Maoist Internationalist Movement - The organization

[elijahcraig]

I've been looking over this website which represents the Maoist Internationalist Movement. They preach the normal mantra of Maoism, which is anti-capitalist obviously etc. The problem is that they have this section on Music Reviews where they review albums. In this section they review anyone from Rage Against the Machine to Britney Spears. Then, at the bottom of the page, they have a link to amazon.com to buy the album. Anti-capitalists with links to amazon.com? Hypocritical? I think so.

They also go to great lengths to make excuses for Stalin, Pol Pot, Tibet being enslaved, and Mao's execution of "only 800,000".

It's this kind of hypocrisy which harms communism.

"Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."-Malcolm X

This applies to Mao and Stalin as well as the Capitalist countries.

Here's a link: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/

[Red Comrade]

It's not very fair to compare Mao to Stalin. Mao did not want any peasant to die. The thing's Mao did are sometimes very much taken out of context by the Western media. Truth is, Mao was much more of an honorable man than anyone says. Sure millions died of starvation due to political strife, and starvation because of this, but Mao was ingenius. You see, with the cultural revolution he attempted to break down the current state, and start out with a "new sheet of paper in which we can write beautiful new letters" as he would say.

I doubt you see his signifigance as a philosopher and a fighter for the proletariat cause. He abolished all laws that promoted the unfair treatment of women, he abolished all laws that promoted slavery/slave-like treatment, fought for the rights and emancipated minorities, and instead of simply killing off the bourgeois,he attempted to re educate them (unlike Pol Pot which you seem to group him with). He constantly stood up for the poor countries of the world. He was much more of a humanitarian than a "tyrant" as some reactionary Xiaoping supporters paint him out.

Chairman Mao also allowed people to openly criticize him, unlike Stalin. In the one hundred flowers movement people criticized him and his tactics.

Sure, some of the conditions his prisons were in were disgraceful, but nobody's perfect. As Mao got older during the 70's he got more senile, and did things I disagree with, but then again, nobodies perfect.


(Edited by Red Comrade at 4:46 am on July 4, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I don't think a serious discussion of Mao is in order in the same thread that discusses the "comic book Maoists" called the Maoist International Movement.

I was looking over their site and found this...

MIM Theory 2/3, "Gender and Revolutionary Feminism", is available for $6. In it we argue that all sex is rape under patriarchy.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/letters/sincere.html

These people are just plain weird.

:cool:

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

I'v ran into this web site before and I belive that the people that orginize this page are giving people the wrong information and a false veiw of what Maoist Internationalist Movement accually represents. If they are going to represent it, represent it 100% and don't spread into music/movie entertainment reviews. That make's the site seem not focused on what they are talking about.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Yeah what's wrong with these fucking communists. They keep trying to spread the word that capitalism is oppressive. Did you guys know that Stalin has been linked to starting the plague in the middle ages? Yup. Who do you think was behind the inquisition? The Vatican? Hardly, it was Mao.

[redstar2000]

I'v ran into this web site before and I belive that the people that orginize this page are giving people the wrong information and a false veiw of what Maoist Internationalist Movement accually represents.

I'm sorry but I thought this was their "official web site". Do you have a link to another site?

And their comment about "sex under patriarchy" comes from one of their own official publications, does it not?

By the way, they are very "money-minded"...every page that I looked at had some kind of plug for some book or pamphlet of theirs that you are strongly encouraged to buy. All they needed was a "shopping cart" to look like a commercial web site.

:cool:

[El Brujo]

lol. I knew people were gonna start going on about "Stalinism" in this thread.

"Then, at the bottom of the page, they have a link to amazon.com to buy the album. Anti-capitalists with links to amazon.com? Hypocritical? I think so.

If you haven't bothered to read, buying things from amazon after following the link from their site provides funds for the movement.

"They also go to great lengths to make excuses for Stalin, Pol Pot, Tibet being enslaved, and Mao's execution of "only 800,000".

Please explain where they "make excuses" for Pol Pot? Did you even bother to click on that link? I bet you didn't even bother to read what they have to say about Stalin or Mao either.

"Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."-Malcolm X

This applies to Mao and Stalin as well as the Capitalist countries.

Oh, the irony. Im sure you didn't know that the Black Panthers were maoists. And now you are using an irrenevant quote from Malcom X to slag Mao and Stalin off.

[Bush is a capitalist]

Some of the things people say about Mao and Maoism are just western rhetoric that started after the Korean war was declared a stalemate (brave PLA members fought with limited weapons yet still fended the imperialists off). McCarthyists.

El Brujo, LMAO. Just show's to what extent the ignorance of some people goes. They use Malcolm X to try and discredit Mao. During the times Malcolm X was active the Little Red Book was insanely popular amongst black liberation and Latin American revolutionary groups. Mao's ideas reach across the globe.

[redstar2000]

Just show's to what extent the ignorance of some people goes. They use Malcolm X to try and discredit Mao. During the times Malcolm X was active the Little Red Book was insanely popular amongst black liberation and Latin American revolutionary groups. Mao's ideas reach across the globe.

Ignorance? Malcolm X was a muslim, not any kind of "Maoist".

Im sure you didn't know that the Black Panthers were maoists. And now you are using an irrenevant quote from Malcom X to slag Mao and Stalin off.

Funny, that doesn't square with my memory...and I was around at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the Black Panther Party's "favorite communists" was the bourgeois liberal Communist Party USA...probably because the CPUSA gave them some money and some international contacts and publicity.

But perhaps it's the spirit that counts: the Black Panther Party was the only left group of that era that never held a voting convention of its membership. It was run by a self-appointed elite throughout its entire existence.

No doubt Mao would have understood.

:cool:

[commie kg]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:00 pm on July 5, 2003
Just show's to what extent the ignorance of some people goes. They use Malcolm X to try and discredit Mao. During the times Malcolm X was active the Little Red Book was insanely popular amongst black liberation and Latin American revolutionary groups. Mao's ideas reach across the globe.

Ignorance? Malcolm X was a muslim, not any kind of "Maoist".

Im sure you didn't know that the Black Panthers were maoists. And now you are using an irrenevant quote from Malcom X to slag Mao and Stalin off.

