"No man, no Problem" - Stalin

[Comrade Marcel]

Not sure where to post this, so admins just move it to whatever forum you think is proper.

I have always asked Trots, circle-A-jerkers, bourgeois assholes, etc. to post the source of this alleged Stalin quote; but as it turns out that, Stalin never said it:

--- In [email protected], "Grover Furr, Fastmail"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sometime ago I posted a query to the H-RUSSIA list. It was just posted
> yesterday, and runs:
>
> "The following quotation, or parts of it, is very often attributed to
> Joseph Stalin. But I&#39;ve never been able to find a source:
>
> " Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."
>
> Sometimes just "no man, no problem."
>
> I have seen it in Russian, "net cheloveka, net problema", again
> attributed either to Stalin or to "someone."
>
> Richard Pipes has used it; the Washington Post uses it."
>
> Today somebody in the Russian Academy of Sciences emailed me that it
> occurs in Anatoly Rybakov&#39;s fanatically anti-communist novel _Deti
> Arbata_ (Children of the Arbat).
>
> Guided by this hint I soon located an article that specifically debunks
> this spurious "Stalin quotation: Simeon Lipkin, "Sobstvennaia zhizn&#39; -
> eto klad." _Znamia_ No. 1, 1998.
>
> The article is full of the usual anti-communist, and anti-Stalin,
> claptrap. For example, like Yakovlev Rybakov was convinced that Stalin
> had Kirov murdered&#33;
>
> But asked by Yakovlev (the late Alexandr N.) where he got this
quotation
> from, Rybakov allegedly replied:
>
> "It&#39;s possible that I heard it from someone; it&#39;s possible that I made
> it up myself."
>
> It&#39;s at
>
> http://magazines.russ.ru/znamia/1998/1/lipkin.html
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Grover Furr
> Montclair SU
>

[redstar2000]

Quite possibly true.

I&#39;ve read that another famous Stalin "quote" was actually first said by Otto von Bismarck: "How many divisions does the Pope have?". :lol:

Moved to History. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Why do you care so much about defending Stalin?

[JC1]

Why do you care so much about defending Stalin?

Cuz Stalin was one baaaaaaaaad motherfucker.

[chimx]

clickity clak (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Fictional)


edit add:

and speaking of assholes falsifying history...

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpg

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:06 AM


and speaking of assholes falsifying history...

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpg

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg
Did Stalin do that all by himself?

[chimx]

No, he used Adobe Photoshop.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:17 AM
No, he used Adobe Photoshop.
I guess that shows the Stalin era was so much more advanced then. :P

It&#39;s interesting though, that when someone points out bourgeois misreprestnation, the only thing can be done is point out Stalin&#39;s supposed mirepresentation.

Are you to say it&#39;s ok for bourgeois anti-communism, but not ok for Stalin to erase Trotsky? Revealing of which side you are on.

[anomaly]

So it&#39;s either Bolshevism or capitalism? Make the choice or fall into the abyss? :lol:

[chimx]

if you click the link i provided you, you will see i was supporting the idea that it was in fact a fictional quote. i&#39;m on the side of not falsifying history.

and the side that doesn&#39;t kill millions of people under the guise of &#39;communism&#39;.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:26 AM
if you click the link i provided you, you will see i was supporting the idea that it was in fact a fictional quote. i&#39;m on the side of not falsifying history.

and the side that doesn&#39;t kill millions of people under the guise of &#39;communism&#39;.
Sorry, you are going to have to back up your "millions" claim.

You are also going to have to do more than a photo to prove Stalin "Falsified history".

I never thought of this as "history", actually more of misrepresentation.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/ssustudy.html

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:22 AM
So it&#39;s either Bolshevism or capitalism? Make the choice or fall into the abyss? :lol:
It&#39;s really only Trots that refer to modern communism as Bolshevism, but if your question is "either capitalism or communism" then the answer is yes.

How we get to communism is not a question of which way or ideology is the most appealing, but which one works.

History is a matter of truth and fact Vs. and intepreted in opinion.

[chimx]

clickity clak (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin)

clickity clak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Victim_toll)

clickity clak (http://www.hooverdigest.org/982/conquest.html)

[Comrade Marcel]

Awww, isn&#39;t it cute how many time the words "unknown" and "uncertain" come up in those links&#33;

[Ian]

Anomaly, it&#39;s not so much about defending Stalin, but about historical correctness, and perhaps in the case of a holding to account those who actually said it, and those interested in perverting the historical truths.

Other such quotes from Stalin are falsified as well.

We have all heard the quote "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic", this quote is misatributed with such regularity that it is assumed now to be historical fact, yet prior to 1980 this quote- or the original variant- was solely attributed to the architect of the Holocaust Adolf Eichmann*.

What happened around 1980 was that the expatriate Ukrainian organisation the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists came out of the woodwork and thought it was a good time for a bit of a singsong and put on a play in Boston and New York, in it they attributed for the first time the infamous quote to Stalin. Now many of you may not be familiar with the OUN, so you may wonder, what benefit is it to them to spread historical inaccuracies? Well, the OUN has a colourful history of being one of the most brutal &#39;Hilfswilliger&#39; groups, and many members were actually volunteer guards at the Nazi regimes death camps, so it would make sense to attempt to cloud the history around the holocaust

Marilyn Manson also attributed the quote to Stalin, so apart from his shitty music he now has that to answer for.

I really think we should not be afraid to demand fairness and accurancy in historical research into the Soviet Union, beyond politics accurate histories should be demanded by anyone with any interest in history, and if you want to bring politics into it, well, think of it as a good way to learn from past mistakes if we actually know what happened.

*
“The worst story I can ever tell you about Aldof Eichmann,” says Simon Wiesenthal, “took place during the time he was in Budapest. In the fall of 1944, a group of high-level SS offiecers were sitting in the SS casino there. And one of them asked Eichmann how many people had been exterminated already. Eicmann said: “Over five million.” Well, because he was among comrades and they all knew it was only a matter of months before they would lose the war, one of them asked whether he was worried about what would happen to him. Eichmann gave a very astute answer that shows he knew how the world worked worked: “A hundred dead people is a catastrophe,” he said. “Six million dead is a statistic.”
from Alan Levy: Nazi hunter. The Wiesenthal File pp 124

[LSD]

This is hardly "suprising" news, although it is interesting.

I would imagine that a great many quotes from "great men" are apocryphal. People love to attribute pithy phrases to historical "giants" but the reality is that most of these people were not nearly that eloquent.

Bismarck may have been good at organizing his empire, but his prose was distinctly average. Over time, however, he has been credited with composing several remarkably cogent lines ...none credibly.

Similarly, while Stalin was a brilliant bureaucrat, I&#39;ve heard him speak and he was not even remotely "inspirational". Even reading the translations it&#39;s clear that he was no master orator.

Frankly, I don&#39;t think he was clever enough to come up with the "no man, no problem" line. It happens to be a devilishly smart turn of phrase.

Rybakov seems realistic as the "culprit" (he was a writer after all), but it really could have been anyone. Likewise, I don&#39;t doubt that a great many other of Stalin&#39;s "famous quotes" -- "ideas are more powerful than guns.." perhaps? -- are equally ficticious.

If anyone thinks that this somehow "vindicates" Stalin, though, they&#39;re deluding themselves. If Stalin had actually come up with that line, It&#39;d be a tribute to him. It would certainly, for one, show that he actually occasionaly took time away from "purging" his "enemies" to write.

Instead, however, we, predictably, find that Stalin was exactly the boring brutish bureaucrat we all thought him to be. What was that term Lenin used again? "rude", was it? :lol:

So I guess if someone was looking for further proof that Stalin was not the idealized "devil" of popular culture, I suppose you&#39;ve found some. But if you were looking for serious historical evidence that he didn&#39;t comit the crimes he did, you&#39;ve failed.

Stalin wasn&#39;t a "bad guy" because he said some "mean things". His crimes and atrocities are public record at this point and there&#39;s no need to quibble over the specific numbers. All that matters is that he betrayed the revolution (what was left of it) and killed a lot of innocent people.

What he did or didn&#39;t say seems much less unimportant.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:05 AM

Why do you care so much about defending Stalin?

Cuz Stalin was one baaaaaaaaad motherfucker.
Shut yo mouth.

[Comrade Marcel]

Thanks for the post Ian.

"from Alan Levy: Nazi hunter. The Wiesenthal File pp 124"

I actually have this book but lent it to a comrade and haven&#39;t read it yet. I have the other book "Children of the Arbat" but havn&#39;t read it. I suspect I didn&#39;t miss mutch&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

Wow LSD. What a bunch of bullshit based on nothing.

What have your read by Stalin and what writing experience do you have to base this on?

Stalin was a poet @ 15 and wrote some beautiful poetry.

But your post is only aimed at individualist politics anyways, and doesn&#39;t make anyone think about anything useful, like the acheivements of the USSR during that era.

[LSD]

What have your read by Stalin and what writing experience do you have to base this on?

I&#39;ve only read his "Dialectic materialism and historical materialism" and "problems of Leninisn", but then he really didn&#39;t write much.

His "theoretical" contributions were virtually nil, so most of our surviving documents are speeches or correspondances.

Luckily, that offers us the opportunity to see his political writing skills in action. And, again, they quite clearly fail to impress.

Look, I&#39;m not saying that the Trostkyist caricature is valid either. Stalin was no brooding Georgian maniac unable to speak Russian. He was a competant speaker and a decent writer, he just wasn&#39;t particularly good at either one.

He certainly wasn&#39;t "no man, no problem" good, as otherwise we would actually see examples of such wit in his writings.

Instead, we find his style to be distinctly mundane.


Stalin was a poet @ 15

:lol:

Stalin was indeed an amateur poet in his youth, but his flowery Georgian sonets did not prepare him for political speech-making.

Penning romantic odes and crafting persuasive prose are two entirely different skills. While he may have been competant at the former, he was clearly average at the latter.

His speeches are long and complex, but the lack the rhetorical flair of a master.

Lines like "no man..." or "a million deaths..." were simply beyond his rhetorical abilities. It&#39;s not a "knock" against the man; he obviously was quite skilled in other areas. Public speaking just wasn&#39;t his "thing".


and wrote some beautiful poetry.

Such as?


But your post is only aimed at individualist politics anyways

Actually, it wasn&#39;t aimed at "politics" at all. I was addressing an historical question.


and doesn&#39;t make anyone think about anything useful, like the acheivements of the USSR during that era.

Well, I wasn&#39;t trying to compose War and Peace here, but I hope that I "made people think" about the nature of historiography and the tendency of anonymous writers to credit their compositions to "dead giants".

In terms of the "achievements of the USSR", I&#39;m not even going to touch on that one. I&#39;ll leave it for threads on that subject and posters with stronger stomachs than my own.

