Mao and Stalin

[WUOrevolt]

So I was watching the history channel the other day and there was a two hour program on about the crimes of Stalin. At the end historians estimated that during Stalin's regime there were around 10-20 millions Russians killed or taken to prison camps. Now this surprised me because thats more than were killed during the holocaust. And here: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...omfaq.htm#part7 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part7)

there is information about the crimes of Mao, which may have led to the deaths of around 10 million Chinese.

So my question is this, why are Mao and Stalin glorified on these boards? Is there information refuting this that I am not aware of?

[Led Zeppelin]

Hitler was responsible for over 50 million deaths, even if you measure the "worseness" of a certain leader by their "death count", so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Fidelbrand]

A huge majority of death counts during Mao's time was not "intended".

[Janus]

Stalin and Mao aren't "glorified" on this forum. Stalin's defenders attribute some of the deaths to famine and war. I'm not too knowledgeable on this issue so I'll let someone else discuss this.

The 10 million that you attribute to Mao mainly occured during the Great Leap Forward. But you must remember that China was determined to industrialize and strengthen the economy because of the withdrawal of Soviet support. Yes, incompetence and inflated figures helped to cause the famine but natural occurences such as flooding and droughts worsened it. However, most people still regard Mao highly because of his leadership and military abilities.

Nazi terror and the Holocaust alone caused the death of 18 million. However, since Hitler was responsible for causing World War II then that would add tens of millions more to his death count.

[Wanted Man]

The only way Hitler could have been less lethal than Mao and Stalin, even if you use the highly inflated figures, is if you only credit Hitler for the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Which is what many people do, thinking that those are the only deaths Nazi Germany was responsible for.

[Red Flag Rising]

Why do we care if someone attempting to build a Workers State kills? Why do we wallow in petty morality, count up the dead and dole them on some cosmic scale in order to condem this leader or that one as "the worst?"

Does anyone really think that constructing a truly Marxist society will be done by tossing daisies and reading love poetry? It will be done by first defeating your enemies, that takes violence. Then the people will have to sacrifice in order to turn the whole, foul capitalist machine in the opposite direction. People will die in the effort.

If the old world has to die in giving birth to the new, so be it.

[Clarksist]

So my question is this, why are Mao and Stalin glorified on these boards?

Mao is quite a bit. But almost all the people on this board agree that Stalin wasn't exactly "awesome" by any means. :lol:


Why do we care if someone attempting to build a Workers State kills?

Because a workers state should be about the workers being in control of themselves and not having to worry about being fucked over.

Where does kill masses of people out of paranoia come in? Nowhere.


It will be done by first defeating your enemies, that takes violence.

I agree that at many times violence is necessary.

But at no times should it be a goto strategy. Why? Because you attract more flies with honey my friend. If you line up all the capitalists and kill them off systematically, you aren't allowing them to help out the workers state.

While many capitalists have caused greater strife and murder than Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, many capitalists would live in a communist society.

But when all you do is talk about murdering them, how do expect them to ever help out once a worker's society is created? They will flee and bring all they can with them.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Comrade WUOrevolt - these figures of "dozens of milions" are totally inflated - their advocates never give any evidence whatsoever to back up their facts, it is just taken for granted that Stalin killed off a chunk of the Soviet population. When they mention these facts, they normally say "according to my calculations" or "according to Professor..." (who, in turn, will say he got his figures from Professor so and so..) There was a big difference between Stalin and Hitler.

But no, neither are particularly "glorified" on these boards, just different members have different ideas and beliefs and express them accordingly.

[kaaos_af]

Stalin's ordering of the German Communist Party to fight the social-democrats instead of joining with the S-D's to fight the nazis is responsible for Hitler's rise to power.

Stalin was a national socialist himself.

[Hiero]

There is no doubting that deaths did occur during the leadership of Stalin and Mao. Ill give some reason why you can not compare this with Hitler.

Stalin and Mao began their leadership in a fragile environement, politically as well. The USSR and China at their beginning were a semi feudal society, with no great industry and a large population, larger in China's case. The peasants in these countries lived in a seasonal cycle, if one season of growth failed it would lead to starvation. If there was bad wheather for a long time this would lead to a famine.