Funny, that doesn't square with my memory...and I was around at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the Black Panther Party's "favorite communists" was the bourgeois liberal Communist Party USA...probably because the CPUSA gave them some money and some international contacts and publicity.

But perhaps it's the spirit that counts: the Black Panther Party was the only left group of that era that never held a voting convention of its membership. It was run by a self-appointed elite throughout its entire existence.

No doubt Mao would have understood.

:cool:

So very true.

I debate with myself often whether to post an anti-Black Panther thread or not. Alot of people here like them alot, but I can't sympathize with them.
Their aims are good, their method is bad.
I've also met a few (not all) Black Panthers that were Black Supremacists. No better than a White Supremacist IMO.

[Bush is a capitalist]

Ignorance? Malcolm X was a muslim, not any kind of "Maoist".

When did I say Malcolm X was a Maoist? I only acknowledged that he certainly had Maoist tendencies (as most Leftist liberaters and liberation groups do). And the Black Panthers were based on his ideals. Here's some backround http://www.socialistalternative.org/litera...lcolmx/ch5.html (http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/malcolmx/ch5.html)

Why are the black panthers linked on the MIM site?

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/index.html

(Edited by Bush is a capitalist at 3:12 am on July 6, 2003)

[El Brujo]

"Ignorance? Malcolm X was a muslim, not any kind of "Maoist"."

We never said Malcom X was a Maoist. The Black Panthers, however, were. And they were influenced by Malcom X so I doubt he was any kind of anti-Maoist, don't you?

"Funny, that doesn't square with my memory...and I was around at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the Black Panther Party's "favorite communists" was the bourgeois liberal Communist Party USA...probably because the CPUSA gave them some money and some international contacts and publicity."

You're forgetting the Workers World Party who were self-proclaimed "Stalinists"

"But perhaps it's the spirit that counts: the Black Panther Party was the only left group of that era that never held a voting convention of its membership. It was run by a self-appointed elite throughout its entire existence.

No doubt Mao would have understood."

Yes, and you're point is? Do you seriously believe a revolutionary party would function "democratically" (referring to the bourgeoisie concept of "democracy" not proletarian democratic centralism)? What did the CNT in Spain accomplish apart from holding back the Republican army because they wanted to "vote" for where and when to make attacks? Compare it to what CHE accomplished by enforcing iron discipline on the Cuban revolutionaries.

[Bush is a capitalist]

What did the CNT in Spain accomplish apart from holding back the Republican army because they wanted to "vote" for where and when to make attacks?

That is the reason Anarchist's never suceed in revolutions, whilst communists or "evil authoritarians" do. A centralized power is much more efficient than a Roman-style democracy.

[El Brujo]

Exactly. Anarchism is extremely unrealistic (especially directly after capitalism) as it puts faith into uneducated individuals that know little if not nothing about how to conduct a revolution and expect the entire populace to live communaly without being forced to. A revolutionary leader is necessary to guide the movement properly. What's "popular," more often than not, isn't whats best.

[Hendrix]

Wouldn't the author of the site get alot of heat from people on the site anyways and immediately take down the advirtisement for Amazon.com?

[redstar2000]

When did I say Malcolm X was a Maoist? I only acknowledged that he certainly had Maoist tendencies...

I rather doubt Malcolm X gave the matter much thought; but as a devout Muslim, he would hardly have thought much of an avowedly atheist point of view.

Do you seriously believe a revolutionary party would function "democratically" (referring to the bourgeoisie concept of "democracy" not proletarian democratic centralism)?

Well, it's pretty clear you don't think so...your message is just latch on to the "right" "great leader" and do what you're told.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that, historically, all of the fascist political parties operated in exactly the same way?

Or perhaps you've simply never bothered to read any serious works on fascism as a political movement and how it operates. Try your public library.

What did the CNT in Spain accomplish apart from holding back the Republican army because they wanted to "vote" for where and when to make attacks? Compare it to what CHE accomplished by enforcing iron discipline on the Cuban revolutionaries.

That's a "question" so steeped in gross ignorance of the Spanish Revolution that I would have to copy and paste a book or two to "answer" it.

But you could ask yourself this one: how well would Che's alledged "iron discipline" served if he had gone up against the Italian Army and the German Air Force in 1937? Keeping in mind, of course, that it didn't help him in Bolivia all that much, now did it?

That is the reason Anarchist's never suceed in revolutions, whilst communists or "evil authoritarians" do.

You dare boast of your successes? In Russia and Eastern Europe, capitalism is fully restored. In China, your "communist" party is about to admit "businessmen". In Vietnam, the restoration of capitalism is well underway. And Cuba--a revolution that wasn't even made by a Leninist party--teeters on the knife's edge of capitalist restoration.

A professional sports team (you're supposed to be "professional" revolutionaries, remember?) with your won-loss record would not only fire the manager but would probably have to relocate the franchise.

How does the "Kathmandu Paper Tigers" sound?

A centralized power is much more efficient than a Roman-style democracy.

"Roman-style democracy"? I can see that history is really "a closed book" to you. The Roman Republic was an oligarchy -- the Senate was composed of a heriditary landed aristocracy that governed with the consent of urban merchants. The closest modern equivalent would have been the German Empire, 1871-1918.

All of which has nothing to do with anarchism at all.

Anarchism is extremely unrealistic (especially directly after capitalism) as it puts faith into uneducated individuals that know little if not nothing about how to conduct a revolution and expect the entire populace to live communaly without being forced to. A revolutionary leader is necessary to guide the movement properly. What's "popular," more often than not, isn't whats best.

A perfect example of imperial Leninist rhetoric...you plan to "force" us to do what's "best" regardless of our own wishes...what Roman Emperor could say less?

I hope you will keep up that kind of talk in public as much as possible...it will discredit your Leninist-Maoist politics far more effectively than anything I could say.

:cool:

[El Brujo]

"Well, it's pretty clear you don't think so...your message is just latch on to the "right" "great leader" and do what you're told.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that, historically, all of the fascist political parties operated in exactly the same way?"

Not very convincing, pal. You attempt to connect Marxist/Leninism to fascism simply because of its authoritarian elements. In that case, I could connect democratic socialists with the US Libertarian Party. So what's your point?