Anyone who tries to "defend" Stalin has already demonstrated themselves to be certifiable and frankly, I see enough crazy people at work every day. I don&#39;t need to talk to them online.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2006, 06:59 AM
Awww, isn&#39;t it cute how many time the words "unknown" and "uncertain" come up in those links&#33;
sorry screwdriver, but you must have been reading in the wrong spot:

# Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
# Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

this comes from documented execution lists kept by the government and doesn&#39;t take into account the millions of peasants that died from starvation due to the forced collectivization (mentioned earlier in the link)

[Horatii]

I read some bullshit Stalin "wrote" on Linguistics and Marxism; it was as shitty as Trotsky&#39;s "works."



But your post is only aimed at individualist politics anyways, and doesn&#39;t make anyone think about anything useful, like the acheivements of the USSR during that era.

Yes Stalin saved the USSR from the evil fascists. Yes they wanted to exterminate the Slavic Communists. But was it really worth his betrayal of the revolution and the murdering of countless innocent lives?

/waits for trot slander remark

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:07 AM
# Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
# Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

this comes from documented execution lists kept by the government and doesn&#39;t take into account the millions of peasants that died from starvation due to the forced collectivization (mentioned earlier in the link)
That number hardly comes to 1.5 million, even if you did have concrete proof that these figures really are from government lists. The book you quote, by Aleksandr Dugin, is not reliable evidence, as you can see here from info regarding the writer himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dugin

Can you provide the actual article of Moskovskiye Novosti?

The peasants could have either starved or been exterminated by the Nazis.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:17 AM
No, he used Adobe Photoshop.
:lol: Cracked me up


Sorry, you are going to have to back up your "millions" claim.
You sound like the neo-nazis on Stormfront trying to dismiss the Holocaust

[Ian]

Originally posted by chimx+Apr 15 2006, 06:07 PM--> (chimx @ Apr 15 2006, 06:07 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 15 2006, 06:59 AM
Awww, isn&#39;t it cute how many time the words "unknown" and "uncertain" come up in those links&#33;
sorry screwdriver, but you must have been reading in the wrong spot:

# Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
# Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

this comes from documented execution lists kept by the government and doesn&#39;t take into account the millions of peasants that died from starvation due to the forced collectivization (mentioned earlier in the link) [/b]
Don&#39;t lie. We aren&#39;t that stupid here.

Soviet Archives were not available until 1996 and even then none of the figures of deaths through execution come to anymore than 500 000.

[Comrade Marcel]

You sound like the neo-nazis on Stormfront trying to dismiss the Holocaust

How so? I would really like to hear your theory on this, since I&#39;ve goon toe-to-toe with Zundel supporters and almost lost my left in the process. I really hate when some internet warrior like you thinks they know something.


Soviet Archives were not available until 1996 and even then none of the figures of deaths through execution come to anymore than 500 000.

Whats also interesting is that books from Harvard disagree with his numbers.

He says he has proof then admits he really has nothing concrete.

[bezdomni]

I don&#39;t really care if the quote is by Stalin or not, he clearly acted upon that axoim.

There are tons of "quotes" from famous people that are either completely falsified or grossly doctored.

Unfortunately, we can never know if Stalin actually came up with the quote or not - since I&#39;m unaware of it appearing in any of his written works or public speeches.

[chimx]

soviet archives were fully opened in the 90s. historians have been studying primary sources from russia for decades. it wouldn&#39;t at all surprise me if execution lists were available considering how much hate khrushchev & co. had for stalin.

all i said was &#39;clickity clak&#39; and provided you a link to a dozen studies that disagree with what you are saying. countless scholars have studied the deaths caused by stalin, but it sounds like you won&#39;t be convinced until you fly yourself to russia and read the records for yourself, and i ain&#39;t about to buy some misguided screwdriver fan a plane ticket.

[Horatii]

Soviet Archives were not available until 1996 and even then none of the figures of deaths through execution come to anymore than 500 000.

Idiot. I guess all those intellectuals that wrote of Stalins murders after they had been deported were...Trots?

Please, spare us.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:28 PM
soviet archives were fully opened in the 90s. historians have been studying primary sources from russia for decades. it wouldn&#39;t at all surprise me if execution lists were available considering how much hate khrushchev & co. had for stalin.

countless scholars have studied the deaths caused by stalin, but it sounds like you won&#39;t be convinced until you fly yourself to russia and read the records for yourself
Not all archives have been opened, but even those that have completely disprove the estimates of western analysts as to the number of &#39;Stalins&#39; victims&#39;.

Various studies by Russian analysts and historians that actually travelled to the archives and read them are more accurate than these "historians studying primary sources", who use comments such as "according to my calculations","apparently" or "according to my colleague" (who is just as misinformed as they are).

I have one particular file here now, it is 18 pages long and has extensive lists and reports on number of victims, death warrants, death rates in camps etc. ec.and the total number of prisoners incarcerated at any one time during Stalin&#39;s reign never exceeded 2 760 000 (obviously excluding German, Japanese and other POWs).

By way of comparison, in 1995 (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics) there were 1 600 000 prisoners in the US, plus another 3 000 000 on probation, plus another 700 000 on parole for a total of 5 300 000 under correctional supervision. Several million others had served time, but were no longer in any way connected to the custodial system. I had somebody argue that these figures also included the total numbers of arrested people, even those who had been detained for a few days. May I point out that in 1998 there were 14 500 000 arrests.

It would take a long time to translate the section on how many prisoners were executed, because there is a lot of detailed information, to get a total I would have to calculate and add up the death rate percentage per camp per year and subtract what percentage were released etc etc but if you pay me I can translate the whole thing, it will be much cheaper than "to buy some misguided screwdriver fan a plane ticket.". :P

[Horatii]

I thought National Bolsheviks were banned on these forums?

[321zero]

It&#39;s interesting though, that when someone points out bourgeois misreprestnation, the only thing can be done is point out Stalin&#39;s supposed mirepresentation.

Are you to say it&#39;s ok for bourgeois anti-communism, but not ok for Stalin to erase Trotsky? Revealing of which side you are on.

Of course it&#39;s not OK to falsify history.

To face reality squarely; not to seek the line of least resistance; to call things by their right names; to speak the truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be; not to fear obstacles; to be true in little things as in big ones; to base one&#39;s program on the logic of the class struggle; to be bold when the hour for action arrives—these are the rules of the Fourth International.

Rules any communist should abide by.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by Ian+Apr 15 2006, 04:13 AM--> (Ian @ Apr 15 2006, 04:13 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:07 PM

Comrade [email protected] 15 2006, 06:59 AM
Awww, isn&#39;t it cute how many time the words "unknown" and "uncertain" come up in those links&#33;
sorry screwdriver, but you must have been reading in the wrong spot:

# Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
# Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

this comes from documented execution lists kept by the government and doesn&#39;t take into account the millions of peasants that died from starvation due to the forced collectivization (mentioned earlier in the link)
Don&#39;t lie. We aren&#39;t that stupid here.

Soviet Archives were not available until 1996 and even then none of the figures of deaths through execution come to anymore than 500 000. [/b]
500,000 or 500 million, Stalin was a goddam murderer that stained the name of "communism" since then&#33; Why cant we see that&#33; And plus, seeing that Stalin was a sick fuck and the only accomplishment he had was fighting fascism, we should be battling Lenin and his decrepit ideas. We&#39;ll still be fighting a fucking Russian, but fighting Lenin would make more headway for us communists. :P

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:14 AM

Soviet Archives were not available until 1996 and even then none of the figures of deaths through execution come to anymore than 500 000.

Idiot. I guess all those intellectuals that wrote of Stalins murders after they had been deported were...Trots?

Please, spare us.
You don&#39;t know me, don&#39;t call me an idiot. I have not once used the word trot in this debate and you know why? Because my personal political history has been trotskyist. From the age of 14 until I was 16 I would have considered myself a trot, I now no longer do for many reasons.

I am not a &#39;Stalinist&#39; and I never have been, but unlike many in this thread, I decided long ago to actually base what I think of Stalin on historical information about his time, not on hearsay or Robert &#39;MI5&#39; Service, Arthur &#39;The Rapist&#39; Koestler, or Aleksandr &#39;I love Fascism&#39; Solzhenitsyn

[Horatii]

You might want to read a book.

"Stalin and his Hangmen" is a great book. And no, the author is not a "fascist raping trot," but a professor of Russian and Georgian, so all his sources are...get this...non western&#33;

[Ian]

Dear moron,

Next time you reply to my post it might be an idea to read it. I mean it&#39;s not that hard, I explain I&#39;m not stalinist, I explain I don&#39;t use the word trot. Then you reply as if you disregarded what I said. Dammit there are some idiots on this website.

I am familiar with the Rayfield book, because I own it. It&#39;s certainly not the best one I have read, although its ok. It&#39;s not entirely convincing, in fact I think it&#39;s case isn&#39;t helped by being a mass produced paperback.

Let&#39;s hope he reads this post.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Too bad, thats a clever quote, something you&#39;d expect him to have said :lol:

But can someone tell me what the hell this means,

"You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves."
Variant: You cannot make a revolution with white gloves.

And some more on the wikipedia page that are my favorites, whether they were actually said by him or not

"In the Soviet Army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance."

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" :lol:

[Horatii]

I am familiar with the Rayfield book, because I own it. It&#39;s certainly not the best one I have read, although its ok. It&#39;s not entirely convincing, in fact I think it&#39;s case isn&#39;t helped by being a mass produced paperback.


I think if you took the time to verify his sources (you might want to learn russian) you&#39;d realize that he isn&#39;t full of shit.

[Ian]

Fuck man do you even bother to read posts? Where did I say he is full of shit?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Ian
Anomaly, it&#39;s not so much about defending Stalin, but about historical correctness, and perhaps in the case of a holding to account those who actually said it, and those interested in perverting the historical truths.
Ah, I gotcha. Well, that&#39;s cool.

However, I think we all agree that Stalin killed a lot of innocent people and his &#39;methods&#39; are definitely not worth repeating.

[Horatii]

It&#39;s not entirely convincing, in fact I think it&#39;s case isn&#39;t helped by being a mass produced paperback.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean aside from the fact that you don&#39;t view it as a credible resource?

[Ian]

Do you have mental problems? It&#39;s not like anything I&#39;ve said has been hard to understand, and yet you consistently are complaining and having trouble with the most basic concepts.

Every historian will tell you a mass produced paperback is never held on the highest mantle of usefulness or reliability.

[Horatii]

Every historian will tell you a mass produced paperback is never held on the highest mantle of usefulness or reliability.

You&#39;re really dense. I&#39;m an Ancient History major, thanks. What I&#39;m saying is that his sources are credible, so there is no reason to *deny* his claims.

[Ian]

I don&#39;t care what you major in, just learn to read posts.


(I do plenty of modern history at university)

[Hiero]

You can&#39;t claim that doing Ancient History means that you know alot about credibility in Modern History. Alot of the Ancient History sources are not 100% accurate, or in some cases just based on hersay or personal bias.

[Comrada J]

What about this one?

"Every man will extend his rule as far as his army can reach." Or something to that effect.