The political environment was fragile as well. Their were many who wanted to dirvert from the socialist path for their own benifit. This includes warlords, landlords, kulaks, gangsters all the way to corrupt party members. All these anti socialist elements had to be eliminated.

Now compare this with Hitler. Hitler's leadership occurred in a capitalist industrial society. He was a leader for German capital on the rise from WW1. He used mass murdering machines to kill large amounts of people in a short time. Hitler started World War 2.

So the huge difference between Hitler and Stalin and Mao was that Hitler intended to kill huge amounts of people for improvement of German Capital, and the Nazi empire. Stalin and Mao during their leadership faced great hurdless that had to be meet for the improvement of the Proletariat.

[WUOrevolt]

Interesting responses. Thanks for them.

What I meant by they are glorified on this board was mainly that Mao is, I know most people in their right mind who arent fascists dont like Stalin.

I personally never liked Mao or Stalin, in fact it might be safe to say that i hate them both very much.

And I see how it was that Mao didnt intend to kill off millions, but there were however gulags and such, so he isnt totally off the hook. And as for Stalin, I hope he rots in his grave for eternity, and that people spit on his memory.

[jaycee]

mao,stalin,hitler, churchill ,bush the're all equally reactionary and murderous

[Body Count]

I think its ashame these comrades can even be compared to Hitler.

[Wiesty]

The difference between hitler and stalin, is that stalin killed off 20 million of his own people, as where hitler had a direct attack on the jewish community which came to 7 million deaths. Counting how many civillians Hitler killed in other countries, is a very weak argument, as every country did it. it was war.

[Hiero]

I know most people in their right mind who arent fascists dont like Stalin.

Answer me this, why would Fascist support a man who lead a country that defeated fascism?

*Hint, you can't answer this question, and if you try you have no idea who Stalin is and what Fascism is, so don't embarres yourself.


I personally never liked Mao or Stalin, in fact it might be safe to say that i hate them both very much.

You hate them because you don't have enough knowledge to know you are political opposed to them?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What I meant by they are glorified on this board was mainly that Mao is, I know most people in their right mind who arent fascists dont like Stalin.

You're an idiot, which was known from your earlier posts.. but you've reached a new level here.

1. Maoists uphold Stalin.

2. Stalin was the leader of the USSR when it defeated fascism. When the communists stopped the Nazis (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/ryw5a.html)

3. Recent polls show that almost half of the people of Russia would have Stalin back as a leader if they could. The percentage is higher in some former Soviet Republics. I guess they're all fascists huh? :rolleyes:

[Goatse]

Very good post CDL...

If anyone bothers you about how Stalin was worse than Hitler or any shit like that, ask them this:

"Would you have preferred to be in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany?"

They'll be forced to say Nazi Germany, otherwise they'll prove themselves wrong. This pretty much lines you up for a win in the argument. (Provided you're not an idiot.)

[Wiesty]

i would say id rather be dead, as for the russians defeating the germans, most of the congrats should go to the russian winter, which played a huge part in the german retreating.

[WUOrevolt]

Choosing between Stalin and hitler is like chosing between Bush and Kerry. They both are horrible.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:45 PM
i would say id rather be dead,
That's easy to say for someone that lives in an imperialist country in a relative level of comfort.

Why do you think so many Russians long for the days of bureaucratic socialism under Stalin? You think it might have anything to do with the fact that standards of living, literacy, life expectancy, housing, health care, education, and womens rights greatly improved under it?



as for the russians defeating the germans, most of the congrats should go to the russian winter, which played a huge part in the german retreating.

Yeah, it was the winter.. not the 28 million Soviet citizens that lost their lives. :rolleyes:

[RedStarOverChina]

there is information about the crimes of Mao, which may have led to the deaths of around 10 million Chinese.
That's some "very old statistics".

The more "recent" CIA estimation suggest 30 million died...and this was the number used in most "documents".

A while ago I noticed that new claims of "100 million dead under Mao" emerging online and elsewhere...If I know how these things work, I'd say this will be "acknowledged historical fact" soon.

