a little hypocritical.
3.as for whole stance about the concentration camps etc. etc. please at least make an attempt toread through the evidence and links provided not only by myself but zeruso as well. you are merely regurgitating media lies in an infantile manner.
4. the question of the purges are also dealt with in the links provided.
5. ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING! SURELY YOU DON'T BELEIVE THAT CRAP! healthcare in russia during that time was amongst the most efficient in the world! it surpassed a few industrialized countries as well! to make such a ridiculous claim means that you are not familiar with soviet history at all and are just without thinking parroting yankee media lies!
6. the hungarian question is also settled in the link provided.

Please at least make an attempt to at least hear out or read the other sides case. if you can't and continue to repeat the same crap over and over again that is the highest form of intellectual dishonesty!

[gilhyle]

What is the point in working through a book that makes you think Trotsky did not believe in the unconditional defence of the USSR or makes you misunderstand his opposition to the tactic of the 'Peoples Front'.

Furthermore, what you take as insults embodies a serious point. What defines Stalinism today ? Once what defined what Stalin stood for was the attempt to sustain the USSR by ruthless terrorisation of the bureaucracy combined with the physical elimination of the revolutionary strata of soviet society and the manipulation of the international communist movement to suit a narrow foreign policy defined on the basis that popular revolutions should not happen in other countries.

Most of what defined that is now pointless as the USSR is gone. What remains is the concept of the monolithic party (not the vanguard party) led by a narrow clique. THis approach is sustainable only by violence, deception and manipulation.

(BTW, not a Trotskyist, as such, but like Stalin and Mao etc., I have read him and he makes a lot more sense than they do.)

[Zeruzo]

What is the point in working through a book that makes you think Trotsky did not believe in the unconditional defence of the USSR or makes you misunderstand his opposition to the tactic of the 'Peoples Front'.

The book provides sources, what the author even encourages is to check these sources.


Furthermore, what you take as insults embodies a serious point. What defines Stalinism today ? Once what defined what Stalin stood for was the attempt to sustain the USSR by ruthless terrorisation of the bureaucracy combined with the physical elimination of the revolutionary strata of soviet society and the manipulation of the international communist movement to suit a narrow foreign policy defined on the basis that popular revolutions should not happen in other countries.

Stalinism is non-existant as Stalin itself did not recognize the term as he had not added anything to the marxist-leninist theory. And for the rest of your so-called 'facts' i would like to see sources... I do know it is all incorrect and do have sources, but you are the one making the claims, so proof your claims.



Most of what defined that is now pointless as the USSR is gone. What remains is the concept of the monolithic party (not the vanguard party) led by a narrow clique. THis approach is sustainable only by violence, deception and manipulation.

It is what you make of it, not what if factually was, the revisionists indeed made it such a party. Stalin did not.



(BTW, not a Trotskyist, as such, but like Stalin and Mao etc., I have read him and he makes a lot more sense than they do.)

If you would also check the historical data of that era and then read Trotsky, Stalin and Mao (which i have done all 3, for the last two http://www.marx2mao.com is far better then http://www.marxists.org which is a little trot-biased) you will be surprised to see how correct Stalin and Mao were (especially Stalin).

[sukirti]

oin read ur history carefully zinoviev a good comrade? he opposed lenin's stratgey of power capture .he did not want to fight it out. he was a weak communist...he deserved to be executed..does anybody realise that che came to communism because of stalinin his own words. stalin must be defended...

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:00 PM
oin read ur history carefully zinoviev a good comrade? he opposed lenin's stratgey of power capture .he did not want to fight it out. he was a weak communist...he deserved to be executed..does anybody realise that che came to communism because of stalinin his own words. stalin must be defended...
That is the point - Stalinists believe it was correct to execute people such as Zinoviev. THey would apply the same policy today - the monolithic, self-terrorising party.

[spartafc]

Stalin had no power to kill anyone.

amusing considering how many death warrants he signed!

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:35 PM

Stalin had no power to kill anyone.

amusing considering how many death warrants he signed!
proof would be very nice, and if it was true the people should still be trialed. So he cant sign much, but it seems a little odd that he has to sign dead warrants... that wasn't really his job...

[ReD_ReBeL]

I dont understand what all the hype about praising Stalins Industrial revolution is because this 5 year plan was the beginning of state capitalism in the USSR, heres a good source written by Tony Cliff(former Socialist Workers Party UK, and no they are reformist b4 u start throwing ur anti-reformism crap at me) SOURCE (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/ch04-b.htm#s12)

Leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot just give a terrible name to communism and socialism. The Road Of Bones in Russia is a disgrace, it is made up of bones of politcal prisoners during the Stalinist ERA, those who died because of lack of food and water and because the freezing temperatures they where made to work in.

Also it's funny how when people find good sourced Anti-stalinst writings, Stalinists quickly regard it as Capitalist or Fascist propaganda, but when Stalinists find pro-stalin sources they think that is the truth.

We as leftists should be working together to create a better society for all the opressed , poor, poverty stricken and average working class people , We should Unite for the better for every single man woman and child with love and compassion to our fellow human beings, not be built up of hatred . Instead of consentrating our hate to our enemys , we should be consentrating on our love and helping hand for the under-priveleged and opressed, this way we can make a difference for our fellow people.