Probably more bullshit off Call of duty.

[Comrade Marcel]

For those really interested in Stalin&#39;s childhood poetry, here is some:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/shimgray/48100.html

To The Moon
11 October 1895
Translated by an unknown source from the original Georgian

Move on tirelessly--
Don&#39;t let your head droop,
Disperse the misty clouds
The rule of the Lord is great.

Send your gentle smile to the land
That spreads beneath your feet,
Sing a lullaby to the icy peaks
Suspended from the sky.

Be sure that some day
Even the deprived and humiliated
Find the strength to climb up the sacred mountain
Supported by hope.

Keep shining, beautiful one
Among the clouds as long ago,
Cast your delightful rays
Through the blue firmament.

And I, too, will unbutton my collar
Baring my breast to the moon,
Reaching out my hands
And singing a song of glory to the moonlight.

-- Soselo (his childhood nickname)

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/05/...n/index_np.html (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/05/05/stalin/index_np.html)


Stalin&#39;s poetry isn&#39;t too bad. It mainly consists of verses in a
romantic-pastoral vein that was apparently conventional for Georgian
poets of the 1890s:

The pinkish bud has opened,
Rushing to the pale-blue violet
And, stirred by a light breeze,
The lily of the valley has bent over the grass.

In English translation that&#39;s nothing more than pleasant. To readers
of the Georgian language, according to biographer Robert Service, "it
has a linguistic purity recognized by all" as well as an obvious
nationalist subtext. (Writing about the loveliness of the Georgian
landscape was understood as a wink and a nudge that the Tsarist
censors would never notice.) That poem, "Morning" (which continues for
two more stanzas), appeared in the radical intellectual magazine
Kvali, and was then published in an influential textbook by the
Georgian educator and nationalist Yakob Gogebashvili. As art by future
dictators goes, that&#39;s a lot more success than Hitler ever enjoyed for
his insipid watercolors.

Everyone in the modest literary scene of Tbilisi, the Georgian
capital, knew the author. He was a 17-year-old seminary student named
Joseph (or Yoseb) Dzhughashvili, and he was smart, ambitious,
headstrong and quick to anger. For two years young Dzhughashvili was a
rising star in Georgian poetry, but he quit writing sometime around
1897 to focus his attention on another passion: revolutionary Marxism.

Also, or an article on Stalin&#39;s poetry see Revolutionary Democracy:

Vol. IX, No. 1, April 2003 at http://www.revolutionarydemocracy

As for LSD&#39;s asertion that Stalin&#39;s political writings were no good, boring, etc. I would say the same thing about Noam Chomsky. His writing style is lifeless and dull and has the flavour of boiled potatoes (with no gravy). This doesn&#39;t change the validness of much of his writings (his critiques of U&#036; imperialism, he criticisms of socialist countries are worthless references to stuff written by western bourgeois anti-communist scholars).

Comrades need to realise that Stalin didn&#39;t make huge theoretical contributions. He aknolwedged this himself. He simply upheld Marxism-Leninism and stood against revisionism and anti-Leninism (Trotskyism, etc). He held high the banner of the party and was a great leader to the Soviet People and international proletarian. I know many will disagree on here, and that&#39;s fine.

The point I want to get across is that Stalin did a huge amount of work, much of his time devoted to party/state documents and doing work as party/state leader. He just didn&#39;t have the time to write theory. It doesn&#39;t mean he didn&#39;t have good theory. Lenin didn&#39;t just write theory simply because he had the time, but because he had to put forward theory to put things in motion, to build the party, to solve political questions, etc. He was also a very capable writer and brilliant comrade. Stalin was a man of action, up to 1917 he was organizing strikes, editing the Bolshevik paper, recruiting, etc. and there&#39;s no doubt that his work played an import role in building the party and getting the support needed for October&#39;s revolution.

As for Trotksy, he had privlege, and not to mention the support of capitalist countries and petty-bourgeois/bourgeois fans of his who gave him places to stay, which allowed him to sit around writing anti-Soviet crap, both before October 1917 and after his exile from the USSR. I&#39;m sure I would have some interesting writings available if I didn&#39;t have to work for a living and could just sit around writing/studying all day.

[chimx]

who needs to write theoretical papers when you have Bukharin around to ripoff?

http://www.laexotique.com/Thumbnails/forum6/lolerskates.gif

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:52 AM
who needs to write theoretical papers when you have Bukharin around to ripoff?

http://www.laexotique.com/Thumbnails/forum6/lolerskates.gif
What are you saying?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Apr 19 2006, 05:55 AM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Apr 19 2006, 05:55 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 05:52 AM
who needs to write theoretical papers when you have Bukharin around to ripoff?

http://www.laexotique.com/Thumbnails/forum6/lolerskates.gif
What are you saying? [/b]
I would assume he&#39;s saying the socialism under one country advocated by Stalin actually belonged to Bukharin.

[Brownfist]

Com. Marcel I think you need to recognize that Stalin also did a lot of boneheaded things, especially when it came to Third World communist parties and their struggles for national liberation. I mean he actually tried to prevent a series of communist movements from fighting capitalism and imperialism in their respective countries. The most obvious examples that I know of are Indonesia and China. I mean even Mao tended to ignore Stalin&#39;s directives when it came to the question of the war of national liberation and socialism in China. In Indonesia, Stalin&#39;s directives caused a split within the Indonesian communist party in which pro-Stalin sections of the party refused to fight, while the pro-Mao factions tried to fight the nationalist bourgeoisie.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:22 AM
Com. Marcel I think you need to recognize that Stalin also did a lot of boneheaded things, especially when it came to Third World communist parties and their struggles for national liberation. I mean he actually tried to prevent a series of communist movements from fighting capitalism and imperialism in their respective countries. The most obvious examples that I know of are Indonesia and China. I mean even Mao tended to ignore Stalin&#39;s directives when it came to the question of the war of national liberation and socialism in China. In Indonesia, Stalin&#39;s directives caused a split within the Indonesian communist party in which pro-Stalin sections of the party refused to fight, while the pro-Mao factions tried to fight the nationalist bourgeoisie.
And Trotskyites never had factions, they did everything so right&#33;

As for your assertion that Stalin stifled struggles abroad, you will have to provide more detail.

Also, no one said Stalin was perfect and made no errors. The question is whether he had it right in general line and direction, did he uphold Marxism-Leninism.

And if they tried fighting the national-bourgeoisie, they certainly weren&#39;t very Maoist&#33; :rolleyes:

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel) For those really interested in Stalin&#39;s childhood poetry, here is some: [/b]


Stalin
Send your gentle smile to the land
That spreads beneath your feet,
Sing a lullaby to the icy peaks
Suspended from the sky.

I like that, it is beautiful. He was talented as a poet.

I also like many of the quotes said to be his, and like to think of them at moments when some rightwinger has succeeded in pissing me off seriously. :D
My favourite is the one about the capitalists selling us the rope we&#39;ll hang them with.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2006, 02:45 PM
As for your assertion that Stalin stifled struggles abroad, you will have to provide more detail.

The spainish civil war

[Brownfist]

Com. Marcel, as usual the eurocentricism of your politics is definately showing. If one looks at the Indonesian communist movement, which was the largest communist party outside of the Soviet Union, we can see exactly how the erroneous policies of Stalin split the party in two, between a pro-China and Pro-USSR camp before the Sino-Soviet split&#33; Stalin told the PKI not to engage in a war of national liberation against the colonial Dutch&#33; I mean you refer to yourself as Maoist yet Mao himself stated that Stalin was often wrong. This was because Stalin was so preoccupied with giving directives to the rest of the world, but was not interested in understanding the colonial situation in its entirety. Much like Stalin&#39;s bad advice to Mao, Stalin stated that the revolutionary class was the working class and not the peasantry, thus in the case of both Indonesia and China the countries were not ready for socialism. I mean Stalin even referred to the PKI as left deviationist&#33; Till Today in South-East Asia parties like the CPP look to the history of the PKI for inspiration. Furthermore, in the Chinese case Stalin advised Mao to be in coalition with Chiang Kaishek. Even Baburam Bhattarai and Prachanda in Nepal have attempted to distance themselves from Stalin. I really think you should re-examine your commitment to Maoism or Neo-Maoism, and perhaps change yourself to a Stalinist or a Hoxhaist (I mean you are a supporter of a Hoxhaist party&#33;)

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Apr 19 2006, 05:37 PM--> (Additives Free @ Apr 19 2006, 05:37 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 19 2006, 02:45 PM
As for your assertion that Stalin stifled struggles abroad, you will have to provide more detail.

The spainish civil war [/b]
Sorry, the Trots and anarchists fucked that up by doing the work for the fascists&#33;

And if they knew anything about waging revolutionary war they wouldn&#39;t have fought so stupidly&#33;

[bezdomni]

As for Trotksy, he had privlege, and not to mention the support of capitalist countries and petty-bourgeois/bourgeois fans of his who gave him places to stay, which allowed him to sit around writing anti-Soviet crap, both before October 1917 and after his exile from the USSR.


Ya know, Trotsky stayed with Lenin for a while before the Revolution (after he broke out of prison in Russia) and wrote for his paper.

Trotsky did quite a bit of his writing in prison for being involved with revolutionary marxist groups. When he wasn&#39;t in prison, he was either living in exile or with comrades (at one point in time, with Lenin himself).

I don&#39;t dispute that his parents were bourgeois, but he saw little material benefit from his bourgeois parents after he quit university and went to prison.

I think it is entirely incorrect to say that Trotsky has the support of the capitalist countries and the bourgeois. Trotsky was a revolutionary, there is no way around it..and he still scared the bourgeois and the capitalists. How can the leader of the Red Army not be revolutionary? :unsure:

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Apr 19 2006, 08:20 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Apr 19 2006, 08:20 PM)
Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 19 2006, 05:37 PM

Comrade [email protected] 19 2006, 02:45 PM
As for your assertion that Stalin stifled struggles abroad, you will have to provide more detail.

The spainish civil war
Sorry, the Trots and anarchists fucked that up by doing the work for the fascists&#33;

And if they knew anything about waging revolutionary war they wouldn&#39;t have fought so stupidly&#33; [/b]
It&#39;s a shame you weren&#39;t there to show em how it&#39;s done&#33; Then later kill thousands of them with little reason.

[Entrails Konfetti]

No no no, you got it all wrong. The quotes are like this:

"No woman, no cry."--Joseph Stalin

"No man, no problem.&#39;--Bob Marley

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:00 PM
Com. Marcel, as usual the eurocentricism of your politics is definately showing.
OK, I&#39;m not going to say I&#39;ve never said or acted Eurocentric, because I&#39;m a white man living in an imperialist country and live very priveledged compared to those in the third world and more than the people of colour who I share this urban space with. BUT, I would like for you to explain how exactly I am being eurocentric at this point in time; or was it just the first insult you could think of?