I highly suspect that this is the way the claim "10 million dead under Stalin" came to being as well.

Bourgeoisie media leads you nowhere other than total confusion.


A little rough estimation of Chinese population in 1949 places the Chinese population somewhere around 500 million. Some 30 years later, the population doubled.

Weird. :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah it's also "weird" that under the murderous horrors of Stalin and Mao, living conditions and life expectancy greatly increased.

[jaycee]

even if the holocaust denial of the stalinists and maoists is to be believed, the fundamental question remains, who had power under these leaders? it certainly wasn't the working class as there wasn't even democracy inside these respective parties let alone in the country as a whole. During elections in the remnants of what used to be workers' soviets people could vote for the wide choice of stalin or ...stalin. During the 30s the living conditions of the workers were horrendous, the exploitation of the working class was ferocious and everything was sacrificed for the war economy for russias imperialist expansion. Stalinism's occupation of eastern europe ws a clear indication that russia was an imperialist nation like all the rest.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:45 PM
i would say id rather be dead, as for the russians defeating the germans, most of the congrats should go to the russian winter, which played a huge part in the german retreating.
Yes, I'm sure you'd rather be dead. As has been mentioned, it's pretty easy for you to say that, because you'll probably never have to endure the hardships of the newly-founded USSR in the comfort of the current world. And yeah, of course, it was totally the winter. The Soviet troops got their asses handed to them on a platter, then suddenly it started snowing, and the Germans started dying. :rolleyes:

I really can't imagine how I could be any more sarcastic. While the Germans were indeed ill-prepared for the harsh winter, if that was the only problem, they could have just taken a city(because the Soviet troops did nothing, and Stalin deserves no credit, right? :rolleyes: ) and stolen all the blankets.


The more "recent" CIA estimation suggest 30 million died...and this was the number used in most "documents".

A while ago I noticed that new claims of "100 million dead under Mao" emerging online and elsewhere...If I know how these things work, I'd say this will be "acknowledged historical fact" soon.
I think previously, the accepted estimation was anywhere between 30-65 million. Then comes Jung Chang with her 70 million, using reliable sources like Henry Kissinger. Then, not to be outdone, R.J. Rummel bases his latest estimate on that of Jung Chang: 77 million. Sources: Jung Chang and his ass. I have no doubt that the magical 100 million will be in the history books in several years. Hell, they could even make a nice little monument in Riga for the SS veterans to march around: 250 million deaths caused by communism!!! That will be even more "magical". :rolleyes:


I highly suspect that this is the way the claim "10 million dead under Stalin" came to being as well.
If you must know... http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm


A little rough estimation of Chinese population in 1949 places the Chinese population somewhere around 500 million. Some 30 years later, the population doubled.

Weird. :)
Interesting indeed. Also lovely how Stalin supposedly bumped off anywhere between 20 and 60 million people, and tortured every single competent officer(1 million) in the Red Army to death just for good measure, and yet still the USSR somehow held on against the fascist war machine. Maybe there was some sorcery involved? :lol: By the way, a little bit of trivia: the Finnish "Discovery Channel" once claimed that Stalin killed 100-150 million people in the documentary "Most Evil Persons of History" or something like that. :lol:


the holocaust denial of the stalinists and maoists
Rather ridiculous to compare the two. The conditions in Germany, the USSR and China were so incredibly different, no comparison is valid.


who had power under these leaders? it certainly wasn't the working class as there wasn't even democracy inside these respective parties let alone in the country as a whole. During elections in the remnants of what used to be workers' soviets people could vote for the wide choice of stalin or ...stalin.
Hmm, I once read a great article detailing democracy under Stalin. I really feel like hitting myself in the face now that I've no idea where to find it. :(


During the 30s the living conditions of the workers were horrendous, the exploitation of the working class was ferocious
Are you kidding me? As opposed to tsarist Russia, or the destructive years of the Civil War? Stalin greatly improved these conditions.


and everything was sacrificed for the war economy for russias imperialist expansion.
Which makes sense, if you're in the middle of a war. Ever read anything on Lenin? Ever heard of "war communism"? And nice to see that the heroic fight against fascism is suddenly an "imperialist expansion". :angry:


Stalinism's occupation of eastern europe ws a clear indication that russia was an imperialist nation like all the rest.
Yes, Stalin figured: hmm, I'll just take a large part of Eastern and Central Europe, just to be evil and imperialist. Of course, it had nothing to do with WWII, or the creation of a buffer against the future NATO powers, who basically screwed the world over in '38 in Munich(something a lot of Stalin's opponents tend to forget when they accuse him of "paranoia").