And at any rate, once the socialist state is created it is run through democratic centralism (you cannot know how a true socialist democracy works if you aren't knowledgable on that). It may not be concidered a "democracy" by the western bourgeoisie simply because it is a one party state but there is checks and balances to it as there is in almost every case. So, as you can see it is not operated the "exact same way" as fascism.

But you could ask yourself this one: how well would Che's alledged "iron discipline" served if he had gone up against the Italian Army and the German Air Force in 1937? Keeping in mind, of course, that it didn't help him in Bolivia all that much, now did it?

Well, why don't we ask Cuban peasants who, to this day are benefitting from Che's guerilla tactics? Apart from that, you're comment is completely irrelevant to the point. Maybee a disciplined Republican army might have won, maybee it wouldn't, but you sure as fuck cant say that it helped to have a handfull of pathetic anarchists whinning and *****ing about their commander (who knows about millitary strategy) giving them orders during times of war and creating factionalism with the rest of the coalition because they didn't approve of their opportunistic pipe dreams at the moment.

"You dare boast of your successes? In Russia and Eastern Europe, capitalism is fully restored."

That is due to backstabbing by ultra-left, Trotskyite revisionists such as Khrushev (whom Im sure you approve of) who backed off from the war on imperialism.

"In China, your "communist" party is about to admit "businessmen"."

Again, due to pro-western revisionist traitors within the party.

"In Vietnam, the restoration of capitalism is well underway."

My oh my. You think just like a western imperialist who criticizes socialist states as inefficient because they are "poor" and capitalist states are "rich". Im sure you haven't considered the sanctions that the US put on the Vietnamese that forced them to either convert to capitalism or starve to death due to trade embargo's. They held on pretty damn well for all the shit they've been put through.

And Cuba--a revolution that wasn't even made by a Leninist party--teeters on the knife's edge of capitalist restoration.

Same reason as Vietnam. And the masterminds of the revolution (Che and Fidel) were indeed Leninists.

A professional sports team (you're supposed to be "professional" revolutionaries, remember?) with your won-loss record would not only fire the manager but would probably have to relocate the franchise.

More mindless babble. Can you please name one accomplishment by libertarian socialists that Marxist/Leninists haven't done? All you seem to do is slag off socialist states but not defend your own position.

A perfect example of imperial Leninist rhetoric...you plan to "force" us to do what's "best" regardless of our own wishes...what Roman Emperor could say less?

lol. "imperial" Leninist rhetoric? That's a new one. Again using authoritarian elements to childishly equate Marxist/Leninism with something completely irrelevant. Tell me, if a soldier dosen't want to make an attack at a strategic time and position because his ass is too lazy, what is better, what the commander say's or his "own wishes"?

I hope you will keep up that kind of talk in public as much as possible...it will discredit your Leninist-Maoist politics far more effectively than anything I could say.

Right back at you, buddy. For starters, what are you doing in a site about Che Guevara (an authoritarian socialist who imposed iron discipline on his revolutionaries) if you want to create a watered-down, pacifistic (ntm, inefficient) revolution which is compromised by individual's personal scrupules? Not very bright, are we homes?

[elijahcraig]

I did not criticize Maoism directly, I criticized the website. Yes, I did read their explanations of all of the topics. Pol Pot? They DID make excuses for him, they also critcized him. It's a fucked up site. They have the "we want to destroy capitalism" on one page, then click over and you see a review of a Britney Spears album and a link to amazon.com. I did read their explanation of their amazon.com link also, but there are workers' collectives that sell these things, they don't have to post the biggest corporate internet site they could think of. I posted the Malcolm X quote to show that while they criticze capitalist tyranny, as they should, they do not criticize the enslavement of the people of Tibet. It's ridiculous. They are using a double standard. Stalinism is basic fascism, it is comparable. Maoism is not fascism, it got screwed up. I admire Mao, he wanted good for the people, but his party got screwed up. Obviously. The Black Panthers were Maoists, or at least Newton and a few others were. I also know of Anarchist Black Panthers, and others who were socialists, or not even fixed in their idealogy. This website pushes the movement against capitalism away from the people, it furthers the anti-communist cause, because this "movement" is so childishly fraudulent.

[El Brujo]

"Pol Pot? They DID make excuses for him, they also critcized him."

Pol Pot called our movement "counterrevolutionary" and Mao never called
Pot Pot Maoist while Mao was alive.

In contrast, Democrats and Republicans of the U.S. Government did
give military aid to Pol Pot.

A general discussion of Maoist ideology was lifted wholesale from out-of-context
academic sources and published as journalism. "Killing Fields" is just a movie.

That is what they say. I don't see anything supportive of Pol Pot there. On the contrary, why would they support Pol Pot if his ideas are closer to those of Trotsky (directly from capitalism to communism, millitarizing labor, etc.).

"It's a fucked up site. They have the "we want to destroy capitalism" on one page, then click over and you see a review of a Britney Spears album and a link to amazon.com."

They are critical of all kinds of music. They also have one on Eminem talking about how he should be banned.

I posted the Malcolm X quote to show that while they criticze capitalist tyranny, as they should, they do not criticize the enslavement of the people of Tibet.

LOL. They are Maoists, of course they citicized the slave-holding Lama's. Have you read into any of it?

Stalinism is basic fascism, it is comparable.

Please explain what "Stalinism" is and how it is comparable to fascism?

[elijahcraig]

If you consider Fascism total control by government, Stalin was a fascist. Stalin admired Hitler.

Sorry about the Pol Pot thing, I read the "Killing Fields" thing wrong.

Being critical of music is one thing, having a link to buy a Britney Spears album (the biggest representative of capitalism in entertainment) is another.

I'd call not criticizing Stalin, not criticizing slavery, because that is what Stalin was: a slave driver. Don't try to take up for him, my grandfather was in Russia during Stalin's rule. His whole family was totally massacred, he escaped through an underground railroad type thing. He is a communist, he hated Stalin. If you say all the people who are actually here to testify about the crimes of Stalin are all propagandaists, you have a weak argument.

[El Brujo]

"If you consider Fascism total control by government, Stalin was a fascist."