As for the rest of your post, I&#39;ll get back to you after some consulting and a breif look around.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:29 PM

I think it is entirely incorrect to say that Trotsky has the support of the capitalist countries and the bourgeois.
Well, try this out:

Trotsky admits aid to Japanese imperialism (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyjapan.txt)

Trotsky in World War II: Stalin is the main danger (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskystalin.txt)

Trotsky & Hitler: For the independence of the Ukraine&#33; (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyukraine.txt)

It&#39;s also important to mention, Trotsky wasn&#39;t "always" struggling in exile or in jail like clownpenisanarchy gives us the impression of. His jail time wasn&#39;t very long, and his exile in the states was very pleasant, he spent time sipping coffee in New york cafes well editing the menshevik paper "new life"... When he exiled to Turkey he spent lots of time pondering things well in a canoe and living in a splended house... In Mexico the government was pretty acomodating to him. The U&#036; allowed him to speak in universities all over the country, and spent his time writing and making love with either his wife or Frida&#33; Not bad, well comrade Stalin is busting his ass and suffering from insomnia from the amount of work he put in&#33;

To this day we can&#39;t get Russian delegates to come and speak at the conference of Northstar Compass (http://www.northstarcompass.org), because the state won&#39;t let them in. But the great Trotsky was such a horrible threat he could globetrot all over the world and visit the imperialist countries&#33;

[barista.marxista]

MIM are such a reliable source of information. :rolleyes: But make sure you never have sex&#33; :P

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:42 AM
MIM are such a reliable source of information. :rolleyes: But make sure you never have sex&#33; :P
Why does it matter if it&#39;s coming from MIM when they are just quoting Trotsky himself?

Also, what makes MIM unreliable, other than the fact you disagree with them? Do you have any proof that they have ever given false information?

As for the MIM On Sex question, what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@Apr 19 2006, 11:28 PM

It&#39;s a shame you weren&#39;t there to show em how it&#39;s done&#33;
Well, from what I read on the subject, it was a typical error of Trotskyite and Anarchist style of armed resistance. The whole "anti-authoritarian" politics not only don&#39;t work right after you overthrow the state, they definately do not work when you are trying to run a battalion, let alone lead a nation wide armed resistance.

What the POUM types did, was set up small pockets of resistance in various towns and cities in Spain. This made it easy for the fascists - with superior weapons and mobility - to crush them piece by piece. they simply sent in large army to crush the small ones holding position. Very basic guerilla warfare, and tecniques dating back to 500 B.C. (Sun Tzu) is that you keep moving, an find a superior way to attack the enemy, turn advanc einto retreat, retreat to advance; find high ground, constantly be mobile, etc. etc. Also, it would have been alot smarter to atleast have formed one big anarchist and Trotskyite resistance movement. Basic Marxism and even basic logic is that together we are strong. Why they would form small little "autonmous" collectives and expect that would actually work is beyond me.


Then later kill thousands of them with little reason.

I&#39;m not sure where this is coming from, but your arguement seems to be absent of any logic... It seems to go like this: Stalin=bad, Stalinist=bad so Stalinist + anything = bad = killing for no reason.

Maybe you should take your shit nose out of bourgeois books and read something useful.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Apr 20 2006, 12:52 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Apr 20 2006, 12:52 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 04:42 AM
MIM are such a reliable source of information. :rolleyes: But make sure you never have sex&#33; :P
Why does it matter if it&#39;s coming from MIM when they are just quoting Trotsky himself? [/b]

Seriously, I&#39;m no "fan" of St. Leon but that was one of the worst attempts at character assassination I&#39;ve ever seen....all three pieces are incredibly short, with only a couple of quotes and un-sourced assertions from the MIM member.

I&#39;d expect something a touch more credible and in-depth before I posted it as "evidence" of Trotsky&#39;s "betrayal".

Indeed, given the kind of accusations MIM are making (Trotsky&#39;s a fascist, Trotsky&#39;s pro-imperialist and so on), one would expect the arguments to be a lot stronger....rather, the evidence MIM present is rather coincidental, and in order to accept MIM&#39;s theories, based on those three pieces alone, one would have to go to quite a stretch.

To properly back up the assertions in those pieces, you&#39;d need a lot of solid evidence that points directly at one conclusion.

Honestly, the Stalinist hacks were better in the 40&#39;s....I suppose, unlike a fine wine, they don&#39;t age well&#33; :lol:

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:00 PM
If one looks at the Indonesian communist movement, which was the largest communist party outside of the Soviet Union, we can see exactly how the erroneous policies of Stalin split the party in two,
This is slander and accusation. Lets&#39; see some evidence.


between a pro-China and Pro-USSR camp before the Sino-Soviet split&#33; Stalin told the PKI not to engage in a war of national liberation against the colonial Dutch&#33;

You want to cite a source on this, or should we just take your word for it?


I mean you refer to yourself as Maoist yet Mao himself stated that Stalin was often wrong.

What do I have to do with this? Stop with the persynal attacks please. I&#39;m sure Stalin himself admitted to being wrong, as I have been wrong before, and I&#39;m sure you have. What&#39;s your point?


This was because Stalin was so preoccupied with giving directives to the rest of the world, but was not interested in understanding the colonial situation in its entirety. Much like Stalin&#39;s bad advice to Mao, Stalin stated that the revolutionary class was the working class and not the peasantry, thus in the case of both Indonesia and China the countries were not ready for socialism. I mean Stalin even referred to the PKI as left deviationist&#33; Till Today in South-East Asia parties like the CPP look to the history of the PKI for inspiration. Furthermore, in the Chinese case Stalin advised Mao to be in coalition with Chiang Kaishek. Even Baburam Bhattarai and Prachanda in Nepal have attempted to distance themselves from Stalin.

Again, would you be so kind as to produce some evidence for all this? Or should we again just take your word for it?


I really think you should re-examine your commitment to Maoism or Neo-Maoism, and perhaps change yourself to a Stalinist or a Hoxhaist (I mean you are a supporter of a Hoxhaist party&#33;)

I am always reexamining my political line, as every Marxist should.

As for CPC-ML (http://cpcml.ca), they don&#39;t refer to themselves as Hoxhaite and I&#39;m sure Alliance M-L (http://www.allianceml.com/) would say they aren&#39;t.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2006, 03:00 PM
Seriously, I&#39;m no "fan" of St. Leon but that was one of the worst attempts at character assassination I&#39;ve ever seen....all three pieces are incredibly short,
What does the length have to do with it? In order for someone to be taken seriously, they have to write an academic paper? I agree with you that alot of MIM&#39;s stuff is not that well written, but when you write, who is your target audience?


with only a couple of quotes and un-sourced assertions from the MIM member.

Strange, but it seems to me that there sources where cited. Would you care to show an example, since the writings are so short you should have no problem picking apart the flaws, right?


I&#39;d expect something a touch more credible and in-depth before I posted it as "evidence" of Trotsky&#39;s "betrayal".

I didn&#39;t post this as any "evidence of betrayel", I think all of Lenin&#39;s, Trotsky&#39;s and Stalin&#39;s writing from 1914 onward do a suficient job of this, and people will eventually make up their own minds.

I simply pointed out that he was used by the bourgeois class as a anti-Soviet mouthpiece.


Indeed, given the kind of accusations MIM are making (Trotsky&#39;s a fascist,

I don&#39;t recall them saying that.


Trotsky&#39;s pro-imperialist and so on),

He certainly supported imperialism over the USSR at certain points in his life, now didn&#39;t he? We also see this trend in many neo-Trotskyite groups (such as the I.S. calling the Mjuhadin "freedom fighters").


one would expect the arguments to be a lot stronger....rather, the evidence MIM present is rather coincidental, and in order to accept MIM&#39;s theories, based on those three pieces alone, one would have to go to quite a stretch.

In what way, because to me it seems rather clear. How exactly is it coincidental that Trotsky spoke to the aided imperialism? Please quote MIM&#39;s article and show us the flaw. Otherwise people can read and come to their own conclusions.


To properly back up the assertions in those pieces, you&#39;d need a lot of solid evidence that points directly at one conclusion.

No, there are several conclusions to be drawn from each of these articles. I&#39;m sure there is also a lot of other evidence out there supporting the assertions. You have done nothing but showing yourself to be a real hypocrit, claiming the articles are flawed, lack evidence and/or show "coincidental" evidence. Show us how this is the case, otherwise you are no better.


Honestly, the Stalinist hacks were better in the 40&#39;s....I suppose, unlike a fine wine, they don&#39;t age well&#33; :lol:

Hahaha, that was about as witty as a frog crossing a highway&#33; :blush:

[Brownfist]

Com. Marcel the fact that you said you would look into my criticisms of your earlier statements and a few days later your only response is that show me proof means that either you didnt look into it, or aren&#39;t very good with library resources. I suggest that you go to the University of Toronto library and pull out Arnold C. Brackman&#39;s "Indonesian Communism: A History" it is a little old but highly informative. Furthermore, I suggest you look at the debate between M.N Roy and Stalin on the nationalist qustion. M.N. Roy is one individual who has been left out os

Well as for looking for inspiration from Indonesia look at the works by Jose Maria Sison, ex-general secretary of the CPP for the importance of the Indonesian communist party, especially in terms of education. The books I have suggest above will deal with some of your criticisms. As for Stalin-Mao-Chiang I would look at the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance signed by Stalin and Chiang in 1945 despite protests by Mao. As for Baburam Bhattarai and Prachanda moving away from Stalin. Baburam Bhattarai says so in a recent interview (Feb 2006) with the Nepali Times. This is also restated in the book released by the CPN(Maoist) entitled "Problems and Prospects for Revolution in Nepal).

What I am suggesting with my arguement regarding Mao&#39;s distancing himself from Stalin was the understanding that Stalin was incorrect on numerous issues and political lines. I mean Mao was generally appreciative of Stalin, but once said something to the effect that Stalin was 70% correct, 30% wrong. If I can get you to even admit that he was 30% wrong would be a feat.

I think it is amazing that you dont even know the history of your own party&#33; I would suggest you even do a wikipedia search on CPC-ML and they discuss the CPC-ML repudiation of Maoism in exchange for Hoxhaism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Par...ist-Leninist%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada_%28Marxist-Leninist%29). The CPC-ML sided with Albania in the Sino-Albanian split and corrected its line by repudiating Maoism altogether as was suggested by Enver Hoxha. Hardial Bains, the ex-general secretary of the party went around the world forming Hoxhaist parties including England and Ireland. Even one of the members of the CPC-ML, Nick Lin, told me that the CPC-ML had repudiated the Maoist lines years earlier. When I was in India and mentioned the CPC-ML to comrades in the CPI-ML (Kanu Sanyal) and CPI-Maoist, they all say that the CPC-ML is hoxhaist&#33; I mean even people in India know this&#33; The party in years following the disintegration of Albania has now distanced itself slightly from the Hoxhaist line it previously followed. Also after a brief look at the Alliance ML website they talk about how they would love to become party of ICMPLO(Hoxhaist)&#33; I really think you need to do a more thorough historical analysis of the parties that you support.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:52 PM
I think it is amazing that you dont even know the history of your own party&#33;
How do you figure I don&#39;t know the history. Show me proof that CPC-ML has a Hoxhaite line right now, without the anecdotes and hearsay.


