USSR

[sanpal]

I think I could answer two or three questions

[Comrada J]

How much power did Stalin really have? Is it true that his rule was absolute? Also what other figures had major influence over the early USSR?

[viva le revolution]

The contention that Stalin was an absolute ruler is complete bullshit. Anybody that advocates that arguement seriously needs to re-read some history(not the history channel variety mind you). The electoral process under the ideal of democratic centralism, which the Bolshevik party, was subject to, does not allow for such powers to be vested in the hands of one singular individual and retains accountability of the secretary-general(the post that comrade Stalin occupied) to each and every one of the members of the communist party. The power to re-call candidates in the event of an abuse of power or incorrect application of Communist ideals is availible at all times. Unfortunately most disregard the oraganizational structure of democratic centralism, disregard the rules and regulations incumbent upon it and continue to heap scorn and misguided( mostly unbased and unbacked arguements) under the zeal of the latest history channel documantary or a CNN report!
To answer your question, no Stalin was not an absolute ruler. Nor was Lenin or any other head of a communist party upon which democratic centralism applies.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Komrad [email protected] 27 2006, 10:57 AM
How much power did Stalin really have?
How much? What is the method of measuring? In kilograms? :D


Well, it's not a question which could have a short answer but I'll try ...
Stalin was the general secretary of the Communist Party of the SU and CP was
organized on the democratic centralism principle so Stalin could point out
to some communist that he was wrong and communists could criticize a general
secretary (if they had enough courage). But general secretary was not able
physically to point out to every communist (or non-party man) what was his
mistake and accordingly
why he was an enemy. So there was a system principle to carry out general
instructions down from high level.
And as a permanent class struggle against revisionists was declared so
some "enemies" must been looked for. And then "what to do with pro-cappy"
I think the members of RevLet know it well: it is labour reform camps.
I don't know how RL members name (or will name) this camps but in the former
USSR the system of labour camps was named as "gulag".
GULAG - Glavnoe Upravlenie LAGerey (in translation is something ....the Main
Department of Camps)



Adding to it it turned out that representative power (Soviet) was not a
real power because of proclaiming the Communist Party of SU as leading and
ruling force which had to have influence on each aspect of soviet life.
It happen seemingly because according to the programm of Com. Party of SU in
which the party had to lead in creation of socialist State under communist
ideology and to prevent revisionism but not to pass the power to class of
the proletariat just after revolution. So the dictatorship of only party was
created instead of dictatorship of the proletariat.
.

These two described reasons let Stalin step by step to rid oneself of
political rivals.

There are another reasons for cultivating of "cult of personality" of Stalin
(petty-bourgeois aspect of class structure of the society at that period, WW
II, personal qualities, etc) but this post must be very vast.


Is it true that his rule was absolute?

What do you mean under term "absolute"? If any monarch who has "absolute"
power would wish to kill the half of population of his country for the sake
of fun do you think he could do it? Both monarch and Stalin could act in
bounds of ideologies which took a place in theirs countries. Stalin's
dictatorship was limited by communist ideology and he was forced to do much
in that direction, i.e. improvement of medicine service, education,
fundamental and applied science, protection of childhood, etc.
However discipline for achieving this welfare of
soviet people in Stalin's period was very hard.


Also what other figures had major influence over the early USSR?

I think many of RL members know about this question much more than me. Or
read "Lenin's testament" where Lenin gave characterizations on Trotskiy,
Stalin, Bukharin,Pyatakov, etc.

[Led Zeppelin]

Also what other figures had major influence over the early USSR?

Trotsky, Bukharin, Kalinin, Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev were the "main figures".

[Ice]

How did the USSR collapse? I know the socialist government got corrupt but still how did the capitalists managed to overthrow the so-called socialist government, which existed then? And how long do you think it will take for the left to take over again?

[undeadsinner]

I'm not a fan of Satlin but I do honestly think his rule was a complete underminding of Lenin-Lenin wanted Stalin out of the C.C.C.P and for good reason-history tells the story-I say Lenin hould have ordered the Red Army to open Fire on Stalin when he was in plain sight...I know I would have...Stalin is the Reason that the S.U lost power and was unfavored in non Communist Countries...

