Leninism vs. Stalinism

[Rhyknow]

So, i've heard about leninism and stalinism... I'm just wondering what the differences are between them? Is Stalinism more of a tyrannical government? No offense intended, but the way i heard Stalin went around running the USSR, sounds a lil... harsh.

Can someone tell me the difference?

Thanks

[Rollo]

MOTHERLAAAAAND! :hammer:


The relationship between Stalinism and Leninism is disputed. "Continuity theorists" believe that Stalinism was the logical conclusion of Leninism, and that there are more similarities than differences between the two. Others argue that Stalinism marked a fundamental break with the legacy of Lenin and Marxism-Leninism as practised up to that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#Sta...hip_to_Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#Stalinism.27s_relationship_to_Leninism)

[rouchambeau]

The big difference is the question of internationalism. Stalinists believe in socialism in one country while Leninists believe in more of an internationalist approach.

[Wanted Man]

BS.

1: Neither Lenin, Stalin nor other Marxist-Leninists have ever claimed that socialism can only be built in one country.
2: Socialism in one country did not come from opposition to internationalism, but because of the conditions in the USSR right after the revolution. Trying to invade other countries without building up the USSR would have been devastating.
3: While socialism was being built up, the USSR still gave its support to revolutionary movements all over the world.
4: Lenin himself believed it perfectly possible for socialism to be built up in several countries, or only one, at a time.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:42 PM
So, i've heard about leninism and stalinism... I'm just wondering what the differences are between them? Is Stalinism more of a tyrannical government? No offense intended, but the way i heard Stalin went around running the USSR, sounds a lil... harsh.

Can someone tell me the difference?

Thanks
Leninism is the ideology written by lenin as an extension to marxism which claims that in order for there to be a successful revolution, workers and communists need to organize into a party zhich is run through democratic principles. The party is a vanguard party which means it's the center of reolutionary action.

Stalinism is a ruthless tyrannical perversion of leninism which is more of a critiscism made by trotskyists than an ideology in it's self.

[Labor Shall Rule]

When Maoists attempt to justify many things that Stalin has done, they pretend that he was nothing but a gift that arised magically out of the CP and saved Russia, still killing many people, but saved Russia nevertheless. Though we cannot doubt that his vast industrialization programs probably benefited millions of people, and most likely benefited Russian civillization, we still need to ask if it benefited socialism.

Stalin destroyed the self-determination of many Siberian and Far East cultures, sending whole tribes to the infamous Gulag. You can't ignore what he did to the Chechens, or even the Jews in Ukraine. He shutdown remaining marxist newspapers, killed off former architects of the revolution, and ruthlessly went on to slaughter workers in many occasions. He allowed foreign capital to flow into the country easier, signing many trade treaties with capitalist countries. Wages were cut down for workers in order to encourage productivity, but the party hierarchy continued to receive the wealth produced by those workers. Capitalism anyone? Extravagant projects were opened in Moscow for party members, while millions of people still layed in homeless poverty. He even went as far to illegalize homosexuality, slaughtering off a whole sexual orientation within Russia.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:49 PM
When Maoists attempt to justify many things that Stalin has done, they pretend that he was nothing but a gift that arised magically out of the CP and saved Russia, still killing many people, but saved Russia nevertheless. Though we cannot doubt that his vast industrialization programs probably benefited millions of people, and most likely benefited Russian civillization, we still need to ask if it benefited socialism.

Stalin destroyed the self-determination of many Siberian and Far East cultures, sending whole tribes to the infamous Gulag. You can't ignore what he did to the Chechens, or even the Jews in Ukraine. He shutdown remaining marxist newspapers, killed off former architects of the revolution, and ruthlessly went on to slaughter workers in many occasions. He allowed foreign capital to flow into the country easier, signing many trade treaties with capitalist countries. Wages were cut down for workers in order to encourage productivity, but the party hierarchy continued to receive the wealth produced by those workers. Capitalism anyone? Extravagant projects were opened in Moscow for party members, while millions of people still layed in homeless poverty. He even went as far to illegalize homosexuality, slaughtering off a whole sexual orientation within Russia.
But you forget the reputqtion he gave communism, people's gut reqction when they think about communism is Stalin and his Gulags. People are utterly close minded towards communism because of Stalin's atrocities. Also, he stole all worker power and beaurcratized the state. Sure, Stalin industrialized Russia but I don't think it was worth the cost.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Aug 25 2006, 09:12 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Aug 25 2006, 09:12 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 08:49 PM
When Maoists attempt to justify many things that Stalin has done, they pretend that he was nothing but a gift that arised magically out of the CP and saved Russia, still killing many people, but saved Russia nevertheless. Though we cannot doubt that his vast industrialization programs probably benefited millions of people, and most likely benefited Russian civillization, we still need to ask if it benefited socialism.