[Zeruzo]

I dont understand what all the hype about praising Stalins Industrial revolution is because this 5 year plan was the beginning of state capitalism in the USSR, heres a good source written by Tony Cliff(former Socialist Workers Party UK, and no they are reformist b4 u start throwing ur anti-reformism crap at me) SOURCE (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/ch04-b.htm#s12)


So... you base your entire argument of 'state-capitalism' on a text with 3 paragraphs... great, and you want me to comment on it... i'm still not sober... so i'll do that later :D.


Leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot just give a terrible name to communism and socialism. The Road Of Bones in Russia is a disgrace, it is made up of bones of politcal prisoners during the Stalinist ERA, those who died because of lack of food and water and because the freezing temperatures they where made to work in.

Pol Pot to start with was no communist. And Trotsky or Bukharin would have given the USSR just as a bad name beceause the western media will always give workers-states a bad name! You do also realize that only a small proportion of the gulag-prisoners was a political prisoners of which most were openly contra-revolutionary as in vandalizing the economy for example. The moment that people died there for the lack of food and water 'regular' Russians had the same problems, i'm guessing your going for the periods of collectivization and World War 2? Also a pretty high number of gulag-casualties had died beceause of not following party-guidelines.


Also it's funny how when people find good sourced Anti-stalinst writings, Stalinists quickly regard it as Capitalist or Fascist propaganda, but when Stalinists find pro-stalin sources they think that is the truth.

That is not true (if you consider me a 'Stalinist'), you are merely generalizing and guessing at the moment. This is a blanket statement, i have never called a work of Trotsky capitalist or Fascist and everytime i have read a work of Trotsky i also checked other sources, of course when Trotsky attacks Stalin it is a very logical responce to check what Stalin had to say about this attack on his character. If this is not the way you work it says more about you then about so-called 'Stalinists'.


We as leftists should be working together to create a better society for all the opressed , poor, poverty stricken and average working class people , We should Unite for the better for every single man woman and child with love and compassion to our fellow human beings, not be built up of hatred . Instead of consentrating our hate to our enemys , we should be consentrating on our love and helping hand for the under-priveleged and opressed, this way we can make a difference for our fellow people.

We as leftists should be working together says the man attacking Stalin and the first workers-state. We should unite says he who considers the liberation of the working-class as state-capitalism, how can we unite with people like you attacking socialist states? And what can we achieve by concentrating this love anyway? I already concentrate my love on the oppressed when i have the opportunity, but this does not mean that i let my enemy walk away with oppresion or ruthless attacks on socialist society's.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:44 AM
We as leftists should be working together to create a better society for all the opressed , poor, poverty stricken and average working class people , We should Unite for the better for every single man woman and child with love and compassion to our fellow human beings, not be built up of hatred . Instead of consentrating our hate to our enemys , we should be consentrating on our love and helping hand for the under-priveleged and opressed, this way we can make a difference for our fellow people.
You sound like a hippie from the 60s. You believe in love and flowers and peace, but have no idea how to go about achieving it. Hence why you cannot point to a revolution anywhere in the world that occured through "love and compassion to our fellow human beings" and "concentrating on love" that actually ever worked, omproved people's lives and existed for more than a few months before being crushed by external forces. Maybe if Che Guevara went round Cuba handing out roses to the government soldiers and preaching love, things would have worked out better in your opinion?

[afnan]

Please read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. An online copy of the book is present at http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html.

LONG LIVE COMRADE STALIN!!!

[ReD_ReBeL]

im not a hippy, and Che was driven by love for the opressed and poverty stricken where as in MY opinion i think Stalin was driven by the love of power, theres a difference. Oh and Ghandi achieved victory throw peaceful means. Also Nelson Mandela and the ANC gained independance by relatively peaceful means, Yes they sabataged state propertly but never killed the enemy. The Zapatista's aren't doing to bad either at helping the indegious people of Mexico.
The main point i was aiming at though was that Stalin and Mao both had massive death tolls towards there name, many un-neccesary paranoid purges etc. I'm not denying these people did some good for there countries but personally i would prefer not to live under an Authoritarian government.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:18 AM
im not a hippy, and Che was driven by love for the opressed and poverty stricken where as in MY opinion i think Stalin was driven by the love of power, theres a difference. Oh and Ghandi achieved victory throw peaceful means. Also Nelson Mandela and the ANC gained independance by relatively peaceful means, Yes they sabataged state propertly but never killed the enemy. The Zapatista's aren't doing to bad either at helping the indegious people of Mexico.
The main point i was aiming at though was that Stalin and Mao both had massive death tolls towards there name, many un-neccesary paranoid purges etc. I'm not denying these people did some good for there countries but personally i would prefer not to live under an Authoritarian government.
Yeah! He was driven by the love of power and therefore joined the weakest political faction in Russia in stead of being an influental priest! Thats it, your such a genius! And why are you such a big fan of 'Che' anyway? He was a Stalin-supporter....
Paranoid purges? OMG... you dont know shit about the USSR... why AM i debating you? You'r just a twelve year old thinking it's cool to call yourself communist right? And Authoritarian? What makes you think that way...

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:18 AM
im not a hippy, and Che was driven by love for the opressed and poverty stricken where as in MY opinion i think Stalin was driven by the love of power, theres a difference. Oh and Ghandi achieved victory throw peaceful means. Also Nelson Mandela and the ANC gained independance by relatively peaceful means, Yes they sabataged state propertly but never killed the enemy. The Zapatista's aren't doing to bad either at helping the indegious people of Mexico.
The main point i was aiming at though was that Stalin and Mao both had massive death tolls towards there name, many un-neccesary paranoid purges etc. I'm not denying these people did some good for there countries but personally i would prefer not to live under an Authoritarian government.
Exactly, if Stalin was driven by power he would not have joined the rebels and would not have been locked up several time in a prison in Siberia. The Zapatistas aren't doing too bad - what concrete results have they achieved? Is Mexico a superpower with massive improvements in living standard occurring for its people and Merica trembling at the thought of such a powerful nation turning socialist? No.
Please give some examples of your 'paranoid purges'.