Well then so is Mao if you think that way. And again, read my previous posts, there are checks and balances to everything. Besides Fascism is more that "total government control". Read up on corporatism.

"Stalin admired Hitler"

LOL. Ill let that speak for itsself. Nice way to talk about the man who defeated Hitler.

Sorry about the Pol Pot thing, I read the "Killing Fields" thing wrong.

No problem.

"Being critical of music is one thing, having a link to buy a Britney Spears album (the biggest representative of capitalism in entertainment) is another."

Anyone who goes to that site anyways is not likely to buy anything by Britney Spears.

I'd call not criticizing Stalin, not criticizing slavery, because that is what Stalin was: a slave driver.

Can you please explain how he was a "slave driver"? He ran the first successful socialist state and provided the workers with conditions unimaginable during the Tsarist regime.

Don't try to take up for him, my grandfather was in Russia during Stalin's rule. His whole family was totally massacred, he escaped through an underground railroad type thing. He is a communist, he hated Stalin.

Im sorry for what happened to your grandfather's family, but you have to understand, the Soviet Union was a very isolated political force in the world at the time. It faced threat from all abroad so Stalin had to crack down to preserve socialism. Mistakes were made, Im not denying it.

"If you say all the people who are actually here to testify about the crimes of Stalin are all propagandaists, you have a weak argument."

If those people say that he killed 20 million people (a ridiculous figure) and preach Nazi stories about him staging a faimne in the Ukraine, then yes, they are propaghandists. Im not denying that Stalin had people killed (some of which didin't deserve to die and some of which did but were not), history is there to learn from but to lie about history is not constructive.

[elijahcraig]

How is the USSR considered successful? That's a headcracker. Stalin admired Hitler's ruthlessness. So you are basically taking the position of the government over the people? That is exactly what you are doing. Mao was not in total control, there was a lot of corruption within his party, he did not have total control. Stalin had total control, TOTAL CONTROL. Calling Stalin's USSR successful shows your ignorance of the subject, he massacred millions, for even speaking against him, that is not marxism, that is stalinism, the doctrine of "do what you're told or die", or "say what you're told or die". The point of marxism is to INCREASE freedom, not destroy it.

[elijahcraig]

Oh, and Stalin did not defeat Hitler, he sat on his fat ass and let the workers die in millions, a true communist would be on the frontline, not sitting on a throne giving orders like a capitalist pig.

[El Brujo]

"How is the USSR considered successful? That's a headcracker."

First off, it advanced technologically while the rest of the world faced depression (while being 150 years behind). Second of all, I already mentioned, workers lives improved drastically. Life expectancy in Russia reached its climax during the Stalin era.

"Stalin admired Hitler's ruthlessness."

You know very well that is not true. Even if he was as ruthless as Hitler (which he wasn't), that dosen't mean that he admired him. They were mortal enemies.

"So you are basically taking the position of the government over the people? That is exactly what you are doing."

I am taking the position of a government that works for the people so I am taking the position of the people.

"Mao was not in total control, there was a lot of corruption within his party, he did not have total control."

Neither was Stalin, there was checks and balances there too. It was run through democratic centralism, just like Maoist China. And the same case happened to Stalin with Khrushev and did Mao with Deng Xiaopeng. Revisionist traitors within the party brought socialism down.

"Stalin had total control, TOTAL CONTROL. Calling Stalin's USSR successful shows your ignorance of the subject,"

Claiming that Stalin had "total control" shows your ignorance on the subject.

he massacred millions, for even speaking against him, that is not marxism, that is stalinism, the doctrine of "do what you're told or die", or "say what you're told or die".

You still fail to explain to me what "Stalinism" is. From what you're saying, its simply "authoritarianism" (and you are wrong too because people were free to criticize his actions during times of peace). Authoritarian socialism is the only true form of Marxism as is quickly and efficiently changes the socio-economic system to bing about a workers utopia. Changing the rules of Marxist doctrine to satisfy current desires at the expense of the future is revisionism.

"point of marxism is to INCREASE freedom, not destroy it."

What is your definition of "freedom"? Hopefully it is not bourgeoisie ideas about "democracy". Stalin created the foundation for a true socialist democracy, with "freedom" being a goal to achieve by it.

"Oh, and Stalin did not defeat Hitler, he sat on his fat ass and let the workers die in millions, a true communist would be on the frontline, not sitting on a throne giving orders like a capitalist pig."

If you believe this then you don't know very much about how millitary works. Commander-in-chiefs don't go to the "frontline" because it is their job to "sit in a throne and give orders like a capitalist pig". Stalin was not a soldier, he was a commander, simple as that. What you are describing to be a "true communist" is an anarchist, not Marxist. And Im not going into why anarchism and millitary don't mix again.

[redstar2000]

Not very convincing, pal. You attempt to connect Marxist/Leninism to fascism simply because of its authoritarian elements. In that case, I could connect democratic socialists with the US Libertarian Party. So what's your point?

Hell, what's yours? Mine is obvious: we cannot free ourselves by setting up an "authoritarian" party to "do it for us". If you really believe otherwise, if you really believe that a new slavery will somehow "lead" to freedom, then you are a fool.

And at any rate, once the socialist state is created it is run through democratic centralism (you cannot know how a true socialist democracy works if you aren't knowledgable on that). It may not be concidered a "democracy" by the western bourgeoisie simply because it is a one party state but there is checks and balances to it as there is in almost every case.

Horseshit! I know exactly what democratic centralism is...and there's not a fucking thing democratic about it. In fact, here is a very good summary of it from a thread in the Theory Forum...

The communist party is the monolithic party of the proletariat and not a party of a bloc of elements of different classes. It is based on democratic centralism. Every member must observe unified discipline. The individual is subordinate to the organisation, the minority is subordinate to the majority, the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the entire Party is subordinate to the Central Committee. The highest leading body of the Party is the National Party Congress, and, when it is not in session, the Central Committee elected by it.

This particular Leninist party doesn't have a "great leader" yet--but the general idea is pretty clear. Unless you wish to wallow in servility or climb the treacherous rope to the top, there's nothing for any self-respecting human being here.