Stalin destroyed the self-determination of many Siberian and Far East cultures, sending whole tribes to the infamous Gulag. You can't ignore what he did to the Chechens, or even the Jews in Ukraine. He shutdown remaining marxist newspapers, killed off former architects of the revolution, and ruthlessly went on to slaughter workers in many occasions. He allowed foreign capital to flow into the country easier, signing many trade treaties with capitalist countries. Wages were cut down for workers in order to encourage productivity, but the party hierarchy continued to receive the wealth produced by those workers. Capitalism anyone? Extravagant projects were opened in Moscow for party members, while millions of people still layed in homeless poverty. He even went as far to illegalize homosexuality, slaughtering off a whole sexual orientation within Russia.
But you forget the reputqtion he gave communism, people's gut reqction when they think about communism is Stalin and his Gulags. People are utterly close minded towards communism because of Stalin's atrocities. Also, he stole all worker power and beaurcratized the state. Sure, Stalin industrialized Russia but I don't think it was worth the cost. [/b]
I know. I agree with you brother.

[rouchambeau]

BS.

1: Neither Lenin, Stalin nor other Marxist-Leninists have ever claimed that socialism can only be built in one country.
Stalin did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin...lin_as_theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Stalin_as_theorist)

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:21 AM

BS.

1: Neither Lenin, Stalin nor other Marxist-Leninists have ever claimed that socialism can only be built in one country.
Stalin did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin...lin_as_theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Stalin_as_theorist)
Yes, but where did he denounce internationalism? Where did he state that no other countries should ever become socialist?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, you can start off with his encouragement of Communist Parties to pursue good relations with the capitalist system; entering parliaments and adopting a more social democratic policy. The Communist Parties of Europe and the United States are perfect examples. You can examine how trade relations with other capitalist European countries boomed after Stalin rose to power, with foreign capital starting to flow into Russia. You can examine how he sided with the most anti-socialist group in the world: The Nazis, allowing them to train troops and test weapons within Russian territory, maximizing trade, and even pariticpating in a imperialist millitary exercise of invading the Baltic States and half of Poland.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Aug 26 2006, 05:10 AM--> (Matthijs @ Aug 26 2006, 05:10 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 02:21 AM

BS.

1: Neither Lenin, Stalin nor other Marxist-Leninists have ever claimed that socialism can only be built in one country.
Stalin did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin...lin_as_theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Stalin_as_theorist)
Yes, but where did he denounce internationalism? Where did he state that no other countries should ever become socialist? [/b]
Stalin never repudiated internationalism. The question as you rightly put it, is whether Lenin would have rejected the attempt to 'build socialism in one country'. I think the answer is 'no' - and neither would Trotsky had he been in Stalin's place.

Nevertheless, we need to ask important questions about how Stalin went about building socialism. The liquidation of the revolutionary generation; his appointment of opportunist careerists into important positions; the with-holding of true workers democracy; the enforced, bureaucratised command economy; the chauvenistic and politically mistaken foreign policy... Did these push the Soviet Union in a socialist direction or enhance the forces of international revolution?

A secondary question is would Lenin or Trotsky have done things differently? It's an impossible question in relation to Lenin, but Trotsky's writings in opposition throughout the 1930s give us a glimpse of the differences between the Stalinist position and Trotsky's. In this respect, Trotsky's internationalism shines brighter than Stalin's. But then Trotsky had the luxury of not being in power and in those circumstances it's much easier to maintain a pure line. However, one crucial difference was in the analysis of the the Nazis and the German situation. Trotsky's analysis was much clearer than the one coming from the Soviet Union and, it could be argued, if the USSR's (and German Communist Party) policy had been driven by Trotsky's analysis, the Nazis could have been stopped and the forces of proletarian revolution strengthened.

Stalin's policy in Spain was similarly a disaster and another opportunity to spread workers power was wasted.

The second half of the twentieth century might have been much different.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 26 2006, 04:49 PM

A secondary question is would Lenin or Trotsky have done things differently? It's an impossible question in relation to Lenin, but Trotsky's writings in opposition throughout the 1930s give us a glimpse of the differences between the Stalinist position and Trotsky's. In this respect, Trotsky's internationalism shines brighter than Stalin's. But then Trotsky had the luxury of not being in power and in those circumstances it's much easier to maintain a pure line.
Well even when trotsky was still in power before stalin came to power he was starting to say "okay, we've finally established ourselves on solid ground, so leds listen to what the left opposition is saying". If Trotsky had risen to power, the USSR would truly be a worker's state because he was a believer in workers control of production. However, the USSR might not've become an industrialized super power the way it did under Stalin. Who knows what history would be like if Trotsky was elected to power instead of Stalin? It's impossible to predict