[jaycee]

trotskys unconditional support for the soviet union even when he recognised it was degenerated and his support for anti-facism were two of his greatest mistakes and were the two policies which trotskyists used to become a totally bourgeios line of thought. Anti Facism was a capitalist tool in gaining support for the second imperialist war during which stalin proved that the soviet union was part of the imperialist world.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:18 AM
. Oh and Ghandi achieved victory throw peaceful means. Also Nelson Mandela and the ANC gained independance by relatively peaceful means, Yes they sabataged state propertly but never killed the enemy.
Umm.. i will assume then you share the myopic view of history taught in yankee high school then...
India had massive communist activities with activists engaging police and the army in often bloody massacres. The indian nationalist movement was one of the bloodiest in history! Not only restricted to the 1900's but began in 1857!
The pan-african liberation movement was also extremely bloody! With anti-colonial struggles raging in south africa, congo, zaire and zimbabwe to name a few! Of course i do not expect you to know all this but at least have the intelligence not to post on something you obviously know nothing about.

[ReD_ReBeL]

And why are you such a big fan of 'Che' anyway? He was a Stalin-supporter....
Where did i say that i was a huge fan of Che? i have not even said that, but yes i do admire what he has done. But you my friend where just jumping to conclusions.
im 17 years old by the way not 12. And Che did at one point admire Stalins but later in his life he realised that the USSR wasn't all that it was cracked up to be, Che also critised the USSR's ways of trading with the 3rd world because he thought it was just as bad the capitalist imperialists. Che believed to liberate the 3rd world it should be payed for by socialist countries.


The Zapatistas aren't doing too bad - what concrete results have they achieved?
Well they have built educational facilites, roads, health facilities, protected the indigious from the paramilitaries etc, The Zapatista's have never stated there desire for state power but for a change for the better for the indisgious people of mexico, and i think they have been successful in helping these people be recognised. And maybe if the EZLN wrn't helping these people they would be shelterless and dying of poverty.


Please give some examples of your 'paranoid purges'.
The purges just before World War 2 , where Stalin ordered the purges of the officials of the Red Army. bad move due to this the Red Army's death toll rose a hell of alot more than it should have.The army lact a skilled and very tactical leadership due to the pruges and also inexperience

"A leader whose callous disregard for human life was matched only by his consuming paranoia, Stalin next turned his attention to the Communist Party itself. Various factions and networks opposed to his rule had managed to survive into the early 1930s; many in the party were now calling for reconciliation with the peasantry, a de-emphasizing of industrial production, and greater internal democracy. For Stalin, these dissident viewpoints represented an unacceptable threat. Anyone not unquestioningly loyal to him -- and many hundreds of thousands who were -- had to be "weeded out." The Communist Party would be rebuilt in the image of the "Great Leader." This was the origin of the "cult of personality" that permeated Soviet politics and culture, depicting Stalin as infallible, almost deity-like. (The cult lasted until his death in 1953, and provided George Orwell with the fuel for his satire Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which a Stalin-like figure appears as "Big Brother.") Stalin's drive for total control, and his pressing need for convict labour to fuel rapid industrialization, next spawned the series of immense internal purges -- beginning in 1935 -- that sent millions of party members and ordinary individuals to their deaths, either through summary executions or in the atrocious conditions of the "Gulag Archipelago."
Source (http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html)


Umm.. i will assume then you share the myopic view of history taught in yankee high school then...
Pfft dont ever call me a yank again, im not born, do not live and glad i wasnt born in that shit hole.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 7 2006, 12:55 PM
Please give some examples of your 'paranoid purges'.
No Stalinist has ever been able to give me a reason as to why Stalin had so many of the Bolshevik "Old Guard" killed or exiled. They cite that people such as Zinoviev and Kamenev, two of the most prominent communists in the Party, were part of "Trotskyite conspiracy trying to restore capitalism in the USSR." This response is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Even if one were to accept the above claim, then Stalinists still have to explain why Radek, Sokolnikov, Bukharin, Rykov and many other leading revolutionaries were killed or exiled under Stalin. Surely the couldn't all have turned counter-revolutionary? :o

No, they didn't. The reason they, and so many other top-ranking Party and military figures were "displaced" by Stalin, was because they were a threat to his power. He was determined to hold on to his power at all costs, and it really didn't matter who was killed because of it.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:00 PM

And why are you such a big fan of 'Che' anyway? He was a Stalin-supporter....
Where did i say that i was a huge fan of Che? i have not even said that, but yes i do admire what he has done. But you my friend where just jumping to conclusions.
im 17 years old by the way not 12. And Che did at one point admire Stalins but later in his life he realised that the USSR wasn't all that it was cracked up to be, Che also critised the USSR's ways of trading with the 3rd world because he thought it was just as bad the capitalist imperialists. Che believed to liberate the 3rd world it should be payed for by socialist countries.