Maybee a disciplined Republican army might have won, maybee it wouldn't, but you sure as fuck cant say that it helped to have a handfull of pathetic anarchists whinning and *****ing about their commander (who knows about millitary strategy) giving them orders during times of war and creating factionalism with the rest of the coalition because they didn't approve of their opportunistic pipe dreams at the moment.

More grotesque ignorance and slander. Why don't you at least take the trouble to read three or four histories of the Spanish Civil War? I know, that's a silly question, isn't it? If you actually learned some of the details of that conflict, it would blow all your stupid stereotypes and mythology about anarchists right out of the water. In fact, you'd find that even the Spanish Trotskyists were better than the bourgeois ass-kissing "Communist" Party of Spain that you support.

And you don't want that, do you?

Can you please name one accomplishment by libertarian socialists that Marxist/Leninists haven't done? All you seem to do is slag off socialist states but not defend your own position.

Can you please name one of your "socialist states" that stays socialist? Can you please name one of your beloved "democratic centralist" parties that hasn't produced a crop of "traitors"?

Libertarian communists and anarchists are, in your eyes, "losers" and unworthy of respect...where are your victories? Even when you Leninists win a modicum of support from the working class, your arrogant authoritarianism pisses away your gains as fast as you make them. Even on those rare occasions when you actually succeed in seizing state power "on behalf of the workers", you transform yourselves into a new ruling (capitalist) class within a generation or two.

That's history, dammit, do you dare to deny it?

Again using authoritarian elements to childishly equate Marxist/Leninism with something completely irrelevant. Tell me, if a soldier dosen't want to make an attack at a strategic time and position because his ass is too lazy, what is better, what the commander say's or his "own wishes"?

If you are the "commander", then the soldier's revolutionary duty is "to turn his gun on his officers"! Why the hell should he put his ass on the line so that a tin-pot despot-wannabe like yourself can become Imperial Commissar?

Assuming that you are representative of MIM, it's pretty obvious that your arrogance is right out in the open, plain for all to see. You think you, or at least your movement, has an inherent right to rule.

I can't deny that such a message "resonates" with certain types...people who, for one reason or another, find that increasing their personal status and prestige is blocked by the constraints of the capitalist system.

But if you imagine, even in your wildest dreams, that communist revolution is going to be your personal "road to glory"...man, are you going to be disappointed.

The most you guys can hope for is to end up as a pimple on the ass of the revolution...which, when it becomes sufficiently irritating, will be squeezed.

:cool:

PS: You never did respond to that "all sex is rape under patriarchy" line. Too embarrassed to admit that MIM enforces a vow of celibacy on its membership?

[Friederich Engels]

i agree with Bvush and el brujo on the fact that the reason the sssr and peples republec of china are capitalist is becuase of people like Kruschev and Xaoiping. they both brought rivisionism that destroyed both countries. but still Stalin was a mad man, but some of the things they say about him are ridicolus.

for example that he admired hitler?! that is just stupid. how can a communist admire a fascist? i dont think you no this but hitler HATED communist and marxians because marx was a jewish and hitler thouht communism was a jew conspiracys because many bolsheviks were jews. so it is simply ridiculos to think hitler woud of admired stalin or vice a versa.

[elijahcraig]

I didn't say they admired each others political philosophies, I said they admired how the other carried our their particular brand of oppression.

El Brujo
Here's a few facts for you:
Modern History Sourcebook:
Stalin's Purges, 1935

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1936, Stalin began to attack his political opponents in a series of" purges" aimed at destroying the vestiges of political opposition to him. What follows is the official explanation from textbooks published before Stalin's excesses were repudiated by his successors.


The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.

But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.

They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes - the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.

These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand. subversive activities against the workers and peasants.

At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to lay down their arms.

Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.

On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.

The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.

S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.

The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.

The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty - to be shot.

Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimo and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.

To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.

The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.

As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang....

The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.

The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members....

Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee, under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage - the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.


From History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course (Moscow,1948),pp.324-327,329.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you are saying..."It's alright if you are terrorized and murdered for no good reason...as long as it is done under the name of communism!" Now, that is a doctrine of idiocy.

Another article:
Josef Stalin

Stalin's Biography
Stalin, Joseph (1879-1953)

Stalin, a political name adopted when he was 34, meaning Man of Steel, studied for the priesthood under his real name, Dzhugashvili. Son of a shoemaker, he joined the Social Democratic party after being expelled from a theological school for insubordination. After the RSDLP split in 1903, Stalin became a member of the Bolshevik party.

In Stalin's early years he was continually in trouble with the local authorities. During this period he took the nickname Koba, after the famous Georgian outlaw and the name of a character in the romance "Nunu", by the Georgian author Kazbek. The celebrated brigand Koba was known as a fighter for the the rights of the people, while the fictional Koba was depicted as sacrificing everything in his struggle against the Tsarist authorities on behalf of his people, but unsuccesful, freedom was lost.

Koba escaped prison exile several times, at his last escape he fled to St. Petersburg, where he became a member of the editorial staff of Pravda in 1912. Within a year, Stalin was arrested again and exiled to Siberia. He was released from exile by general amnesty after the February Revolution of 1917, and went back to the editorial staff of Pravda in Petrograd.

After the October Revolution Stalin was elected to the post of commissar for nationalities. Throughout the following civil war, Stalin ascended the ranks of the government through extensive bureaucratic manoeuvering and in 1922, received the majority vote to become the General Secretary of the Communist party. In the same year Lenin called for his removal, explaining that Stalin had amassed to much power, in what was to become known as Lenin's last testament.

Following Lenin's death in 1924, a wave of reaction swept through the Soviet government. Stalin introduced his theory of socialism in one country, where he explained that Socialism could be achieved by a single country.

Unlike former inner-party debates, where the positions of either side were written in newspapers, talked about in public meetings and soviets; the reaction and practices of the long and devastating civil war, caused a 'debate' that was completely hidden from the public, in order to 'establish the appearance' of a healthy, stable, government.

In 1927, after years of bureaucratic manoeuvering, the members in the government that were part of the Left Opposition were deported on a wide scale. Immediately following, Stalin announced his theory of social fascism, describing that the theories of Social-Democracy and Fascism were essentially the same. Following this new theory, members of Social-Democratic organisations (of which Bolsheviks were once a part) were arrested or deported. In 1929 the right-wing of the Communist party, led by Bukharin, was removed from the so-called "soviet" government by the Stalinists.