I would suggest you even do a wikipedia search on CPC-ML and they discuss the CPC-ML repudiation of Maoism in exchange for Hoxhaism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Par...ist-Leninist%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada_%28Marxist-Leninist%29).

Oh, because it&#39;s on Wikipedia it must be true&#33;


The CPC-ML sided with Albania in the Sino-Albanian split and corrected its line by repudiating Maoism altogether as was suggested by Enver Hoxha.

This is correct, but I didn&#39;t ask you what the parties line was 20 something years ago&#33; I&#39;m already aware of it&#33;


Hardial Bains, the ex-general secretary of the party went around the world forming Hoxhaist parties including England and Ireland.

Show some evidence of this please, because I don&#39;t think you have your "facts" straight.


Even one of the members of the CPC-ML, Nick Lin, told me that the CPC-ML had repudiated the Maoist lines years earlier.

Well, he told you correct information, of course. Again, please reference how the party is Hoxhaite right now&#33; Not 20 years ago...


When I was in India and mentioned the CPC-ML to comrades in the CPI-ML (Kanu Sanyal) and CPI-Maoist, they all say that the CPC-ML is hoxhaist&#33;

Then we know for sure, there&#39;s no question&#33; :unsure: :rolleyes:


I mean even people in India know this&#33;

Obviously the people you talked to didn&#39;t know the correct information.


The party in years following the disintegration of Albania has now distanced itself slightly from the Hoxhaist line it previously followed.

So know you&#39;re changing your argument, and they may only be "slightly Hoxhaite"? Interesting. Do you want to further explain what you mean by "slightly"? You are suggesting their was some changes so I assume you have evidence that assures you of this.


Also after a brief look at the Alliance ML website they talk about how they would love to become party of ICMPLO(Hoxhaist)&#33; I really think you need to do a more thorough historical analysis of the parties that you support.

I never said I "supported" Alliance M-L, though I hosted a study group on Stalin with one of their Ontario comrades a few years back. I simply pointed out that Alliance M-L would disagree with CPC-ML being Hoxhaite. Therefor, if Alliance M-L say&#39;s they&#39;re not, and CPC-ML says they&#39;re not, then what evidence do you have that they are both liars? :lol:

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:52 PM
Com. Marcel the fact that you said you would look into my criticisms of your earlier statements and a few days later your only response is that show me proof means that either you didnt look into it, or aren&#39;t very good with library resources.
I&#39;m sorry, but it&#39;s the end of the year, i have exams and a life, and I didn&#39;t rush out to the library just to write a response to you. I mentioned it to a comrade who told me I should ask you for more evidence, because you really didn&#39;t provide much to discuss.


I suggest that you go to the University of Toronto library and pull out Arnold C. Brackman&#39;s "Indonesian Communism: A History" it is a little old but highly informative.

So, I&#39;m supposed to read a whole book? I realise I am being a bit lazy, but so are you. If you are making these claims in public, at least give us a page number or something... A quote would be best, but something at least...


Furthermore, I suggest you look at the debate between M.N Roy and Stalin on the nationalist qustion. M.N. Roy is one individual who has been left out os

URL? Link? Publisher? Dates? Something?


Well as for looking for inspiration from Indonesia look at the works by Jose Maria Sison, ex-general secretary of the CPP for the importance of the Indonesian communist party, especially in terms of education.

I happen to be good comrades with comrades from orgs that are fronts for support for the CPP and NPA, and oddly enough they are the ones that changed my political line towars Stalin&#33; Now you are telling me to read their gensec&#39;s works to go the other way? Quite odd indeed&#33; Perhaps you could give me some idea of where to start instead of just telling me to read everything by Sison&#33;


The books I have suggest above will deal with some of your criticisms.

Just some? So you expect me to read entire books to back up some of your arguements? This is even more pathetic than AS&#39;s criticism of MIM without criticism&#33;


As for Stalin-Mao-Chiang I would look at the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance signed by Stalin and Chiang in 1945 despite protests by Mao.

URL? Quote? Explaination? Put it in context for us somehow?


As for Baburam Bhattarai and Prachanda moving away from Stalin. Baburam Bhattarai says so in a recent interview (Feb 2006) with the Nepali Times. This is also restated in the book released by the CPN(Maoist) entitled "Problems and Prospects for Revolution in Nepal).

See my above response. I am supposed to just believe you, or should I rather see the quotes for myself and see if he says and contexts it the way you seem to think it is?


What I am suggesting with my arguement regarding Mao&#39;s distancing himself from Stalin was the understanding that Stalin was incorrect on numerous issues and political lines.

"Numerous"? Such as?

And even if this is correct, are you saying Mao must have been right every single time over Stalin? I&#39;m sure Stalin and Mao both made errors. I&#39;m not arguing against that. I&#39;m simply asking you to show what you think those errors were, and why you think it makes Stalin&#39;s general line incorrect.


I mean Mao was generally appreciative of Stalin, but once said something to the effect that Stalin was 70% correct, 30% wrong. If I can get you to even admit that he was 30% wrong would be a feat.

I don&#39;t recall you ever asking me what "measurement" of wrong or right Stalin has, or why such an abstract analysis is even important or means anything... Mao was simply saying that Stalin made some errors. But thats also Mao&#39;s point of view, and not necessarily 100% correct.

[Brownfist]

Comrade Marcel I think you need to look a little more closely to what I am saying. I know that you have a difficulty with nuance but here is a quote from my earlier statement which you should remember.

"The party in years following the disintegration of Albania has now distanced itself slightly from the Hoxhaist line it previously followed".

So I am not saying that CPC-ML today is Hoxhaist, but it definately is not Maoist either. It doesnt mean that I wont work with the CPC-ML as I have insinuated earlier, I am working with them right now. Also, I would hardly say that Nick Lin would be hearsay considering the fact that he has been a party member for years. I admit that he did not say that the party is Hoxhaist, but he did say that the party had repudiated their Maoist line. If you would like I can ask other members of the CPC-ML today when I meet with them. So how can you claim to be a neo-Maoist when you support a party with an anti-Maoist line?

As for Hardial Bains, he establishing the Communist Party of Ireland - Marxist Leninist and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). Anyways, I would love to read Hardial&#39;s writings.

[patrickbeverley]

Comrade Marcel, let&#39;s have it out in the open. Do you actually, seriously believe that Stalin was a good leader? Do you think that Stalin&#39;s way of doing things was a good way?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:56 PM
Comrade Marcel I think you need to look a little more closely to what I am saying. I know that you have a difficulty with nuance but here is a quote from my earlier statement which you should remember.

"The party in years following the disintegration of Albania has now distanced itself slightly from the Hoxhaist line it previously followed".

So I am not saying that CPC-ML today is Hoxhaist, but it definately is not Maoist either.
Brownfist, I never said that CPC-ML is Maoist, did I?

I&#39;m glad you now admit the party is not Haxhaite either. Are you going to change your mind now?


It doesnt mean that I wont work with the CPC-ML as I have insinuated earlier, I am working with them right now.

Do they know you are out baiting one of their MLPC members with bullshit and slander?


Also, I would hardly say that Nick Lin would be hearsay considering the fact that he has been a party member for years.

Go back and read what I wrote. I never said what Nick said was hearsay. Look up the definition of hearsay:


1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Therefor, what you said is hearsay. Get it?


I admit that he did not say that the party is Hoxhaist, but he did say that the party had repudiated their Maoist line.

I never said that wasn&#39;t true, did I?


If you would like I can ask other members of the CPC-ML today when I meet with them.

Ask away.


So how can you claim to be a neo-Maoist when you support a party with an anti-Maoist line?

Why is it ok for you to work with them, but not me? Since as you said:


It doesnt mean that I wont work with the CPC-ML as I have insinuated earlier, I am working with them right now.

So just because I don&#39;t agree 100% with the party line, I can&#39;t support them? I support the work for Democratic Renewal through the CPC-ML&#39;s election party MLPC. I also think that CPC-ML is the closest party to the line I would support currently in Kanada.


As for Hardial Bains, he establishing the Communist Party of Ireland - Marxist Leninist and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

I didn&#39;t ask you that. I asked you to show that he founded "Hoxhaite" parties as you asserted.


Anyways, I would love to read Hardial&#39;s writings.

Perhaps if you did, you wouldn&#39;t have waisted both of our time with this shit you obviously don&#39;t know entirely about.

[Brownfist]

I think some of its members like you, are definately product of a Hoxhaist line in which Stalin is elevated to a godly status and has made no mistakes. Well, Com. Marcel I would like to think of you as an individual, and that you dont necessarily represent the party. I mean I have respect for some members of the party, Nick Lin, is one of them. I have respect for you (because I actually do know you :)), but I disagree with a lot of your views especially on Stalin. Well for someone who claims to be a Maoist, a repudiation of Maoism, would make the party line unacceptable would it not. I mean that like joining the CPC&#33; Anyways, now that the RCP(O-C) is forming a proper party why dont you join them? ( I am not a member and have no intention of becoming one). But I think it is awfully odd for a self-proclaimed neo-Maoist to join an anti-Maoist party&#33; Also, I only work with them in on a broad front, i.e. we are organizing a rally together with other parties that I completely disagree with. However, I am not a "supporter" of the party, difference in commitment wouldnt you say. I mean the CPP works with the Moro Liberation Front, the CPN(Maoist) is in the seven-party alliance, but you dont seem them joining those other parties. Also, Marcel I think it is you who needs to start reading&#33; I mean all yo do all day is spout stalinist propaganda. Also, perhaps you should return the video you borrowed from the Northstar Compass people. You have had it for a quite a while&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel)What does the length have to do with it?[/b]

Depends on who you ask I suppose. <_<

Seriously though, I&#39;ve just copied and pasted each individual document into Microsoft Works and used the word count....link 1 (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyjapan.txt) is 1296 words long; link 2 (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskystalin.txt) is 417 words long; and link 3 (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyukraine.txt) is 750 words long.

Granted, pieces shouldn&#39;t be judged on their length, rather they should be judged on their quality....it&#39;s just in order to provide a solid case for these assertions, you&#39;d likely need to write more than 2 pages on a Microsoft Works document.

Heck, I recently wrote an opinion piece on Trotskyism and it was something like 8 pages long....and this piece, as I said, was purely an opinion piece that didn&#39;t discuss historical issues at any length and didn&#39;t cite a single source.

MIM, on the other hand, in these pieces, are making serious historical assertions and somehow they expect to convincingly do this in pieces that are about the size of a newspaper article?

I&#39;m not that familiar with current academic standards, but I&#39;d expect that in order to seriously back up the claims in these pieces, you need to be aiming for 10,000 to 15,000 words plus and to also cite dozens of sources.