Actually CHE admired Stalin and his policies throughout. The peroid he was criticizing concerned the peroid the USSR was under the revisionist Khruschev. The greatest vindication of Stalins policies by Che was the fact that Che as minister of industry of Cuba was one of the few staunch defenders of Stalins economic model and preferred heavy industrialization of Cuba along the lines of the USSR. This is amply displayed in the debates Che had with Bettelheim as to the path Cuba's development and industrialization should take.
That's besides the point however, since the tone of your post seems to equate the USSR with Stalin. The USSR took a definite 180 degree turn after Khruschev came to power and his policy of 'de-stalinization' of the USSR. The peroid that followed was the one criticized by Che.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Che as minister of industry of Cuba was one of the few staunch defenders of Stalins economic model and preferred heavy industrialization of Cuba along the lines of the USSR
hmm You sure? What i read of Che he clearly states that he is in favour of China's Market approach rather than the industrialisation approach the USSR took.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Stalin's USSR lacked respect for the individual, with its rights. Socialist Realism is an expression of this underlying problem: The right to freely develop oneself equally with others is oppressed, only certain individual expressions are accepted.

He still did a lot of good, however - Technically, not morally.

But the problem with dictatorship is: Can we trust the dictator to respect the rights of each of his/her people?

Things would have gone slower, but a real socialist democracy would be better off than Stalin.

Instead of focusing on getting THAT together, with all it implies of educational resources and production and distribution of goods, Stalin's focus was on war and invasion, war on reactionaries or war with foreigns.

So, perhaps he really was a Communist. But he made some serious errors: Technical errors on how to best reach Communism, and moral errors about respecting an individual.

Maybe he was a dogmatic, then. We have to remember, Communism is not good for its own sake, but for the sake of all individuals.

[DoomedOne]

Stalin was no better than Hitler.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 PM

hmm You sure? What i read of Che he clearly states that he is in favour of China's Market approach rather than the industrialisation approach the USSR took.
I am sure. He was one of the staunches defenders of Cuba undertaking heavy industrialization USSR-style. ie. focused on heavy production. He although stated that China under mao was closer to socialism in spirit than revisionist USSr under Khruschev.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 PM
hmm You sure? What i read of Che he clearly states that he is in favour of China's Market approach rather than the industrialisation approach the USSR took.
China's "market approach"? What are you talking about? China under Mao never had a "market approach" during Che's life.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Comrade Makaveli, the answers to your question can be found at this link:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

[Raisa]

Man shit, stalin aint that much worse then any other world leader, except for he didnt tolerate people acting capitalistic while he was in hte government.

He was the leader when there was an undescribable war....and it was the first time we ever tried to make communism. Dont hate on the man so much, shit.

[Led Zeppelin]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/Marxism-Leninism/3.jpg

Front of the shirt.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/Marxism-Leninism/8.jpg

Back of the shirt.

Any of you Stalinists want to buy that shirt from me?

I'm selling it for 20 bucks, 25 bucks + sending costs.

(size is XXL)

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2006, 02:06 PM
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/Marxism-Leninism/3.jpg

Front of the shirt.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/Marxism-Leninism/8.jpg

Back of the shirt.

Any of you Stalinists want to buy that shirt from me?

I'm selling it for 20 bucks, 25 bucks + sending costs.

(size is XXL)
LOL, that's great.

I think Stalin was pretty much like the Tsar Nicholas and did nothing to advance workers' rights or spread democracy and tolerance. He killed all those who disagreed with them and was worse than Hitler.

Indeed Democracy is vital to both Socialism and Communism and if either system lacks it then it will be damned to totalitarianism and ultimately a return to Capitalism.

[which doctor]

Why would anyone want a shirt with a picture of Stalin on it? He wasn't a communist.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 10 2006, 08:00 PM
Why would anyone want a shirt with a picture of Stalin on it? He wasn't a communist.
Read: Stalinists.

:)

[Delirium]

Because of his strong authoritarian record, i personaly rate him one of the most disgusting pieces of shit that ever walked the earth. It is very unfortunate that he existed to give communists the loaded name that they have currently.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 11 2006, 03:50 AM
Because of his strong authoritarian record, i personaly rate him one of the most disgusting pieces of shit that ever walked the earth. It is very unfortunate that he existed to give communists the loaded name that they have currently.
If it's true that he was a spy for the Ohkrana then it would make perfect sense why he did what he did. What better way to crush the further spread of Communism than to kill millions of your own citizens while denouncing all other real forms of Communism? If those were his true intentions then he very much so suceeded, hell, the world's only super power now demonizes Communism based on Stalin's attrocities and also teaches its children the nature of Stalinism while implying that all forms of Communism are the same as Stalinism.


Why would anyone want a shirt with a picture of Stalin on it? He wasn't a communist.
It uses the term Stalinist, which alienates them from us, and also is size XXL which is in reference to Stalin's weight.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

If you compare Stalin to Tsar Nicholas you obviously know nothing about Russian history, so go watch 'Enemy at the Gates' a few more times instead of sitting here making stupid and unfounded comments.

Erik the 'Communist' - what the HELL are you on about? In case you hadnt noticed, the 'only superpower in the world' has demonized each and every leader, country, movement and resistance group for the past century that has sought to give freedom, justice and equality to oppressed people - from the Zapatistas to Hugo Chaves, from Fidel Castro, to the Iraqi Resistance. What planet have you been living on?

Seriously, if you cant argue your case go play a computer game instead.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm serious, I really have that shirt and want to sell it, and the size is XXL but for some reason it's small, must be Russian size or something.