In late 1928, Stalin introduced methods of productively advancing the Soviet Union via forced industrialisation and collectivisation. These efforts were tasked out in five year plans, the first of which included a widescale campaign of mass executions, arrests, and deportations of the kulak class.

Russia advanced tremendously from the draconian measures implemented to ensure that "socialism in one country" could survive. Russia moved from complete devastation and destruction after WWI and the Civil War, to become a nation that was one of the most powerful in the world: achieving such goals that 30 years previous would have been viewed as wholly impossible.

From 1934 to 1939 Stalin ordered a series of executions and imprisonments, largely directed towards people within the Soviet government. Half of the members of the first Council of Peoples Commissars were executed in 1938 (A quarter of them had died natural deaths before hand, of the remaining quarter only Stalin lived past 1942). Some government officials executed were thought to be Nazi agents or sympathisers, while others were accused for planning to overthrow the Soviet government. Members of the Left Opposition who were allowed to return to the party after accepting Stalinism were soon executed, those who remained abroad were hunted down and killed. Also executed were people belonging to the right-wing of the party (Bukharin and others). The exact number of people executed is not known, estimates range from thousands to millions.

During WWII Stalin organised and lead the Soviet Union to victory over the invading Nazi armies.

Stalin's power

During the second half of the 1920s, Joseph Stalin set the stage for gaining absolute power by employing police repression against opposition elements within the Communist Party. The machinery of coercion had previously been used only against opponents of Bolshevism, not against party members themselves. The first victims were Politburo members Leon Trotskii, Grigorii Zinov'ev, and Lev Kamenev, who were defeated and expelled from the party in late 1927. Stalin then turned against Nikolai Bukharin, who was denounced as a "right opposition," for opposing his policy of forced collectivization and rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry. Stalin had eliminated all likely potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of both party and state. Nevertheless, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and to terrorize the entire country with widespread arrests and executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin's former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison.

By the time the terror subsided in 1939, Stalin had managed to bring both the party and the public to a state of complete submission to his rule. Soviet society was so atomized and the people so fearful of reprisals that mass arrests were no longer necessary. Stalin ruled as absolute dictator of the Soviet Union throughout World War II and until his death in March 1953

[El Brujo]

"Hell, what's yours? Mine is obvious: we cannot free ourselves by setting up an "authoritarian" party to "do it for us". If you really believe otherwise, if you really believe that a new slavery will somehow "lead" to freedom, then you are a fool."

It seems hippie degenerates such as yourself care more about petty "personal freedoms" than providing the masses with decent living conditions. If you consider that to be "slavery" then you might as well move to an uninhabited island on your own. The first duty of the socialist state is to preserve its self so future generations (and possibly, current ones) can live decent lives and so it could put up in the fight against imperialism and spread socialism to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this cannot be done peacefully, but that is the case so let the firing squads begin. There is no room for bleeding hearts in a socialist revolution.

"This particular Leninist party doesn't have a "great leader" yet--but the general idea is pretty clear. Unless you wish to wallow in servility or climb the treacherous rope to the top, there's nothing for any self-respecting human being here."

Maybee for an anarchist there isn't, but for a MARXIST that knows what is best for the people, it isn't.

"More grotesque ignorance and slander. Why don't you at least take the trouble to read three or four histories of the Spanish Civil War? I know, that's a silly question, isn't it? If you actually learned some of the details of that conflict, it would blow all your stupid stereotypes and mythology about anarchists right out of the water. In fact, you'd find that even the Spanish Trotskyists were better than the bourgeois ass-kissing "Communist" Party of Spain that you support."

My grandfather was in the Spanish Civil War, pal. You are no one to lecture me about it. Ive done my research as well and I concur that the anarchists were a worthless, if not counterproductive, sect in the republican army. In fact I WAS ONE MYSELF until around the time I did research on the subject.

"Can you please name one of your "socialist states" that stays socialist? Can you please name one of your beloved "democratic centralist" parties that hasn't produced a crop of "traitors"?

Libertarian communists and anarchists are, in your eyes, "losers" and unworthy of respect...where are your victories? Even when you Leninists win a modicum of support from the working class, your arrogant authoritarianism pisses away your gains as fast as you make them. Even on those rare occasions when you actually succeed in seizing state power "on behalf of the workers", you transform yourselves into a new ruling (capitalist) class within a generation or two.

That's history, dammit, do you dare to deny it?"

"Communism would be the same as free market capitalism only with the state as the businessman"... Sounding like a capitalist, aren't we, pal? The Marxist/Leninist states that have collapsed are completely due to revisionists and imperialists, as I have said before. It is not them who weigh down the revolution.

And yet, you still haven't pointed out one accomplishment by "libertarian communists" in history that "Stalinists" haven't done. Well, what could I say, its easy to criticize but not to self-criticize. Socialist revolutions in the past have not been perfect, they have made many mistakes, and combined with western imperialism and revisionism, have been given fatal blows. But "libertarian communism" has gone NO WHERE.

"If you are the "commander", then the soldier's revolutionary duty is "to turn his gun on his officers"! Why the hell should he put his ass on the line so that a tin-pot despot-wannabe like yourself can become Imperial Commissar?"

lol. What an efficient revolution would be created if soldiers turned on their own officials. If I became a commander, it would be because I know what the fuck Im doing, and because I have experience with millitary strategy. An infantryman is simply an infantryman, nothing more. You cannot expect somebody who knows nothing about millitary strategy to make proper decisions (but apparently you condone it, because it would be part of your "civil liberties lovefest" ).

"Assuming that you are representative of MIM, it's pretty obvious that your arrogance is right out in the open, plain for all to see. You think you, or at least your movement, has an inherent right to rule.

I can't deny that such a message "resonates" with certain types...people who, for one reason or another, find that increasing their personal status and prestige is blocked by the constraints of the capitalist system.

But if you imagine, even in your wildest dreams, that communist revolution is going to be your personal "road to glory"...man, are you going to be disappointed."