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:18 PM
How did the USSR collapse? I know the socialist government got corrupt but still how did the capitalists managed to overthrow the so-called socialist government, which existed then? And how long do you think it will take for the left to take over again?
The 'capitalists' didn't overthrow anything. The 'socialist' governments in the former Soviet Union were probably the first rulers in history to "overthrow" themselves.

The collapse of State capitalism was a result of a restructuring in the ranks of the bureaucracy.

[M-Mann]

Originally posted by Komrad [email protected] 27 2006, 11:05 AM
How much power did Stalin really have?
6?

Is it true that his rule was absolute?No, try looking up Mikhail Kalinin.

[Ol' Dirty]

Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

[Social Greenman]

YouKnowTheyMurderedX wrote:


The 'capitalists' didn't overthrow anything. The 'socialist' governments in the former Soviet Union were probably the first rulers in history to "overthrow" themselves.

The collapse of State capitalism was a result of a restructuring in the ranks of the bureaucracy.

The reality is: the people of the Soviet Union were so miserable that even the leaders of the system were miserable and tired. They had the political power to abolish their system, and so they did. Many people, of both classes, made the error of assuming that individual freedom and prosperity are correlated with capitalism, and therefore, unfortunately, they put their faith in capitalism. The Communist Party upper layer of bosses were now reclassified as wealthy corporate stockholders who personally owned the industries that they used to rule as political appointees.

Yet there remains those who worship the former Soviet Union as politically sound. The so-called democratic cetralism only existed inside the bureauracy and not with the workers at large. The workers had no voice and were force to abide by the decisions made by the party elite. Kinda like Wile E. Coyote (super genius) trying to herd sheep.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:55 PM

The 'capitalists' didn't overthrow anything. The 'socialist' governments in the former Soviet Union were probably the first rulers in history to "overthrow" themselves.

The collapse of State capitalism was a result of a restructuring in the ranks of the bureaucracy.
Needless to say your arguement is extremely simplistic my 'Marxist' friend. Since it disregards any historical incidents or policies in the soviet union after comrade Stalin's death.
Your position isbasically akin to the petit-bourgeois, individualist and social-chauvinist view of history as described by bourgeois history and Trotskyism in particular.
Your assertion basically does not take into account the rise of revisionism, Khruischev's policy of 'peaceful' co-existence, according to which antagonistic classes have ceased to exist, therefore class struggle has become redundant! This is a major departure from Marxism-leninism, what is surprising though is that Trotskyites instead of recognizing and condemning such a deviation continue to disregard it as a retroactive step, continue to disregard it's consequences instead continue individualistic meaningless character assasinations in an effort to snub the nose of Marxist-Leninists. Of course the Trotskyite view of history ignores the mistaken and un-Marxist policy of Market-socialism and do not recognize it as a major deviation. Instyead continuing to blame an abstract 'beurocracy' in the usual reductionist view of Trotskyism. Of course your stance about the 'socialists' overthrowing themselves is an indicator of this absurd reductionism.
The stance basically refuses to acknowledge that Capitalist, bourgeois elements infiltrate the party and the concept of Revisionism. Just another indicator of the ideological bankruptcy of Trotskyism.
Fluxone13: please read some history. What your high school textbooks tell you is not the gospel truth.

[ReD_ReBeL]

didn't Stalin not blow up all the churches and send orders for the red army to take all religious wall hangings in there house down and replace them with framed photos of Stalin himself? I watched a Stalin documentary and there was actualy footage of this.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:17 PM
didn't Stalin not blow up all the churches and send orders for the red army to take all religious wall hangings in there house down and replace them with framed photos of Stalin himself? I watched a Stalin documentary and there was actualy footage of this.
But didn't he reopen the churches in the middle of WWII?

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Throughout the early period of his rule, Stalin actually protected many churches from destruction and pillage, it was in fact Trotsky and his zionist cronies who are mostly to blame for the so-called terror against the Orthodox church. And yes, Stalin did become closer to the church during WWII.