[death88junkie]

eventho im not very knowledged about Stalin, i think he was a socialist, but just didn't know what path to take. i think he chose the wrong path just to industrialize.. and well industrialization IS a big factor in Communism, so we give should give him points for that. i think that he used force for the good of the people themselves.. i think his intentions were good.

[Cullmac]

Even Lenin knew Stalin was bad, he wrote in his will that Stalin should NOT rule the Soviet Union.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2006, 11:01 AM
If you compare Stalin to Tsar Nicholas you obviously know nothing about Russian history, so go watch 'Enemy at the Gates' a few more times instead of sitting here making stupid and unfounded comments.

Erik the 'Communist' - what the HELL are you on about? In case you hadnt noticed, the 'only superpower in the world' has demonized each and every leader, country, movement and resistance group for the past century that has sought to give freedom, justice and equality to oppressed people - from the Zapatistas to Hugo Chaves, from Fidel Castro, to the Iraqi Resistance. What planet have you been living on?

Seriously, if you cant argue your case go play a computer game instead.
The amount of good a country does does not make one a super power. The amount of weapons and the ease it would take the country to invade another and crush the army is what makes one a super power. America is one of the most evil countries that exists in the world today, but that does not change the fact that it is the most dominant country in the world today.

Although another super power shall arise, and that country is China. Hopefully China will have become more Marxist before it becomes a super power but it does not matter if it does good or not. Perhaps by that time America will not be a super power, we can already see signs of its fall (see the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and growing discontent of the American people which could lead to a Civil War and could very well remove the status of super power from America.) and signs of China's rise to power.

Perhaps you should realize what the term super power means, it has nothing to do with the amount of good that a certain country does. Hell, the first super power, Rome, had very little to do with what I think of as good.

When people compare Stalin to Nicholas the Tsar they are quite right in doing so in the sense that both rulers had incredibly oppressive and totalitarian policies.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by Erik The [email protected] 14 2006, 06:28 PM
The amount of good a country does does not make one a super power. The amount of weapons and the ease it would take the country to invade another and crush the army is what makes one a super power. America is one of the most evil countries that exists in the world today, but that does not change the fact that it is the most dominant country in the world today.

Although another super power shall arise, and that country is China. Hopefully China will have become more Marxist before it becomes a super power but it does not matter if it does good or not. Perhaps by that time America will not be a super power, we can already see signs of its fall (see the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and growing discontent of the American people which could lead to a Civil War and could very well remove the status of super power from America.) and signs of China's rise to power.

Perhaps you should realize what the term super power means, it has nothing to do with the amount of good that a certain country does. Hell, the first super power, Rome, had very little to do with what I think of as good.

When people compare Stalin to Nicholas the Tsar they are quite right in doing so in the sense that both rulers had incredibly oppressive and totalitarian policies.
I never denied that the facts you stated made a superpower. I never said that the amount of good a country does determined whether it is a superpower. I agree with you on the issue of the US policies. I Simply argue against your statement that it is because of Stalin that the US demonizes communism - it demonizes each and every movement of a similar sort, regardless of whether the leader is a criminal or a saint. And always will.

The two leaders ruled in very different epochs and under very different circumstances. The global political situation was very different. And while one was authoritarian for the good of preserving the monarchy, the other was authoritarian for the good of his people.

Comrade Cullmac - for the last time, there was no will written by Lenin. Simply a letter which said that Stalin was too rude to be general secretary, and the party needed to consider an alternative. This was after Stalin and Lenin's wife had had an argument. This does not prove that "Lenin thought Stalin was bad" and "didnt think he should rule the Soviet Union".

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:07 PM
Stalin was no better than Hitler.
Now wait a minute.

Hitler had the intention to exterminate whole cathegories of people: Jews, Slavs, Roma, etc. And he took practical steps to that end.

Stalin was a great murderer, and, specially, a great murderer of communists. He managed to kill practically all bolsheviks that had any relevance at the time of the Revolution, except Kollontai and those who had the luck of dying of natural causes (Lunacharsky, Lenin, Dzerzhinsky). But where and when did he set out to kill people just for the sake of killing people?

Luís Henrique

[ReD_ReBeL]

yes Stalin was an enemy of the proletariat. lol there's a big myth that Stalin was a CIA spy(or some sort) and was deployed into the party to mess it up.

[Led Zeppelin]

there's a big myth that Stalin

No there isn't, that's the first time I heard that crap.

[ReD_ReBeL]

sorry i meant 'a spy for the tsarist regime'
heres a SOURCE (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2808/chap3.html) and there is many more sources , but i like this one .

[Led Zeppelin]

That is probably (most likely) nonsense too, Stalin could have "messed up" the party real bad in the early days by not supporting Lenin in his arguments with the other factions, but he didn't, he supported Lenin at all times during the internal party struggles.

[Cullmac]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Jan 14 2006, 10:28 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Jan 14 2006, 10:28 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 01:07 PM
Stalin was no better than Hitler.
Now wait a minute.

Hitler had the intention to exterminate whole cathegories of people: Jews, Slavs, Roma, etc. And he took practical steps to that end.

Stalin was a great murderer, and, specially, a great murderer of communists. He managed to kill practically all bolsheviks that had any relevance at the time of the Revolution, except Kollontai and those who had the luck of dying of natural causes (Lunacharsky, Lenin, Dzerzhinsky). But where and when did he set out to kill people just for the sake of killing people?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Stalin tried to kill all the Kulaks if i remember correctly, yes i know they were wealthy peasents which did create a class division but this still does draw parallels with Hitler. Some historians call the elimination of the Kulaks "The Red holocaust".