[stevensen]

trotsky the so holy saint!! he accuses stalin of lack of principles. and look at saint trotsky himself.....first against zinoviev and kamenev then with them,,all his high morals and principles must have stung him so much making an unholy alliance with them but hey this is trotsky not stalin...whatever he does is oh so good and moral!and then again against them...that is his moral
as for the gulags, the number of prisoners in the US at any point of timewas always higher than those in the gulags..off course that doesnot mean that us presidents were more evil than stalin..off course mistakes were made..innocent people got jailed but that happens till date anywhere..but all innocent people jailed must be because of stalin at that time otherwise it is juat a bad distortion that needs correction...
trotsky is a defeatist and cribber.
stalin with all his faults was still stalin..destined to win over the nazis and build the soviet union ino the second most impressive economic power...
i refer you the february issue ofwww.northstarcompass.org, where you will find the lie of stalin's killings exposed. and by the way even by the UN standards sadist murderer stalin who wiped put an entire generation still managed to have the highest life expectancy ever in russia till date..when glorious capitalism has improved so much!!
quite how this is possible inspite of stalin being the generation wiper is well a trotskyist paradigm

[PRC-UTE]

the difference is mostly in the area of facial hair.

a neatly trimmed goatee is leninist.

the really big moustache - that's stalinist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 05:13 AM

...as for the gulags, the number of prisoners in the US at any point of timewas always higher than those in the gulags..off course that doesnot mean that us presidents were more evil than stalin..off course mistakes were made..innocent people got jailed but that happens till date anywhere..but all innocent people jailed must be because of stalin at that time otherwise it is juat a bad distortion that needs correction...

Difference is that US prisoners are mostly rapists, murderer, and etc... The people in Stalin&#39;s gulag were mostly people speaking there mind <_<

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 05:13 AM
trotsky the so holy saint&#33;&#33; he accuses stalin of lack of principles. and look at saint trotsky himself.....first against zinoviev and kamenev then with them,,all his high morals and principles must have stung him so much making an unholy alliance with them but hey this is trotsky not stalin...whatever he does is oh so good and moral&#33;and then again against them...that is his moral
as for the gulags, the number of prisoners in the US at any point of timewas always higher than those in the gulags..off course that doesnot mean that us presidents were more evil than stalin..off course mistakes were made..innocent people got jailed but that happens till date anywhere..but all innocent people jailed must be because of stalin at that time otherwise it is juat a bad distortion that needs correction...
trotsky is a defeatist and cribber.
stalin with all his faults was still stalin..destined to win over the nazis and build the soviet union ino the second most impressive economic power...
i refer you the february issue ofwww.northstarcompass.org, where you will find the lie of stalin&#39;s killings exposed. and by the way even by the UN standards sadist murderer stalin who wiped put an entire generation still managed to have the highest life expectancy ever in russia till date..when glorious capitalism has improved so much&#33;&#33;
quite how this is possible inspite of stalin being the generation wiper is well a trotskyist paradigm
"trotsky the so holy saint&#33;&#33; he accuses stalin of lack of principles. and look at saint trotsky himself.....first against zinoviev and kamenev then with them,,all his high morals and principles must have stung him so much making an unholy alliance with them but hey this is trotsky not stalin...whatever he does is oh so good and moral&#33;and then again against them...that is his moral"

Ridiculous. Everyone jumped from political faction to political faction during that period of revolution within the Russia. You needed to compromise and build strength in order to encourage a successful advancement towards socialism. Both Zinoviev and Kamenev sided against Lenin once against his position on the war with Germany, sided with Stalin, then finally sided against Stalin and the growing bureaucracy towards the end of their lives. Lenin even rebelled against his own party; threatening to leave unless everyone agreed to signing a peace treaty with Germany. We can point at anyone within the Bolshevik Party using this argument against him.

"as for the gulags, the number of prisoners in the US at any point of timewas always higher than those in the gulags..off course that doesnot mean that us presidents were more evil than stalin..off course mistakes were made..innocent people got jailed but that happens till date anywhere..but all innocent people jailed must be because of stalin at that time otherwise it is juat a bad distortion that needs correction..."

Not really. I think that they are close to being the same. Using the generalization that "innocent people got killed", certainly does not justify what he has done. Whole ethnic groups were sent to the gulags (Jews, Chechens, Kazakis, etc.), where many perished. I could really go on, but all of you Maoists tend to call it "lies".

"trotsky is a defeatist and cribber."

How? He emphasized that internationalism and a millitant armed working class was the key to moving towards socialism; all which was denied within Stalinist Russia. I like to consider Stalin a "defeatist" since he allowed vast amounts of foreign capital to flow into the Soviet Union, forced labor unions and leftist political parties across the world to work cooperatively with the bourgeois system, allowed foreign imperialist armies to train on Russian soil (The Nazis and Nationalist Chinese were perfect examples), and he imprisoned revolutionary leaders while purging the party of any radicals.