MIM&#39;s pieces, in my opinion, just seem like pieces someone&#39;s decided to write in order to make someone, in this case Trotsky, look "bad"....with no intention of thoroughly researching the issue.

Fine if that&#39;s what you want to do....just don&#39;t expect people to view them as credible.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel)In order for someone to be taken seriously, they have to write an academic paper?[/b]

Not neccesarily....but, in order to present a credible and convincing argument, one would expect that they&#39;d try to write a logical and well-researched piece.

None of these pieces come across as if that was the writers aim. Rather, they have the look and feel of a bit of political propaganda.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel
....but when you write, who is your target audience?

Whoever finds what I write interesting.

Certainly, one can try and make a piece accessible to people by using ordinary language and making the arguments clear....but, that doesn&#39;t mean that a piece, which makes serious historical allegations, should be dummed down to the level of propaganda.

After all, the section of MIM which contains these pieces is called "classics" and the introduction reads as follows....


Originally posted by MIM
This page is for Marxism-Leninism-Maoism theory and philosophy and its historical context before 1976, the death of Mao. It is important to note that quoting dead people does not usually prove rightness or wrongness - except when the question is keeping straight who said what, which is important when assessing historical blame or accomplishment.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/

You see, this section is for, in the words of MIM, "theory and philosophy" and therefore, in the part of the "classics" section entitled The Problem With Trotsky , one would expect the theoretical objections to Trotsky, and more importantly Trotskyism, to be pieces of serious theory.

However, these pieces don&#39;t seem like pieces on which someone could base a theoretical opinion....rather, they just seem like pieces in which someone could find a few nice anti-Trotsky slogans.

If slogans are what they wanted, then describing the section as a theoretical section seems, well....distinctly odd to me.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel
Strange, but it seems to me that there sources where cited. Would you care to show an example, since the writings are so short you should have no problem picking apart the flaws, right?

I&#39;ll go through all three pieces....just for your pleasure. <_<

Firstly: Trotsky admits aid to Japanese imperialism (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyjapan.txt)

Well firstly, in this piece they make claims about Trotsky&#39;s views on the alliance between the KPD and the SPD without sourcing a work....their claims about Trotsky&#39;s general, as it happens, are right but one would still expect them to source them.

I mean, to back up the assertion that "Trotsky favoured alliance with labor bureaucrats and social-dem hacks generally", you really need to, firstly, outline Trotsky&#39;s positions, and then secondly, logically argue why this approach proves your accusation.

There&#39;s no doubt that Trotsky proposed a broad alliance (though, as I said, MIM don&#39;t bother to source this), but, and without citing any further evidence, claiming that Trotsky "preferred social-democrats", and by extension, that he himself could be categorised as a social-democrat, requires that they show that.

I think the conclusion that is most plausible from this period of time, is that Trotsky&#39;s suggestions were simply crap....but that doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that it was his aim to try and hinder the chances of a revolution.

Indeed, not only that, but MIM, in claiming that Trotsky was pro-social-democracy and anti-Stalin, overlooks that Stalin too wanted to drag the KPD to the right.

The Fight Against Right and "Ultra-Left" Deviations -- Stalin (1926) (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/ecci-speech.htm)

Basically, the allegation that Trotsky "preferred" social-democrats over communists, is not argued very well....and additionally, it&#39;s fairly obvious from Trotsky&#39;s writing at that time, the bits I&#39;ve read anyway, that Trotsky was trying, at least, to propose methods which could be used to further advance the possibility of proletarian revolution.

And even if his methods were crap, you can&#39;t "blame" someone for trying to formulate a method....indeed, the best course of actions is to argue why those methods weren&#39;t very good.

The second part of that piece, about "Trotsky aiding Japanese Imperialism", isn&#39;t all that convincing either....though at least it does contain sources from Trotsky&#39;s work.

The first allegation is un-sourced however....


Originally posted by MIM
Since Trotsky sought power in the Soviet Union, he was hoping for imperialists to knock Stalin out. To this end he instigated Japanese imperalism, and this is RECORDED IN TROTSKY&#39;S OWN PUBLISHED WRITINGS.

Where is it recorded "in Trotsky&#39;s own published writings"?

Not only would a source be nice, but a quote and an explanation would be preferable here too....after all, the context could well be important here, but how&#39;s the reader of that piece supposed to know that?

The second allegation....


Originally posted by MIM
He warms up by revealing Soviet spying techniques to the whole world, which is an example of the kind of thing why the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee invited him for testimony, and as was fully admitted by him. (The Writings of Leon Trotsky: 1939-40, NY: Merit Publishers, p. 125.)

In his "The Tanaka Memorial" article in a section titled "Last Articles and Letters," Trotsky has sections called "Early Soviet Advantages in Intelligence Work" and "Why I can Verify It&#39;s Authenticity." The "it" being referred to is a Japanese government memo on its upcoming war plans. Then Trotsky reveals "How the Document Was Secured." He goes right into the details of photography and agent work. That&#39;s what he considered defending the Soviet Union, revealing Soviet intelligence methods to the imperialists.

Now, at least a source is quote here, but still, there are questions that need to be asked.

Firstly, in order to prove Trotsky was endangering the Soviet Union, you&#39;d have to show that what he was revealing surprised the Japanese.

For instance, you&#39;d need to show that (1) the Japanese didn&#39;t know that the Soviet Union was spying on them; and (2) that what Trotsky disclosed was in any way important.

Secondly, one really needs to ask what Trotsky knew. Depending on the date, Trotsky may well have been out of the Soviet Government for over a decade; and additionally, even when he was in the Government, I&#39;m unaware of him being in the Department that dealt with spying on foreign countries.

Basically, again, was Trotsky revealing anything important here....or was the stuff he was revealing, just common knowledge? Indeed, I would be surprised if Trotsky was able to tell the Japanese Government anything they didn&#39;t know.

Indeed the only actual quote they use from Trotsky, "It is more than likely [....] its concentric circles ever wider", sounds like something you&#39;d find in a newspaper column.

And therefore, if that is representative of the kind of stuff Trotsky was disclosing that was supposedly making the Soviet Union "vulnerable", then I have to say, the evidence is far from conclusive.

Indeed if that quote is representative of what Trotsky knew, then I don&#39;t think he knew very much&#33; :lol:

Indeed I don&#39;t think it would justify this remark....


Originally posted by MIM
It was arrogant sectarianism that played into imperialist hands again and again.

In order to "play into imperialist hands", in any substantial way at least, you&#39;d really have to prove that what Trotsky was revealing greatly benefited the Japanese Government....MIM proves no such thing.

Secondly: Trotsky in World War II: Stalin is the main danger (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskystalin.txt)

So here, the allegation is that Trotsky thought Stalin was more dangerous than Hitler and MIM base their position on this quote....


Originally posted by MIM
&#39;...I consider the main source of danger to the USSR in the present international situation to be Stalin and the oligarchy headed by him. An open struggle against them, in the view of world public opinion, is inseparably connected for me with the defense of the USSR." (Writings of Leon Trotsky: 1939-1940 (NY: Merit Publishers), p. 124)

I couldn&#39;t find this piece on MIA, so I can&#39;t check for context and so on....but we&#39;ll assume that that quote is as it appears at face value.

Firstly, the title of the piece, Trotsky in World War II: Stalin is the main danger, is misleading....as MIM itself says, Germany hadn&#39;t invaded the Soviet Union yet and was just "menacing" her (though even that, comes from a postcript in 1998 and therefore it&#39;s dubious whether Trotsky would have known of this).

Therefore, for starters, the implication that Trotsky thought Stalin was worse than Hitler during WWII is unfounded....even the actual quote doesn&#39;t back this up.

Indeed Trotsky states Stalin is the "main source of danger to the USSR" and not that Stalin was the "main danger" per se. And been as that quote is obviously taken from halfway through a sentence, the context may well be crucial.

Did Trotsky say Stalin&#39;s not a very good military man, or Stalin&#39;s diplomatic skills are crap, or whatever, and then say and therefore "I consider the main source of danger to the USSR in the present international situation to be Stalin and the oligarchy headed by him."

In other words, was Trotsky arguing that Stalin&#39;s incompetence would be dangerous for the USSR? We can&#39;t tell.

So really, the piece is misleading on two counts: (1) Germany hadn&#39;t invaded Russia yet; and (2) the way that quote is framed looks suspicious.

So really, the conclusion that Trotsky "puts his political fight with Stalin above the war against Hitler" is, in my opinion, misleading....and not only that, I&#39;m pretty sure Trotsky&#39;s writing during WWII is full of defences of Russian actions, including, if I&#39;m not mistaken, a defence of the invasion of Finland.

So really, this piece is incredibly poor in my opinion, and additionally, the conclusion....


Originally posted by MIM
Now let&#39;s forget the leadership. Would anyone care to explain why the Soviet masses should not want this Trotsky character shot immediately? The price that the Soviet masses were to pay for Trotsky&#39;s putting his views above the interests of the Soviet masses was much more important than the mere lives of either Stalin or Trotsky.

....is about as bright as a 10 watt bulb&#33; :lol:

The idea that one exiled political dissident could have any significant influence on the security of the USSR....is really completely idealist.

Trotsky could have called for the Russian populace to overthrow Stalin and elect Hitler as leader, but he lacked the power, resources and influence to actually achieve this result....hardly anyone in Russia took Trotsky seriously anymore, and on top of that, the likelihood that his message would actually be heard in Russia, is virtually nil.

Thirdly and finally: Trotsky & Hitler: For the independence of the Ukraine&#33; (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyukraine.txt)

Well, there&#39;s not really a conclusion here, MIM just says....


Originally posted by MIM
No Trotsky was for nationalism of a certain strategic kind: the Ukraine&#39;s. Funny thing was that the Nazis were also calling for independence
of the Ukraine at the same time&#33; Though of course that pretence was dropped in the course of the genocidal war. Luckily for the Soviet Union, it never experienced
what Trotsky really intended for it either.

Well, it would be nice to have a source, but anyway, what does this conclusion actually mean?

Really, MIM here is arguing Guilt by Association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html)....they say Trotsky wanted an independent Ukraine and Hitler wanted an independent Ukraine; and therefore....?

The phrase "Trotsky is therefore pro-Nazi" doesn&#39;t appear, but the implication is definitely there....and the worst thing is, they don&#39;t really argue it any further.

They, in a roundabout way, make the accusation and rely on a logical fallacy to reach the conclusion....but they don&#39;t argue said conclusion. Instead they leave it "up in the air" as it it&#39;s "obvious". Well, it&#39;s not obvious and it does require further argumentation.

But that isn&#39;t really the aim of MIM&#39;s "theoretical work"....rather, as I said, they just wish to produce loaded political propaganda which can be used as neat slogans (like you did when you posted the link).

The title, Trotsky & Hitler: For the independence of the Ukraine&#33;, is clearly meant to imply that "Trotsky is pro-Nazi"....but the piece, doesn&#39;t back up the implication.