[Wiesty]

Ya, STalin did give communism a bad name, just as Nationial Socialists maybe wouldn't be regarded to as poorly, if it werent for hitler.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Stalinist Russia should NOT be supported by communists , they where the enemy of the working class. Does this sound very communistic or even socialistic to you......“It is necessary above everything to strengthen one-man management. It is necessary to proceed from the basic assumption that the Director is the supreme chief in the factory. All the employees in the factory must be completely subordinated to him.” (Za Industrializatsiu, Moscow, April 16, 1934.)

"To take one example only. If a private in national service dies his family gets a pension of between 40 and 240 roubles a month (I.I. Ectikhiev and V.A. Vlassov, Administrative Law of the USSR (Russian), Moscow 1946, p.164), but the family of a deceased colonel gets 1,920 roubles a month (Ibid., p.418). And when Colonel-General V.A. Yuskevich died, his widow was granted a lump sum of 50,000 roubles and a pension of 2,000 roubles a month for life (Pravda, March 17, 1949)."

DOWN WITH BEAURACRATIC TOLITARIAN REGIMES!

[Wiesty]

Stalin only reffered to the working class as the most important (as a true communist should) because they were the ones keeping soldiers on the front line.

[Body Count]

Would all of you rather Stalin pitty patted around for awhile waiting for Western Europe (Specifically what soon would be Nazi Germany) to invade them?

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2006, 08:05 PM

I never denied that the facts you stated made a superpower. I never said that the amount of good a country does determined whether it is a superpower. I agree with you on the issue of the US policies. I Simply argue against your statement that it is because of Stalin that the US demonizes communism - it demonizes each and every movement of a similar sort, regardless of whether the leader is a criminal or a saint. And always will.

The two leaders ruled in very different epochs and under very different circumstances. The global political situation was very different. And while one was authoritarian for the good of preserving the monarchy, the other was authoritarian for the good of his people.

Comrade Cullmac - for the last time, there was no will written by Lenin. Simply a letter which said that Stalin was too rude to be general secretary, and the party needed to consider an alternative. This was after Stalin and Lenin's wife had had an argument. This does not prove that "Lenin thought Stalin was bad" and "didnt think he should rule the Soviet Union".
What I meant when I said that the U.S. demonizes Communism due to Stalin's actions is that they use Stalin as the main source of their attacks against us. They speak nothing of how Lenin denounced Stalin or Trotsky's teachings, they simply portray all of us as Stalinists which is quite wrong.

Bullshit, Stalin didn't care about the people at all. All he cared about was keeping power, thus is the reason for the great purges. He is just like Tsar Nicholas, the only difference is that the Tsar was fighting to preserve the Monarchy and Stalin was fighting to keep his own power.

Stalin is no different from Benito Mussolini and differs slightly from Adolf Hitler. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Hitler targeted Jews for their "weakness" and Stalin killed anyone who disagreed with him. Not to mention that Stalin did kill many more people than Hitler.

And yes, it does mean Lenin thought Stalin was unfit for leadership if he fucking said it.

[Wiesty]

Wether or not the russians would of one if, it was not winter, is doubtful. They would of had even greater difficulties if the germans were not being freezed out by winter. And of course no one wanted stalin to sit around, but he could have found better ways to do so, then forced collectivisation.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by Erik The [email protected] 16 2006, 04:49 AM
What I meant when I said that the U.S. demonizes Communism due to Stalin's actions is that they use Stalin as the main source of their attacks against us. They speak nothing of how Lenin denounced Stalin or Trotsky's teachings, they simply portray all of us as Stalinists which is quite wrong.

Bullshit, Stalin didn't care about the people at all. All he cared about was keeping power, thus is the reason for the great purges. He is just like Tsar Nicholas, the only difference is that the Tsar was fighting to preserve the Monarchy and Stalin was fighting to keep his own power.

Stalin is no different from Benito Mussolini and differs slightly from Adolf Hitler. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Hitler targeted Jews for their "weakness" and Stalin killed anyone who disagreed with him. Not to mention that Stalin did kill many more people than Hitler.

And yes, it does mean Lenin thought Stalin was unfit for leadership if he fucking said it.
So they describe Castro, Che Guevarra, Hugo Chaves, the Sandinistas as stalinists? I told you, they demonize every movement of a similart sort because they are opposed to it to begin with. Whether Stalin was born or not, they still would have found an excuse to intervene and slaughter millions worldwide. Now they're using terrorism as an excuse to intervene in and bomb countries into the stone age - are you going to find another scapegoat you can blame this on?

Oh god you obviously know fuck all about what your trying to prove. Stalin didnt care about his people, while Tsar Nicholas did, which is why the USSR saw the biggest and most rapid increase in living standards for ordinary people ever seen in history, and never matched, before or after.

Complkete bollocks. Go watch 'Enemy at the Gates', thats obviously where you get your sources form. "Stalin killed more than Hitler" what shit. You hold Stalin alone responsible for the deaths of a couple of million of people, and when it comes to admitting about what he did for the country, you seem to forget his name entirely.

So in your opinion whatever Lenin said had to be taken as the bible?

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Comrade Yastrebkov+Jan 19 2006, 04:50 PM--> (Comrade Yastrebkov @ Jan 19 2006, 04:50 PM)
Erik The [email protected] 16 2006, 04:49 AM
What I meant when I said that the U.S. demonizes Communism due to Stalin's actions is that they use Stalin as the main source of their attacks against us. They speak nothing of how Lenin denounced Stalin or Trotsky's teachings, they simply portray all of us as Stalinists which is quite wrong.