[jaycee]

ww2 was an inperialist war just like the first, they just had a more convincing lie to accompany it. The argument about whether it was the russian winter or the russian people who 'beat facism' is rediculous, (it was the russian people) but they were fighting for the stalinists capitalist and imperialist interests, not there own. Anti-facism is an anti-working class ideology used to deffend capitalist democracy or in this case stalinism.

Yes under lenin there was also great sacrifices made, but these were sacrifices made which were deffending a workers state(rapidly degenerating as it was) against counter-revolution not deffending a state capitalist government and its imperialist adventures.

I've heard of all the supposed democracy under stalin but never seen anything convincing but even if there was democtacy this would not call into question the class character of his regime, BOURGEOIS.

Stalin didn't improve conditions at all, he improved industry and the economy through a violent use of state capitlism, war production, repression and mass murder. THis is why you have to deny the killings becuase this is what the great 'improvements' were based on.

I suppose next you'll end up using the old stalinist argument, 'stalin took russia from a semi feudal country to a world super power'. If anything proves the capitalist and imperialist nature of stalinism this deffence does.

[Wiesty]

the point is stalin killed a lot of people, you can hide the facts, just because hes was the leader of the ussr, or you can accept the truth. Having sympathy for stalin, even when he killed like 20 million+, is no different than the neo-nazis sympathizing hitler.

[Revolution 9]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 21 2006, 05:58 PM
Hitler was responsible for over 50 million deaths, even if you measure the "worseness" of a certain leader by their "death count", so I don't know what you're talking about.
To be precise, I do believe that 11 million were victims of the holocaust, while the rest were killed some other way by the Nazi regime during the war.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:18 PM
Anti-facism is an anti-working class ideology used to deffend capitalist democracy or in this case stalinism.

LMFAO!

:lol:

Another great moment on revleft.

And people have the nerve to talk about "leftist glue"??? People like me and this guy are nothing alike.

[Hiero]

During elections in the remnants of what used to be workers' soviets people could vote for the wide choice of stalin or ...stalin.

What are you talking about? Stalin was voted into his position through democractic centralism.

I believe it went like this, you get voted into the central commitee by the party, then you get voted into the Polit Buro by the CC, then the Polit Buro votes for the General Secretary. So the "people" never voted for Stalin into the Polit Buro or General Secretary position. The people vote to be district commitees, public office, certain position in government.

Now my knowledge is a bit sketchy, but you clearly have no idea how the basics of democratic centralism works so i don't see what gives you any right to criticise Stalin based on democracy.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:19 AM
the point is stalin killed a lot of people, you can hide the facts, just because hes was the leader of the ussr, or you can accept the truth. Having sympathy for stalin, even when he killed like 20 million+, is no different than the neo-nazis sympathizing hitler.
Basically you can't counter any of the points we made, so you just resort to "oh Stalin hated people and so he killed them...".

You could atleast do us a favour and stop repeating yourself.

[RedStarOverChina]

Hiero why do you have a picture of Lin Biao as your avatar?

Not the most adorable revolutionary there is, I'd say. :)

[вор в законе]

Stalin and Mao may have been village idiots, but they can not even be compared with Hitler.

[вор в законе]

At the end historians estimated that during Stalin's regime there were around 10-20 millions Russians killed or taken to prison camps.

That is a blatant lie though and i will prove it later with academic sources in a new thread.

These estimates were based on Conquest's ''research'' during the Cold War.

USSR in fact had less prisoners in the Gulags than America has today.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:51 PM
Hiero why do you have a picture of Lin Biao as your avatar?