Indeed, the level of argument is so poor that it rubbishes itself&#33; :lol:

Additionally, earlier in the piece, we see this....


Originally posted by MIM
(We&#39;ll take your word for it, though Stalin claimed Trotsky was masterminding terrorist blows all over the Soviet Union and some of Trotsky&#39;s supporters in the military did support a coup.)

That&#39;s quite the assertion to leave un-sourced....but if your goal is to character assassinate instead of try to analyse, then that&#39;s what you&#39;re gonna do.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel
I didn&#39;t post this as any "evidence of betrayel"....

Uh....the words you quoted before posting these links were: I think it is entirely incorrect to say that Trotsky has the support of the capitalist countries and the bourgeois.

So yes, you did try to pass these pieces off as evidence of Trotsky&#39;s "batrayal"....either that, or you fame posts in a very peculiar manner.

You choose which.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel
I simply pointed out that he was used by the bourgeois class as a anti-Soviet mouthpiece.

But none of those pieces did that....they attacked the political positions Trotsky held. And with the exception of the one on Japanese Imperialism, they didn&#39;t even hint that Trotsky was an "anti-Soviet mouthpiece" for the bourgeois.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel
He certainly supported imperialism over the USSR at certain points in his life, now didn&#39;t he?

I honestly don&#39;t know....but none of those pieces would lead me to conclude that the above assertion is in any way accurate.


Originally posted by Comrade Marcel
We also see this trend in many neo-Trotskyite groups (such as the I.S. calling the Mjuhadin "freedom fighters").

And the "trend" is also apparent in many Maoist groups; such as the Afghanistan Liberation Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Liberation_Organization).

Perhaps that "trend" stems from Mao "love in" with Nixon....but quite frankly, blaming either Trotsky or Mao for the idiocy of their followers is fucking pointless.

You want to play throw the shit at the famous personailty....be my guest. Just don&#39;t expect many people to take you seriously.


Comrade [email protected]
How exactly is it coincidental that Trotsky spoke to the aided [maybe: to the aid of?] imperialism?

Because MIM presents no documentary evidence to support this propositon....they say Trotsky wanted Ukrainian independence, that Trotsky wanted a popular front, that Trotsky didn&#39;t like Stalin, blah, blah, blah.

But besides the pieces being poor and really failing to efficiently argue the position MIM holds on Trotsky, they provide no evidence that he "spoke to the aided imperialism"....whatever that means.

Really, one would have to abandon all critical thinking skills to accept the arguments in those pieces as objective fact.


Comrade Marcel
I&#39;m sure there is also a lot of other evidence out there supporting the assertions.

Well, you&#39;d think that MIM would mention that....you know, at the end of the piece say: for further information read Y.

But really, as it stands, the evidence in support of their conclusions is shoddy....at best.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:42 PM
I think some of its members like you, are definately product of a Hoxhaist line in which Stalin is elevated to a godly status and has made no mistakes.
For the last time, I am not a member of the CPC-ML. I am member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada for Toronto--Danforth. Should I upload a picture of my card?


Well, Com. Marcel I would like to think of you as an individual, and that you dont necessarily represent the party.

I what way or capacity am I "representing the party"? I already said I am not a CPC-ML member, but I support the party through it&#39;s electoral front, the MLPC. All I did was challenge you to prove that CPC-ML was Hoxhaite as you claimed, and then you admitted that it isn&#39;t. The whole conversation is quite ridiculous on your part when it comes to this question (the other stuff about Indonesia I&#39;ll give you credit that you really do have a point to make, but have not really made one yet).


I mean I have respect for some members of the party, Nick Lin, is one of them. I have respect for you (because I actually do know you :)),

Great, stalker #4... ;)


but I disagree with a lot of your views especially on Stalin.

In what context is it importaqnt to mention this. You are the one who made this into a persynal thing, not me. You started with the I&#39;m being Eurocentric shit and then about me not being Maoist in your opinion... Why not show what the proper line is, you know: put up or shut up.


Well for someone who claims to be a Maoist, a repudiation of Maoism, would make the party line unacceptable would it not.

Actually, it was the comrades from the Philippines who told me that I should join CPC-ML because their line is the most correct in Kanada. They also got me involved with NSC to learn more about Stalin. These comrades choose me and one other comrade out of everyone else in Toronto, I was very flattered.


I mean that like joining the CPC&#33;

no, because the CPC&#39;s line is revisionist&#33;


Anyways, now that the RCP(O-C) is forming a proper party why dont you join them?

Several reasons. I actually hung out with the RCP-OC comrades when they were in Toronto for a year, and aside form the fact that forming something in Ontario is going to be way easier said than done for them, and then there are my reasons:

1.) There line on Stalin is not Maoist, much like yours

2.) I disgree with there line on elections (which you should have gathered when I told you I support MLPC&#39;s work for Democratic Renewal)

3.) I don&#39;t agree with their line on the National question, i.e. they don&#39;t support Quebec nationalism.

4.) I don&#39;t think they have thouroughly thought out their line on "People&#39;s war" in Kanada

5.) I tend to support MIM&#39;s line on labour aristocracy of imperialist country workers (which deviates from CPC-ML as well obvsiouly)

6.) the way they think they are organizing is inefficient and at an advanced stage it would work but isn&#39;t working now


( I am not a member and have no intention of becoming one).

If you were a "member" you definately would not announce it publically.


But I think it is awfully odd for a self-proclaimed neo-Maoist to join an anti-Maoist party&#33;

Just because they don&#39;t have a Maoist line doesn&#39;t make them anti-Maoist.


Also, I only work with them in on a broad front, i.e. we are organizing a rally together with other parties that I completely disagree with. However, I am not a "supporter" of the party, difference in commitment wouldnt you say.

Then you should have said that you are working on something in which CPC-ML members are also involved with, that doesn&#39;t actually count as working with the party. Yes, it is a diferent level of commitment,


I mean the CPP works with the Moro Liberation Front, the CPN(Maoist) is in the seven-party alliance, but you dont seem them joining those other parties.

This is a very stupid example. If they are already members of parties that they support, why would they switch unless they like the other line better? If another party forms whose line I support over CPC-ML/MLPC, then I would write a letter to my comrades and let them know why I am supporting/joining a new party.


Also, Marcel I think it is you who needs to start reading&#33; I mean all yo do all day is spout stalinist propaganda. Also, perhaps you should return the video you borrowed from the Northstar Compass people. You have had it for a quite a while&#33;

Wow, you really are stalking me eh? How the hell do you know what I do all day. I&#39;m a U of T student with plenty to do, and if you really know me as well as you say then you know I have many commitments in my life, and you also would know that when I do political work/organizing I do it well.

Why not take the focus off me now, because constructing persynality cults is the stratgey of the enemies of socialism. :lol:

And what videos? I just talked to Michael Lucas 4 days ago and he didn&#39;t mention it. Also, I returned all the videos over a year ago now. No disrespect, but he is getting older and sometimes forgets things.

[Brownfist]

Marcel, Marcel, Marcel I am offended that you dont recognize who this is&#33; I guess I will have to rebuke you when we next meet in person. I apologize Marcel I did not understand that there is a difference between the CPC-ML and MLPC. I was under the impression that they were one and the same, and because Elections Canada did not want to confuse voters about the (ML) in the name they required the CPC-ML to run as the MLPC. Could you please explain to me what are the differences between being a member of the MLPC and CPC-ML (I really dont know). In India one cannot run for a party or a party front without being a member. By the way I agree with many of your criticisms of the RCP(O-C) that is why I am not a member and have no intention of being one. I am quite happy to organize independently in Toronto. Also, the CPC-ML has endorsed the rally.

As for saying I am not a Maoist, thats your opinion. I think that the line that has been demonstrated by people like Baburam Bhattarai, Prachanda, Sison etc is the correct line. The correct line does not exalt Stalin. There is a recognition of the role he played in the communist movement, however, there are some very deep criticisms of Stalin which have to be acknowledged. It seems to me that you are unwilling to recognize any criticisms of Stalin made by any Maoist whether it is Mao, Prachanda, Bhattarai etc. I guess they are all not Maoists either.

As for the party it has never accepted Mao after accepting the Hoxhaite line in the last 1970&#39;s. If they have stated that they made an error in line and do accept Mao I would be most intersted in those documents. I still stand by your being eurocentric as you have been unable to demonstrate any analysis of the third world situation and how Stalin played a negative or positive role in the third world. You have not displayed any knowledge or engaged what-so-ever with any movement or theorist outside of Euro-America. If you want, we are bringing books and publications from India, Nepal and Philippines and you can get them from me, when u figure out who I am. Which comrades from the Philippines? I am meeting with them at 6pm so I will ask them about their endorsement of NSC and CPC-ML. Just message me their name (first name will do). I work with them quite closely so I would like to know who recommended NSC and CPC-ML to you.

As for your organizing I hear you arent making meetings, and actually left your comrades in the ARA out in the cold once. I heard they were pretty pissed. Actually now that I think about it. Havent seen you at any events in a while. Hopefully will see you at the May Day rally&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:58 PM
Marcel, Marcel, Marcel I am offended that you dont recognize who this is&#33; I guess I will have to rebuke you when we next meet in person.
If you wanted me to know who your are you would have PM&#39;ed me already, or introduced yourself in the thread. If you want to come up to me later on in persyn, that&#39;s fine. But I can only guess who you are.


I apologize Marcel I did not understand that there is a difference between the CPC-ML and MLPC. I was under the impression that they were one and the same, and because Elections Canada did not want to confuse voters about the (ML) in the name they required the CPC-ML to run as the MLPC.

Recently CPC-ML changed the constitution to make the party the electoral wing (so, officially a different party), but even before that you didn&#39;t have to be a member of CPC-ML to run for MLPC.


Could you please explain to me what are the differences between being a member of the MLPC and CPC-ML (I really dont know).

To be a MLPC member you support the work for democratic renewal as outlined on the MLPC website.


As for saying I am not a Maoist, thats your opinion.

As your opinion on my choice of party support as un-Maoist is merely your opinion.


I think that the line that has been demonstrated by people like Baburam Bhattarai, Prachanda, Sison etc is the correct line.

I agree with Sison line for the Philippines, which doesn&#39;t necessarily apply here in totality.


The correct line does not exalt Stalin.

Who says that it does?


There is a recognition of the role he played in the communist movement, however, there are some very deep criticisms of Stalin which have to be acknowledged. It seems to me that you are unwilling to recognize any criticisms of Stalin made by any Maoist whether it is Mao, Prachanda, Bhattarai etc. I guess they are all not Maoists either.

I have not either rejected or accepted any of these criticisms, simply because you have not given them to me. You have referred to a couple of books and basically said "look it up".


As for the party it has never accepted Mao after accepting the Hoxhaite line in the last 1970&#39;s.

I&#39;m not the only "Maoist" around CPC-ML.