Bullshit, Stalin didn't care about the people at all. All he cared about was keeping power, thus is the reason for the great purges. He is just like Tsar Nicholas, the only difference is that the Tsar was fighting to preserve the Monarchy and Stalin was fighting to keep his own power.

Stalin is no different from Benito Mussolini and differs slightly from Adolf Hitler. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Hitler targeted Jews for their "weakness" and Stalin killed anyone who disagreed with him. Not to mention that Stalin did kill many more people than Hitler.

And yes, it does mean Lenin thought Stalin was unfit for leadership if he fucking said it.
So they describe Castro, Che Guevarra, Hugo Chaves, the Sandinistas as stalinists? I told you, they demonize every movement of a similart sort because they are opposed to it to begin with. Whether Stalin was born or not, they still would have found an excuse to intervene and slaughter millions worldwide. Now they're using terrorism as an excuse to intervene in and bomb countries into the stone age - are you going to find another scapegoat you can blame this on?

Oh god you obviously know fuck all about what your trying to prove. Stalin didnt care about his people, while Tsar Nicholas did, which is why the USSR saw the biggest and most rapid increase in living standards for ordinary people ever seen in history, and never matched, before or after.

Complkete bollocks. Go watch 'Enemy at the Gates', thats obviously where you get your sources form. "Stalin killed more than Hitler" what shit. You hold Stalin alone responsible for the deaths of a couple of million of people, and when it comes to admitting about what he did for the country, you seem to forget his name entirely.

So in your opinion whatever Lenin said had to be taken as the bible? [/b]
I never said that the Tsar cared for his people, he only cared for the Monarchy, i.e. his family's power. Nice job putting words in my mouth.

No, if I glorified everything Lenin said as such I wouldn't be a Trotskyite, now would I? No, I would be a strict Leninist, idiot.

I also know what Stalin did for Russia, but do the means justify the end? No, they do not justify the end at all. He could have made Russia a super power without the purges, but you Totalitarians always seem to never mention such a thing.

And no, I've never even seen Enemy at the Gates but from what I've heard it's a terrible movie, it'll probably be worth a hoot to see it.

[viva le revolution]

Erik it seems you a little confused in your arguements, at one point you compare stalin to the tsar, the tsar wanting to preserve the monarchy and stalin wanting to preserve his own power, which can be, in your opinion be used interchangeably. however this contradicts the history and does not take into account the humungous strides the soviet union under stalin took towards betterment of the standards of living in russia!
As for your other point i'll quote you verbatim:
"And yes, it does mean Lenin thought Stalin was unfit for leadership if he fucking said it."
You are using this quote to justify your assertion that Trotsky was the intended 'heir', however using your own method i will again quote Lenin in his article 'the right of nations of self-determination' :

"The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof, except “private conversations” (i. e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), for classifying “Polish Marxists” in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg. Trotsky presented the “Polish Marxists” as people devoid of honour and conscience, incapable of respecting even their own convictions and the programme of their Party. How obliging Trotsky is!"


Here Trotsky's style of critique is amply described and the same methods were used by Trotsky later on against Stalin.



Lenin goes on furthur:


" Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given, difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and, the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned. "
'THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION'.

It is obvious that Lenin never used such harsh words to describe Stalin! Threfore using your own method of reasoning it would seem that your point falls flat on it's face!

[weazbert]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 20 2006, 10:24 AM

You are using this quote to justify your assertion that Trotsky was the intended 'heir', however using your own method i will again quote Lenin in his article 'the right of nations of self-determination' :

"The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof, except “private conversations” (i. e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), for classifying “Polish Marxists” in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg. Trotsky presented the “Polish Marxists” as people devoid of honour and conscience, incapable of respecting even their own convictions and the programme of their Party. How obliging Trotsky is!"


Here Trotsky's style of critique is amply described and the same methods were used by Trotsky later on against Stalin.



Lenin goes on furthur:


" Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given, difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and, the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned. "
'THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION'.

It is obvious that Lenin never used such harsh words to describe Stalin! Threfore using your own method of reasoning it would seem that your point falls flat on it's face!
Okay, which Bolshevik did Lenin have kind words for? wait for it............ None of them! Lenin was a cranky old stroke stricken man near the end, and didn't think any one capable of even carrying his shoes. He said Bukharin didn't understand dialetics, Stalin was rude, and trotsky was "dangerous" or something of the like. So what does that prove? Not a whole lot, if Trotsky wasnt the supposed heir, stalin sure as hell was father from it.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 20 2006, 10:27 AM
Erik it seems you a little confused in your arguements, at one point you compare stalin to the tsar, the tsar wanting to preserve the monarchy and stalin wanting to preserve his own power, which can be, in your opinion be used interchangeably. however this contradicts the history and does not take into account the humungous strides the soviet union under stalin took towards betterment of the standards of living in russia!
As for your other point i'll quote you verbatim:
"And yes, it does mean Lenin thought Stalin was unfit for leadership if he fucking said it."
You are using this quote to justify your assertion that Trotsky was the intended 'heir', however using your own method i will again quote Lenin in his article 'the right of nations of self-determination' :

"The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof, except “private conversations” (i. e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), for classifying “Polish Marxists” in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg. Trotsky presented the “Polish Marxists” as people devoid of honour and conscience, incapable of respecting even their own convictions and the programme of their Party. How obliging Trotsky is!"