Not the most adorable revolutionary there is, I'd say. :)
Yes i do.

You are incorrect I believe. Lin Biao before the attempted "coup" was one of the greatest revolutionaries in China and the world. He was one of the first to realise that revolution in the 1st world had been held back and that revolution in the 3rd world should surround the imperialist like surrounding cities by country.

Lin Biao's greatest criticism comes from the current capitalist CCP, who want to put all blame for the cultural revolution on Lin Biao and the Gang of Four rather then criticise Mao.

I think we should uphold Lin Biao, there is so much good he did and such good writings of his. You should check out his writings on marxists.org, he is such a great propagandist and well educated Marxist-Leninist. When i want to introduce someone to Maoism i give them Lin Biao's articles, as they helped me alot.

[RedStarOverChina]

You are incorrect I believe. Lin Biao before the attempted "coup" was one of the greatest revolutionaries in China and the world.
He was definately the most brilliant military tactician the PRC has ever seen. But in terms of political awareness?

He's "just a baby", as Mao rather correctly stated.

He was one of the first to realise that revolution in the 1st world had been held back and that revolution in the 3rd world should surround the imperialist like surrounding cities by country.
That is obviously an extention of Mao's military strategy of surrounding cities with rural territories.

Does it work in reality? First of all, it's "kind of hard" to surround imperialist countries with 3rd world revolutionary countries...In fact, it's a total fantacy. The exact opposite happened: China was surrounded by hostile reactionary countries.



I think we should uphold Lin Biao, there is so much good he did and such good writings of his. You should check out his writings on marxists.org, he is such a great propagandist and well educated Marxist-Leninist.
Lin was a unsociable and eccentric military genius...his understanding of Marxism are never to be compared with the other revolutionaries. Apparently he's a mouthpiece of Mao up until the point where he figured out Mao might actually outlive him :)

[WUOrevolt]

What do you think of this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47616 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616)

I'm pretty sure its not ture, and do we have evidence to refute it.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:50 PM
ww2 was an inperialist war just like the first, they just had a more convincing lie to accompany it. The argument about whether it was the russian winter or the russian people who 'beat facism' is rediculous, (it was the russian people) but they were fighting for the stalinists capitalist and imperialist interests, not there own. Anti-facism is an anti-working class ideology used to deffend capitalist democracy or in this case stalinism.

Yes under lenin there was also great sacrifices made, but these were sacrifices made which were deffending a workers state(rapidly degenerating as it was) against counter-revolution not deffending a state capitalist government and its imperialist adventures.

I've heard of all the supposed democracy under stalin but never seen anything convincing but even if there was democtacy this would not call into question the class character of his regime, BOURGEOIS.

Stalin didn't improve conditions at all, he improved industry and the economy through a violent use of state capitlism, war production, repression and mass murder. THis is why you have to deny the killings becuase this is what the great 'improvements' were based on.

I suppose next you'll end up using the old stalinist argument, 'stalin took russia from a semi feudal country to a world super power'. If anything proves the capitalist and imperialist nature of stalinism this deffence does.
"ww2 was an inperialist war just like the first, they just had a more convincing lie to accompany it."

No it was different, it was a clash of ideologies as much as anything else. WW1 had no soviet union, no fascist germany. So this comparison is ludicrous at best.

"The argument about whether it was the russian winter or the russian people who 'beat facism' is rediculous, (it was the russian people) but they were fighting for the stalinists capitalist and imperialist interests, not there own"

So suddenly defending your homeland against Fascist invasion is working in the interests of the imperialists!!!??? So i guess in your opinion sitting back and letting Fascists run amock is 'internationalism' right? Please spare us this infantilism.


"Anti-facism is an anti-working class ideology used to deffend capitalist democracy or in this case stalinism."

Are you sure you are on the right forum?

"Yes under lenin there was also great sacrifices made, but these were sacrifices made which were deffending a workers state(rapidly degenerating as it was) against counter-revolution not deffending a state capitalist government and its imperialist adventures."

Imperialist adventures?? I'm sorry but did Lenin invade any other countries'? On the one hand you admit that he fought counter-revolution but in the same breath you claim that as an imperialist adventure??? Your line is pathetic at best.