"stalin with all his faults was still stalin..destined to win over the nazis and build the soviet union ino the second most impressive economic power..."

Is being a economic power the best example of socialism in practice?

[stevensen]

left henry says most people in the US jails were rapists while most in stalins prisons were all political opponents. i wonder where he got to know all these &#39;facts&#39;
the ussr at that time was engaged in a desperate bid for survival fighting alone against the spies of the us , britain and hitler. measures taken to arrest saboteurs and spies were justified at that time. a country fledgling is ranged against the most powerful on earth and yet they compare the two situatins as similar. that beats me. remember france fell to htiler without a fight and a big role was played by spies implnted by the third reich. if they could have they would have taken hitler as an ally and wiped off the union from tye map. off course mistakes were made officials abused their position but to abscribe all to stalin is childish..like blamimg the us president for every police abuse that happens today in the us. now let us take henry&#39;s acknowledgment that prisoner levels were more or less equal. it is very starnge. the equation is something like this:
us(normal offenders)=ussr(normal offenders+spies+political dissenters) and yet the levels were still the same&#33; how amazing&#33; and remember the ussr needed to imprison more of spies, those of us+britain+hitler. maybe stalin embraced rapists or foreign spies, a charge even i have never heard till date, to keep the levels equal.
quote red dali[Ridiculous. Everyone jumped from political faction to political faction during that period of revolution within the Russia. You needed to compromise and build strength in order to encourage a successful advancement towards socialism. Both Zinoviev and Kamenev sided against Lenin once against his position on the war with Germany, sided with Stalin, then finally sided against Stalin and the growing bureaucracy towards the end of their lives. Lenin even rebelled against his own party; threatening to leave unless everyone agreed to signing a peace treaty with Germany. We can point at anyone within the Bolshevik Party using this argument against him.
]
anyone is allowed to jum political factions escept stalin. when trotsky does it, its a compromise nad building of strength when stalin does it it is sin. when stalin allied with hitler after being rejected by britain and the us it was teh great betrayal but he did exactly whar red dali says, build up strength. the rules seemed changed when stalin is concerned when trotsky does it oh god&#33; what an astute and politically clever act it becomes&#33;&#33; this is two faced and hypocritical
your assertion that stalin allowed forign capital to flow into russia makes capitalists laugh, what can i say about me? and your assertion that he created a bourgeoise regime is false. what then did khruschev do? exactly what you ascribe to stalin but hey no one can blame khruschev beacuse he read out the secret speech againts stalin&#33; the men who denounced stalin were the ones who created the bourgeoise regime
and off course we will continue to call lies as lies we need proof not your bourgeosie pictures and vituperations but proof from the UN which says that life expectancy under stalin was the highest till date&#33; (red dali forgot to challenge that one) that is proof&#33; not writing papers abput how sickly and bastrd stalin was. and by the way check out the link i pasted and there ypu will find an exact calculation of life expectancy under stalina nd see the difference. till date no one has ever replied to the claculations posted there.
and pray if economic might of the kind that is not called socialism what else is? an economy where education , healthcare and social security was for all. with stalin wrecking everything we still managed to send the first man, woman, satellite in space...and our tanks were able to stop hitler...pary what does trotsky have to show in return?

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:49 PM
He even went as far to illegalize homosexuality, slaughtering off a whole sexual orientation within Russia.
I&#39;ve read before and it might be wrong, that this was something that was voted on by the people, as opposed to Stalin just deciding that it should be illegal? Although it can&#39;t be condoned, it was a different period in time and everything has to be taken within it&#39;s social context.

[metalero]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+August 31, 2006 06:05 pm--> (LeftyHenry &#064; August 31, 2006 06:05 pm)
[email protected] 31 2006, 05:13 AM

...as for the gulags, the number of prisoners in the US at any point of timewas always higher than those in the gulags..off course that doesnot mean that us presidents were more evil than stalin..off course mistakes were made..innocent people got jailed but that happens till date anywhere..but all innocent people jailed must be because of stalin at that time otherwise it is juat a bad distortion that needs correction...

Difference is that US prisoners are mostly rapists, murderer, and etc... The people in Stalin&#39;s gulag were mostly people speaking there mind <_< [/b]
Not only that, a lot a people were themselves communist and prominent bolsheviks&#33;

[Sindorin]

I&#39;d just like to state that Lenin didn&#39;t neccessarily advocate an out and out Armed invasion of every country. Alot of his emphasis on a Global Socialist Revolution was through funding to othe rCommunist Cells, ( Germany, France etc; )

[Whitten]

Whats with the Necro?

And hey, LeftHenry did used to be a Trot