Here Trotsky's style of critique is amply described and the same methods were used by Trotsky later on against Stalin.



Lenin goes on furthur:


" Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given, difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and, the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned. "
'THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION'.

It is obvious that Lenin never used such harsh words to describe Stalin! Threfore using your own method of reasoning it would seem that your point falls flat on it's face!
Stalin did improve the standard of living but at the same time commited genocide and created a cult of personality around himself. I sure as hell would rather live in a third world country than have an egomaniacal, genocidal, authoritarian governing me.

Lenin also did say harsh words about Stalin but it would seem as if he thought Trotsky was the lesser of two evils in that case. You must also understand that everyone does indeed have flaws, yes even your god Stalin, and Lenin expressed the flaws which he saw in all of the Bolsheviks in his Testament.

Indeed I do realize that Lenin did say harsh things about Trotsky he seemed to have thought that Stalin was not his intended heir, but even that oligarchy is highly flawed since the will of the people was obviously lost when Stalin suceeded Lenin.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by Erik The [email protected] 21 2006, 04:28 PM
Stalin did improve the standard of living but at the same time commited genocide and created a cult of personality around himself. I sure as hell would rather live in a third world country than have an egomaniacal, genocidal, authoritarian governing me.

Lenin also did say harsh words about Stalin but it would seem as if he thought Trotsky was the lesser of two evils in that case. You must also understand that everyone does indeed have flaws, yes even your god Stalin, and Lenin expressed the flaws which he saw in all of the Bolsheviks in his Testament.

Indeed I do realize that Lenin did say harsh things about Trotsky he seemed to have thought that Stalin was not his intended heir, but even that oligarchy is highly flawed since the will of the people was obviously lost when Stalin suceeded Lenin.
Please give me one - just one little concrete piece of evidence that Stalin committed genocide? How many people, in your opinion did he kill? 20 million, maybe 80 or 100 million? Back up your facts and explain to me why in Stalin's era the Soviet population was rising, while now under "democracy" the Russian population is at an all-time critical low?

And if you really want me to, I can give you concrete evidence that Stalin did not encourage his own personality cult and considered it dangerous and unnecessary

"I sure as hell would rather live in a third world country than have an egomaniacal, genocidal, authoritarian governing me." - then you are a fool. The majority of leaders in the third world are egomaniacal, genocidal and authoritarian who dont give a damn about their people, which is why they are third world countries, unlike the USSR which was a superpower.

"You must also understand that everyone does indeed have flaws, yes even your god Stalin.." - i strongly object that Stalin is my God, I never said anythinbg of the sort, idiot, so stop accusing me of total crap.

What are you on about the will of the people had been lost?

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Comrade Yastrebkov+Jan 22 2006, 12:54 PM--> (Comrade Yastrebkov @ Jan 22 2006, 12:54 PM)
Erik The [email protected] 21 2006, 04:28 PM
Stalin did improve the standard of living but at the same time commited genocide and created a cult of personality around himself. I sure as hell would rather live in a third world country than have an egomaniacal, genocidal, authoritarian governing me.

Lenin also did say harsh words about Stalin but it would seem as if he thought Trotsky was the lesser of two evils in that case. You must also understand that everyone does indeed have flaws, yes even your god Stalin, and Lenin expressed the flaws which he saw in all of the Bolsheviks in his Testament.

Indeed I do realize that Lenin did say harsh things about Trotsky he seemed to have thought that Stalin was not his intended heir, but even that oligarchy is highly flawed since the will of the people was obviously lost when Stalin suceeded Lenin.
Please give me one - just one little concrete piece of evidence that Stalin committed genocide? How many people, in your opinion did he kill? 20 million, maybe 80 or 100 million? Back up your facts and explain to me why in Stalin's era the Soviet population was rising, while now under "democracy" the Russian population is at an all-time critical low?

And if you really want me to, I can give you concrete evidence that Stalin did not encourage his own personality cult and considered it dangerous and unnecessary

"I sure as hell would rather live in a third world country than have an egomaniacal, genocidal, authoritarian governing me." - then you are a fool. The majority of leaders in the third world are egomaniacal, genocidal and authoritarian who dont give a damn about their people, which is why they are third world countries, unlike the USSR which was a superpower.

"You must also understand that everyone does indeed have flaws, yes even your god Stalin.." - i strongly object that Stalin is my God, I never said anythinbg of the sort, idiot, so stop accusing me of total crap.

What are you on about the will of the people had been lost? [/b]
Do you know what genocide is? Apparently not, so I'll educate you on what genocide is and then you'll see that Stalin was indeed a genocidal megalomaniac. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a certain group of people. Ever heard of the purges and how Trotskyites were killed by the thousands, or even millions? Now that you know what genocide is and that Stalin truly is a genocidal maniac.

Stalin did want this personality cult to grow, he could have easily stopped it and censored his cultish followers just as he did to the Trotskyites but he didn't because he wished the entire country to worship him and so that his place in power would never be threatened.

So you think Stalin actually cared about his people, wasn't genocidal or egomaniacal? If he actually cared about his people he wouldn't have exterminated thousands, if not millions, of Trotskyites and other dissenters.

You think that the people wanted to give all the power to one person when they had just overthrown a gov't which had the same concentration of power? Please. Do you also think that the people wanted to exterminate all dissenters and have the blood of millions on their hands?