"I've heard of all the supposed democracy under stalin but never seen anything convincing but even if there was democtacy this would not call into question the class character of his regime, BOURGEOIS."

Proof? Reasoning? or do you enjoy spouting rubbish?

"Stalin didn't improve conditions at all,"

Well it is an objective fact admitted by western bourgeois governments as well. Fortunately objective reality is not bound by you myopic, rabid vision.

"I suppose next you'll end up using the old stalinist argument, 'stalin took russia from a semi feudal country to a world super power'. If anything proves the capitalist and imperialist nature of stalinism this deffence does."

So in your opinion if he kept Russia as a feudal kleptocracy you would have accepted it as 'proletarian', suppose following your line of reasoning, he instituted as bourgeois capitalist regime, you would support it as 'proletrain' please refrain from using such bankrupt, defunct logic.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:07 PM
What do you think of this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47616 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616)

I'm pretty sure its not ture, and do we have evidence to refute it.
Look what site it had linked : http://www.thoseshirts.com/

[WUOrevolt]

Im aware of that site, your point?

[Ol' Dirty]

And people have the nerve to talk about "leftist glue"???

Yeah, we do, in the face of your divisionist, sectionalist ideology of political segragation. :)

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:43 PM
Im aware of that site, your point?
The point being that its nothing but conservative anti-leftist trash.

Crypto-fascist (What the majority of the FW right is) will say anything about communism.

[WUOrevolt]

It would be good if we had evidence to the contrary.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:50 PM

And people have the nerve to talk about "leftist glue"???

Yeah, we do, in the face of your divisionist, sectionalist ideology of political segragation. :)
Nice buzzwords, but they say nothing about the problem I was implying.

[Ol' Dirty]

And people have the nerve to talk about "leftist glue"???


Yeah, we do, in the face of your divisionist, sectionalist ideology of political segragation. :)


Nice buzzwords, but they say nothing about the problem I was implying.

Well, we seem to throw around words like fascist and bourgoise like they were "buzzwords", don't we? Don't we insult people all the time on this board? Throw mud at our peers? Well, until people stop with their "buzzwords", I'll say whatever the fuck I want.

[KC]

If you want to learn about Stalin I suggest reading Stalin by Isaac Deutscher. It is the most objective biography I have found on Stalin.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Stalin believed that the USSR needed to catch-up to the Corporate Capitalists through industrialisation. His regime couldn't wait for buinesses to monopolise, so every mill, and factory which were being built were owned by the state. The same is true with Mao.

As for the deaths by Stalinism, as someone already mentioned the famines, and droughts, also Stalin advanced the economy of the USSR through primitive accumlation; slavery through labour-camps,and forced collectivisation. The advancement of the industry was more concentrated at a given time, if the United States of the 17th century were to become industrialised in twenty years, the death count would most likely be in same range as those who went to the gulags.

Mao was also very similar in this respect, howeve in the Great Leap Foward he had all the peasents in the country side move to industrial communes, and when harvest season came around no one was there to harvest the crops. This is why many died of famine.

What pisses me off about Stalin is that the USSR could of had a more Democratic apparatus (re-enstallment of the soviets), there could have been world revolutions, but no. In Pre-WW2 Germany, France, Italy, and pre-civil war Spain there could have been guinely democratic worker controlled states, but the Politburo was too caught up with meeting the demands of the bourgoeis in those countries "to stop fascism", or not trying to form a union with the social-democrats at all. Any leaders in the different Communist Parties across the globe at this time who disagreed with the line of the Politburo were purged and replaced.

All the accustations against the Social-Democrats sounded like a diversion to stop people from finding out what was going on with the USSR and the gulag system. It's also quite fishy why Thorez and the Communists in France stopped at an inch away from forming workers-organs in the government, sounds like the Politburo didn't want to rock the boat. Stalin was probably the greatest friend the bourgoeisie ever had.