More irrelevance. A true revolutionary follows his cause for the people, not for "personal glory". In fact, it is the opportunists (Trotskyists, anarchists, etc.) that are in it for self-interest as their idealistic beliefs don't include self-sacrifice. They believe there is room for nuisence in the movement, and let that get in the way of the revolution.

PS: You never did respond to that "all sex is rape under patriarchy" line. Too embarrassed to admit that MIM enforces a vow of celibacy on its membership?

I am not a member of MIM, nor do I fully agree with everything they say. They are too politically correct for my taste but they speak the truth about history and society as it stands and know how to conduct an efficient revolution.

[El Brujo]

"I didn't say they admired each others political philosophies, I said they admired how the other carried our their particular brand of oppression."

lol. Nobody "admires oppresion", and even if that were the case, it would not be a reason to "admire" the opposition for it.

Who are the authors of those writtings?

[elijahcraig]

One was off an edu. site, the other off a socialist site, I can't get the exact addresses, I'll try to find them.

They did admire how the other kept the people down and without control.

I don't really like how you put the anarchists down, the calls of "pettey bourgeois" against them are ridiculous rhetoric. Do you really think MIM has the support of the people? They are arrogant bastards who think they represent the people, when in fact they represent a small percentage of arrogant bastards. No one is going to believe a word about Stalin being a communist, it is bullshit, and if you ever get that idea through, communism is done for.

[elijahcraig]

Here's another analysis of Stalinism, from http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/stalinism.html

Stalinism


Stalinism proper is what existed in Eastern Europe and in Russia up until the 1990s. (See my article, "Socialism? But look at Russia...") For years, decades, Stalinism was a major force in the workers' movement of every country, and for many, it was the genuine inheritor of the Marxist (and Leninist) tradition. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The aim of this article is to trace the origins of Stalinism, show its disastrous impact on the international labor movment, and on the revolutionary socialist tradition in particular.

In the early 1920s, Russia was the world's first socialist country in the world, but the working class that had made the revolution had been destroyed in the civil war. Ruling in its place was the Bolshevik party - but its ranks were swelled by old functionaries and bureaucrats from the old days of the Tsar. The apparatus of the Bolshevik party was forced to substitute its own rule and its activity for the rule and activity of the a politically conscious working class. The party bureaucracy could only substitute itself for the working class for only so long without succumbing to the pressure of alien classes, or acting as a class for itself. As John Molyneux put it: "But failing the international revolution (which it did) a stark choice had eventually to be made. Either remain loyal to the theory and goal of international proletarian revolution, with the possibility of losing state power in Russia, or cling to power and abandon the theory and goal."

Without revolution in other countries, the conservative wing of the Bolshevik party, led by Joseph Stalin, began to take power within the party. This process of degeneration did not go unchecked - a faction called the Left Opposition, led by Leon Trotsky, began to fight the rising Stalinist bureacracy. The issue around which the two factions crystallized was the slogan, "socialism in one country".

After the German Communist Party failed to lead the working class to power during the economic crisis of 1923, Stalin and the bureaucracy began to reject the notion of international workers' revolution altogether, instead favoring building a strong nation state that could keep the imperialist powers at bay. Yet international revolution had always been (and always will be) part of the revolutionary socialist program, from Marx to Lenin. Lenin himself emphasized again and again and again that the Russian Revolution was the first step of world socialist revolution. In fact, he stated explicity: "Without revolution in Germany, we are finished."

The bureaucracy wanted "socialism in country" because it didn't want to endanger its hold on state power with international revolutionary "adventures", which might provoke the intervention by the major powers. In order to hold off the more advanced capitalist countries, Russia had to develop an industrial base sufficient to compete with them. To do this, workers and peasants were forced into labor camps and surplus was forcibily extracted from them and re-invested in heavy industry and armaments.

The new ruling class used Marxist and Leninist phraseology to justify what it was doing, but it couldn't leave either intact. Leninism was and is a practice-oriented doctrine; its goal is to change the world, to win workers' control over society. Stalinism twisted Leninism into an official state religion, an unchangeable dogma, and sucked the life out of it, transforming its goal of winning workers' power to justifying workers' powerlessness. What Lenin wrote about the watering down of Marx's ideas became applicable to himself:
During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes
have visited relentless persecution on them and received their
teaching with the most savage hostility, the most furious hatred,
the most ruthless campaign of lies and slanders. After their death,
attempts are made to turn them into harmless icons, cannonise them,
and surround their names with a certain halo for the "consolation" of
the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the, while at the
same time emasculating and vulgarising the real essence of their
revolutionary theories and their revolutionary edge.

Stalinism did precisely that to Lenin's ideas.

The Marxist idea that the state will wither away after the working class takes power, was flipped upside-down. Now, the state's power would grow uninterruptedly into a monstrosity. Stalin argued that because there was socialism in only one country, the strength of the state had to grow, whereas as Marx and Engels envisioned socialism being an international phenonmenon. Molyneux puts it aptly: "It was the kind of circular argument that works well when anyone who points out its circularity is a candidate for the firing squad."

Yet if Russia was a classless society, it couldn't be a workers' state; if there are no classes, then it can't be a class state. So the Stalinist bureacracy claimed that it was a state of the "people" for the same reason the capitalist claim that their state represents the "entire people" - to hide the fact that it is their state, and that they are the ruling class.

The theory of imperialism, developed by Luxemburg, Lenin, and Bukharin, was also the victim of Stalinization. The Marxist theory of imperialism holds as one of its basic principles that capitalism has established a world economy, and that the world economy is stronger than any one of its parts (nation states). In other words, no country could be utterly self-sufficient and play by totally different rules than the rest of the world economy. "Socialism in one country" of course contradicted this; and the Marxist theory of imperialism was reduced to plain-and-simple anti-colonialism.

These devlopments were disastrous not only for Russia's working class, but for the workers' movement the world over.

The Communist International was founded in 1919 as an instrument to lead the working class to power the world over; it was formed after the Second International betrayed the working class when every national section voted for "their" government's war budget in WWI. Thus, it was formed on the bedrock of internationalism.