If they have stated that they made an error in line and do accept Mao I would be most intersted in those documents.

As I said before, not accepting one&#39;s line doesn&#39;t necessarily make one "anti-Maoist". I am a Marxist-Leninist, but I am not anti-Trotskyist or anti-Anarchist (at this point in time). I.e., I don&#39;t refuse to work with someone because of their line, I don&#39;t go around beating them up, etc.


I still stand by your being eurocentric as you have been unable to demonstrate any analysis of the third world situation and how Stalin played a negative or positive role in the third world.

So, because I disagree with you in otherwords?


You have not displayed any knowledge or engaged what-so-ever with any movement or theorist outside of Euro-America.

Are you saying because I haven&#39;t traveled (because I can&#39;t afford it and other reasons) I&#39;m not elite enough?

As for "engaging", you really don&#39;t know what I have read or who I have worked with. It sounds like you just "know me from around" or something.


If you want, we are bringing books and publications from India, Nepal and Philippines and you can get them from me, when u figure out who I am.

I would love the works of Stalin and Mao from India in English, if you can get them. I have the works of Stalin from the USSR but it was stopped after his death and thus incomplete. I have the set of collected works of Mao but it was polluted by Dengism.


Which comrades from the Philippines?

I am not going to mention those names publically. I will say orgs like PNJP and PSG, people who have done stuff around Sison.


I am meeting with them at 6pm so I will ask them about their endorsement of NSC and CPC-ML.

Ask away.


Just message me their name (first name will do). I work with them quite closely so I would like to know who recommended NSC and CPC-ML to you.

I won&#39;t name names, but you can ask around if you like.


As for your organizing I hear you arent making meetings, and actually left your comrades in the ARA out in the cold once. I heard they were pretty pissed. Actually now that I think about it. Havent seen you at any events in a while.

This gossip has really got to stop, honestly&#33; That time I was sick, and I had understood that someone else was going who had the key. They didn&#39;t end up going or forgot the key or something, so I got the blaim for it (because it was my responsiblity at the time). I accepted the criticism and the responsibilty was given to someone else (who incidentally quit soon afterwards).

I&#39;ve been busy, and I don&#39;t organize unless I know I can put up a lot of work. You can ask about shit I&#39;ve done in the past, if you are so interested. Currently I am in school for the first time (after being a beer delivery persyn for the Beer Store for 8 years) and the load is a lot on me.


Hopefully will see you at the May Day rally&#33;

Yeah... <_<

[Brownfist]

Where did you buy the Collected Works of Mao?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:41 PM
Where did you buy the Collected Works of Mao?
There&#39;s a book store in Chinatown East, on Broadview just south of Gerrard. They still have one full set in both hardcover and softcover, and it&#39;s pretty cheap (&#036;50 soft, &#036;70 hard). It&#39;s in 5 volumes. The problem is that a lot of stuf was excluded, and some people say volume V was actually tampered with...

There is also other ways of getting it, it&#39;s actually harder to find Stalin&#39;s works. My partner had to order it from like California. It was actually funny, because it has a lable on inside of the first volume that says:

This material is filed with the Department of Justice where the required statement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of Four Continent Book corporation, 38 West 58th Street, New York, N.Y. as an agent of Mezhdunarodnaja Kniga, Moscow, USSR. is available for public inspection. Registration does not indicate approval or disaproval of this material by the United States government

[Brownfist]

Is that the collected works or the selected works? Because I own the selected works

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:02 AM
Is that the collected works or the selected works? Because I own the selected works
Selected works, I made an error. The collected works is hard to find in stores in Toronto. You might be able to order them or find them online...

http://english.people.com.cn/english/20001...1226_58850.html (http://english.people.com.cn/english/200012/26/eng20001226_58850.html)

If you can get the collected works published in India, that&#39;s what you should go for. The Chinese ones have been tainted.

When I can afford it, there is a bookstore in Australia that I get stuff from, but the shipping usually costs an arm and a leg&#33;

http://www.chinabooks.com.au/

[Ian]

Various publications from mao at http://www.vanguard.net.au/catalouge.php

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Apr 21 2006, 07:15 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Apr 21 2006, 07:15 PM)
Comrade Marcel
What does the length have to do with it?

Depends on who you ask I suppose. <_<

[/b]
Ok, fair enough. I&#39;ll give you credit for an excellent response. So the MIM articles aren&#39;t "very" convincing if you look at them objectively.

IMO, it&#39;s still came out of the horses mouth though.

[Raul]

Joseph Stalin was a great man. He created a superpower and caught up to the capitalist West in record time. Without the help of Joseph Stalin, communism would of been just another dead idea. He spread the ideology and also spread communism across the world. Under Stalin, one in three people lived under communism. People say that he killed many and that he was a bloody murderer. A communist murdering people? ...that is unheard of. Where would they come up with that mentality...? <_< Kulaks were traitors to the USSR. They destroyed the Soviet economy with their anit collective way of thinking. If capitalist have to die for a communist to succeed, then so be it. Stalin&#39;s legacy will live and I will remember him as a great man.

[The Grey Blur]

Joseph Stalin was a great man
He was a human being, Communists should not support the idea of a "great leader"


He created a superpower and caught up to the capitalist West in record time &
Under Stalin, one in three people lived under communism
:huh: And we should celebrate these "achievements"? And the USSR was never Communist, never mind Socialist


Without the help of Joseph Stalin, communism would of been just another dead idea.
With the "help" of Stalin, Communism very nearly became a dead idea. His dictatorial regime and existence is an injury the Far-Left is still recovering from


People say that he killed many and that he was a bloody murderer. A communist murdering people? ...that is unheard of. Where would they come up with that mentality...?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Kulaks were traitors to the USSR. They destroyed the Soviet economy with their anit collective way of thinking. If capitalist have to die for a communist to succeed, then so be it. Stalin&#39;s legacy will live and I will remember him as a great man.
Do you also think Trotsky was a traitor to the USSR? I mean seriously, this is the biggest load of Stalinist bullshit I&#39;ve ever rea

[Raul]

Great leader? I said great man. Until you spread communism around the world, you have no right to talk about Stalin. He did more than you, so criticizing the man isn&#39;t really doing much.

[The Grey Blur]

Great leader? I said great man
How so - do you mean on a personal level? I&#39;m sure you shared many deep philosophical conversations on the veranda of the Red Palace...

Stalin: You know Raul, one day I&#39;m going to quit

Raul: Boss&#33; Don&#39;t speak like that&#33;

Stalin: Naw sonny, I gotta - I&#39;m an old man, and old men have old ideas

Raul: You&#39;re not old, you&#39;re experienced&#33; Who will lead us when you are gone?

Stalin: Trotsky

Raul: Kewl, LOL


Until you spread communism around the world
*Yawn* Been there, done that


you have no right to talk about Stalin
Or what&#33;? You&#39;ll send me to the gulags? - Hahahaha - Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin&#33;


He did more than you
So did Hitler. Are you, or are you not admitting to supporting Hitler? WHAT WHAT WHAT?&#33;?&#33;?&#33; Get off our forum you Neo-Nazi piece of trash&#33;


so criticizing the man isn&#39;t really doing much.
Well actually, I was hoping to maybe change your view of Stalin and the USSR with rational arguments and fluid debates but then I realised you are an indoctrinated nutjob so now I laugh. I laugh long and I laugh hard. All at your folly.

[amanondeathrow]

He did more than you, so criticizing the man isn&#39;t really doing much.

Criticizing and analyzing past leftist experiences is the most important thing we can do, short of leading an actual revolution.

Simply saying that he did something does not excuse Stalin&#39;s faults or give him immunity from criticism.

If we do not figure out what went wrong with the Soviet Union, we cannot expect to ever achieve revolution in our live time.

[Raul]

Originally posted by Dee&#39;s [email protected] 29 2006, 10:22 PM

He did more than you, so criticizing the man isn&#39;t really doing much.

Criticizing and analyzing past leftist experiences is the most important thing we can do, short of leading an actual revolution.

Simply saying that he did something does not excuse Stalin&#39;s faults or give him immunity from criticism.

If we do not figure out what went wrong with the Soviet Union, we cannot expect to ever achieve revolution in our live time.
True, but he isn&#39;t doing that. He is just *****ing. If he was talking about how we can change things so they don&#39;t repeat themselves, I would be all for it, but that is not what is going on.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:32 PM
Kulaks were traitors to the USSR. They destroyed the Soviet economy with their anit collective way of thinking.
What is this bullshit? In Stalin&#39;s Russia, people were executed/sent to hard labour camps without a fair trial, what on Earth is communist about that? And whatever "Kulaks" (a class that in any case did not really exist in Russia by the time Stalin became dictator) were "traitors" to, a policy of accusing all those who disagree with you of being Kulaks is hardly "great".

[Wiesty]

Sounds like something he may of said, possibly a joke or something, while it is extremely harsh and cruel, its true to some extent

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Apr 19 2006, 02:51 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Apr 19 2006, 02:51 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 06:22 AM
Com. Marcel I think you need to recognize that Stalin also did a lot of boneheaded things, especially when it came to Third World communist parties and their struggles for national liberation. I mean he actually tried to prevent a series of communist movements from fighting capitalism and imperialism in their respective countries. The most obvious examples that I know of are Indonesia and China. I mean even Mao tended to ignore Stalin&#39;s directives when it came to the question of the war of national liberation and socialism in China. In Indonesia, Stalin&#39;s directives caused a split within the Indonesian communist party in which pro-Stalin sections of the party refused to fight, while the pro-Mao factions tried to fight the nationalist bourgeoisie.
And Trotskyites never had factions, they did everything so right&#33;

As for your assertion that Stalin stifled struggles abroad, you will have to provide more detail.

Also, no one said Stalin was perfect and made no errors. The question is whether he had it right in general line and direction, did he uphold Marxism-Leninism.

And if they tried fighting the national-bourgeoisie, they certainly weren&#39;t very Maoist&#33; :rolleyes: [/b]
I think he was reincarnating slavery rather than Marxism-Leninism. Everything you post, is pro-Stalin. You are just so blind. Let me ask you some questions. Just ONLY answer with yes or no, please. Thanks.

Do you believe there were at least 1 million killed during Stalin&#39;s reign, ordered by the regime?

Do you believed there were at least 1 million people imprisoned in force labour camps or prison camps during his reign?

Do you believe there were show trials, were victims confessed because they had been tortured during his reign?

Do you believe that there were at least 100.000 innocent people killed during the so called Great Terror?

Do you believe the Soviet Union was a democratic country during Stalin&#39;s reign?

Do you think Stalin loved his people?

Do you think there was a personal cultus around Stalin?

Do you think Stalin stirred up nationalism?

Do you think people were sent to force labour camps for crimes such as keeping a piece of food for themself or insulting the leader, or just because somebody said they were wrong?

Do you think there was forced labour in the USSR during Stalin?


So, if you just answer these questions with yes or no, it&#39;s ok to me to view your standpoint. Just interpret it however you want.