Gathering in mind the changes that were taking place with the workers across the globe, Stalin wouldn't of had to resort to Socialism in one country.The USSR could have became what the Bolsheviks intended it to be. The Kulaks at that time were already pissed at the state, and demanded more compensation, and they could have recieved more money by getting part time factory work. Rapid
industrialization could of happened if the Politburo allowed and supported world revolutions. Its just so irritating to know the answer was in their grasp, and they kicked it under the rug!

As for Hilter; he was the cause of WW2, and he created camps specifically for genocide. These weren't the run-of-the-mill crappy labour camps, these were complicated buildings designed like factories.

Anyone who says those who died during the regimes of Stalin and Mao are deaths from socialism are wrong, no they're deaths from incompetence.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:28 AM

And people have the nerve to talk about "leftist glue"???


Yeah, we do, in the face of your divisionist, sectionalist ideology of political segragation. :)


Nice buzzwords, but they say nothing about the problem I was implying.

Well, we seem to throw around words like fascist and bourgoise like they were "buzzwords", don't we? Don't we insult people all the time on this board? Throw mud at our peers? Well, until people stop with their "buzzwords", I'll say whatever the fuck I want.

If I had known you would throw a temper tantrum, I wouldn't have said anything.

[Salvador Allende]

Stalin and Mao were great comrades, they made errors, yes, but I would say they constitute no more than 30% of their overall contribution. It was Stalin and Molotov whose planning allowed the USSR to achieve the fastest industrialization in history. It was them who destroyed the counter-revolutionary attempts by the revisionists and traitors who murdered Sergei Kirov. It was them who defeated the Nazi invasion in 1941 and liberated half of Europe and Korea. Stalin's primary error was his announcement in 1939 that the bourgeois had been defeated completely, when in reality their ideas still persisted and upon his death they launched their assaults.

Mao was a great revolutionary who helped develop the idea of the People's War and apply Marxism-Leninism to China in the form of Mao Zedong Thought. Thanks to Mao one-fifth of humanity was brought to Socialism. His primary errors were his support for the utopianist Great Leap and his initial support for the Cultural Revolution, though, he did do self-criticism after the Great Leap hurt agricultural production (there was no mass-famine caused by the Great Leap, some died as a result of natural disasters, but during the Leap W.E.B. Du Bois visited China as many others did and visted the countryside, seeing no traces of famine) and corrected the Cultural Revolution by appointing Hua Guofeng as Premier and Chairman.

There was no real chance of the Revolution going world-wide after WWI and up until WWII. There were incidents like Spain, and Stalin sent and helped volunteer brigades and arms get into help the Communists, but overall the major problem was the rise of Fascism and Nazism, which could not be ignored.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 10 2006, 10:17 PM
Stalin and Mao were great comrades, they made errors, yes, but I would say they constitute no more than 30% of their overall contribution.
They made errors? Wow you make these errors sound so marginal.
GREAT errors are more like it. By your logic "The Great Leap Foward" could have been called "The Hop on One-Leg Foward".
30% is great tip for a waiter, I usually try to tip that much when I have the money!


It was Stalin and Molotov whose planning allowed the USSR to achieve the fastest industrialization in history. It was them who destroyed the counter-revolutionary attempts by the revisionists and traitors who murdered Sergei Kirov. It was them who defeated the Nazi invasion in 1941 and liberated half of Europe and Korea.
It was them who halted the idea of a world revolution.
It was them who shamlessly purged, and imprissoned those who dissagreed


Mao was a great revolutionary who helped develop the idea of the People's War and apply Marxism-Leninism to China in the form of Mao Zedong Thought. Thanks to Mao one-fifth of humanity was brought to Socialism.
Amazing, who would have thought that some one could re-write a theory and apply it? Surely not I!


His primary errors were his support for the utopianist Great Leap and his initial support for the Cultural Revolution, though, he did do self-criticism after the Great Leap hurt agricultural production
Well, as long as they criticized the program, and not Mao Zedong-thought in general it was fine.


(there was no mass-famine caused by the Great Leap, some died as a result of natural disasters,
If you consider starving because no one harvested the crops natural. Yes, death is natural, all people die.


but during the Leap W.E.B. Du Bois visited China as many others did and visted the countryside, seeing no traces of famine)
Oh well if W.E.B Du Bois did, thats good enough for me. That totally debunks everything.


and corrected the Cultural Revolution by appointing Hua Guofeng as Premier and Chairman.
And they all lived happily ever-after!