It was a centralized world workers' revolutionary party; different national groups were sections of the world party. The Russian section, from its founding, dominated the Comintern - and rightfully so. Who else could say "we have done it, we have led a workers' revolution"? The Russian leaders had enormous prestige and authority, which was a positive thing because free debate and discussion permeated the early years of the Comintern. There were vigorous debates about ultra-leftism, compromises, the trade-unions, the role of the Communist party, the revolutionary newspaper, the party's position on the colonies, and many other subjects.

But after the Communist parties were defeated and capitalism regrained its footing in the years after 1919-1923, the Russian revolution was left isolated; this weakened and undermined the self-confidence of these parties, especially their leaderships. The prestige and authority of the Russian section - a natural and unavoiable phenomenon - combined with the failure of all the other parties led every party of the Comintern to rely very heavily on the Russian opinion. Esssentially, "the Russians are always right" became the modus operandi for the national sections. Debates in the Comintern degenerated in verbose phrase-mongering and leader praising.

As the Stalinist faction gained power within the Russian party, its influence spread through the Comintern to the other parties. Soon enough, the Russian section was bureaucratically controlling the leadership and policies of every other section; when it couldn't, there were expulsions, and even "disappearances" when leaders of various CPs were summoned to Moscow.

The Comintern was no longer an instrument of world workers' revolution; it was a mechanism to help the ruling class hold onto state power. "Socialism in one country" meant that world revolution was not a burning necessity guiding the activities of the party - it was an optional extra that was paid homage occasionally, but it was left to the far, far, misty future. The role of CPs around the world was not to lead the working class to seize power, but to act as reformist pressure groups on their respective ruling classes to prevent an invasion of the USSR. To paraphrase Trotsky, they were transformed from being revolutionary vanguards to Stalin's border guards.

Stalinist influence caused the defeat of the Chinese workers' revolution in 1925-1927; allowed the fascists to win in Spain (see my article, "Lessons of Spain"); muted and helped contain class struggle in France and the U.S. in the 1930s Worst of all, the German Communist Party (KPD) viewed the Social-Democrats as greater evil than the Nazis - and so refused joint action to stop the fascists. In the 1960s, the Indonesian Communist Party supported President Sukarno and the military, which turned on them and slaughtered as many as one million workers and peasants. During Salvador Allende's Presidency in Chile in the early 70s, the Chilean Communist party was for the "parliamentary road to socialism" and opposed workers' councils that formed. Like their Indonesian counterparts, they sought an alliance with the military - until General Pinochet destroyed the revolution and killed over 75,000 people.

Despite these criminal betrayals, every defeat of the working class strengthened Stalinism. As Tony Cliff put it:
There have been strong links binding the international Communist movement
to Moscow. For a long time it suffered one setback after another: in
Germany over and over again from the defeat of the revolution in 1918 to
the rise of Hitler; in China the defeat of the 1925-1927 revolution; the
defeat of the Republic in the Spanish Civil War; the debacle of the
People's Front in France, etc., etc. The only Communist Party maintaining
power was that in Russia. If man's weakness in [the] face of the forces of
nature or society lead[s] to his imbibing the opiate of religion with its
promise of a better world to come, Stalinism certainly became the opiate
of the international labor movement during the long period of suffering
and impotence.

Yet the theory of "socialism in one country" - namely, Russia - also had another tendency within it: the tendency towards nationalism. Leon Trotsky saw this tendency decades before it came to pass. He wrote that, "If it is possible to believe in the theory of socialism in one country, then one can believe it not only after but before the conquest of power. ... It will be the beginning of the disintegration of the Comintern along the lines of social-patriotism."

With the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, the nationalist patriotic tendency was boosted enormously. The parties in the West strained might and main to contain worker-militancy; in the U.S. the CP was the leading force behind the "no-strike" pledge during the war (the main force besides the American capitalist class and its warmongers, that is). During the McCarthy era, in which communist militants were fired, blacklisted, and systematically eliminated from the unions in the U.S., the CP tried to paint itself as "patriotic" - in favor of the Star Spangled Banner, the flag, and "being American"!

The centrifugal pressures in the world Communist movement exploded after Tito and Mao came to power in Yugoslavia and China, respectively, totally independently of Moscow. Now, rival "communist" ruling classes began to fight with each other. China and Russia had border skirmishes - which side to take when two "communist" countries were engaged in a territorial dispute was a contradiction that many rank-and-file party members saw. As a result of these conflicts, "Maoism" emerged in the 60s as a "revolutionary" alternative to Stalinism.

Stalin died in 1953, and Kruschev gave a speech in 1956 announcing that Stalin had "abused power" and "made mistakes" - something the world (and the Trotskyists in particular) had known for years. Also in 1956, Hungarian workers rose up, forming workers' councils and fighting against Russian tanks sent by the "reformer" Kruschev, proving that the old Stalinism was the same as the new. The monolith was shattered forever. Party after party hemorraged - thousands who lived through the zigzags and flip-flops in the "party line" during and after WWII - only to see that everything they had thought about Russia was false, and that the "lying capitalist press" wasn't lying about the actual state of affairs Russia.

The process of degeneration has gone so far that today the American Communist Party has abandoned indepedent working class politics even in name - its newspaper is the "People's Weekly World", instead of the "Workers' Weekly World"; it has backed the Democratic Party as the "lesser evil" in every presidential election for almost the last 60 years; it calls for the U.N. and the "international community" to "fight terrorism." Lenin, in his day, would have labelled this CP reformist, bourgeois-pacifist. In France, the French Communist Party calls for tighter immigration controls (the "lesser evil" to the fascist Le Pen's program of extermination and ethnic cleansing); the Communist Party of Italy voted to drop the name "communist" altogether, even though the fact that the PCI was not communist or revolutionary was an open secret for decades.

For almost 60 years, revolutionary socialists had to deal with mass Stalinist parties, parties made up of people who saw themselves as revolutionaries, many of whom were among the best working class fighters of their generation, but whose politics and practice held back work militancy. The rulers of the East and the West almost succeeded in suffocating and burying the real Marxist tradition of socialism from below, the self-emancipation of the working class.

The collapse of Stalinism has created a tremendous opening for the ideas of genuine socialism. The weight of dead generations no longer weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living.