There was no real chance of the Revolution going world-wide after WWI and up until WWII. There were incidents like Spain, and Stalin sent and helped volunteer brigades and arms get into help the Communists, but overall the major problem was the rise of Fascism and Nazism, which could not be ignored.
Yes there wasn't a chance because the Communist Party was under the thumb of the Politburo, and decided to halt every advance toward revolution.

So Fascism couldn't have been stopped if there was an alliance and a revolution.
Gee, I thought that maybe the majority of the moderate bourgoeisie would be pushed into the fascist camp causing extreme polar activity(civil-wars), and uniting the workers against them, ending with the workers taking control.

Stalin would of had to have fought the Nazis off if he wanted to keep his dominion.
What was his other choice?
Build a huge dome over Russia?

[Janus]

It was Stalin and Molotov whose planning allowed the USSR to achieve the fastest industrialization in history. It was them who destroyed the counter-revolutionary attempts by the revisionists and traitors who murdered Sergei Kirov. It was them who defeated the Nazi invasion in 1941 and liberated half of Europe and Korea.
Two men accomplishing all of that single-handedly? It was the Soviet people who were responsible for it not the leaders.


there was no mass-famine caused by the Great Leap, some died as a result of natural disasters, but during the Leap W.E.B. Du Bois visited China as many others did and visted the countryside, seeing no traces of famine
Do you actually think that China's leaders would allow an outsider to see their mistakes? During the height of the famine, the leaders still gave out lavish parties for foreign diplomats in order to quell any thoughts that there was a famine going on in the countryside. In fact, China still exported rice during this period because no of the leaders really wanted to admit the success of the 5 year plan. No single person can be blamed for the entire thing nor can the number of deaths be assessed with great accuracy. The point is that the Great Leap Forward does hold some responsibility for the cause of the famine of 1959-1961.


and corrected the Cultural Revolution by appointing Hua Guofeng as Premier and Chairman.
Mao "corrected" it by sending in the PLA and by beginning the "To the countryside" campaign. Once the Red Guards had served Mao's pupose, they were no longer of use to him. The emergence of Hua Guofeng as Chairman of the CCP marked the end of the Cultural Revolution since he is credited with the ousting of the Gang of Four.

[Bannockburn]

You know I don't want to get in this whole debate, but I don't know what you guys are reading, or what you guys have be taught in school, but Hitler didn't cause ww2, ww2 was an outcome of historical reasons.

[Ian]

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE (even Hobsbawm!!) chalks up the occurence of WW2 to Hitler.

WW1 I suppose your argument would apply to

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:36 PM
You know I don't want to get in this whole debate, but I don't know what you guys are reading, or what you guys have be taught in school, but Hitler didn't cause ww2, ww2 was an outcome of historical reasons.
You sound a bit like Rasputin here, saying things are inevitable.

True, we can't directly pin-point ww2 to Hilter, but he was the main actor.
Maybe Hitler could have been stopped, and maybe that would have resulted to war on someone else, perhaps even a counter-revolution.

However a world wide economic depression might result in a totalitarian trying to seize power, but economic conditions may not warant their victory.

When the world goes into economic recession again, will it be inevitable that a fascist dictator seizes power?

So there isn't a possible way that a fascist regime can't be stopped before is seizes power, even though we've learned from the past?

[Haligonian Red]

I'm not even going to bother weighing in on the numbers game. It's too sick.

I will point out that we are obviously in a period of capitalist "triumphalism" and this latest spate of revisionist histories is clearly part of the ideologically-driven campaign to eradicate the possibility of systemic, large-scale alternatives to capitalism in popular consciousness. Not that anyone needs to be told.

Here's what I really want to say: People are still lining up at the mausoleum in Tiananmen Square every day with flowers in their hands. Thousands of common people, with no guns to their heads. They're not faking, they're not actors. They're there to pay their respects to Mao.

Any book or article which fails to account for this fact isn't worth the paper it's printed on.