How do Stalinists and Maoists justify the purges? [Archive]

The Author

8th October 2006, 22:47

"So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity ail sects are essentially reactionary. Nevertheless what history has shown everywhere was repeated within the International. The antiquated makes an attempt to re-establish and maintain itself within the newly achieved form."

--Karl Marx, "Letter to Friedrich Bolte in New York," 1871.

"To purge the Party it is very important to take the suggestions of the non-Party working people into consideration. It will produce big results. It will make the Party a much stronger vanguard of the class than it was before; it will make it a vanguard that is more strongly bound up with the class, more capable of leading it to victory amidst a mass of difficulties and dangers."

--Vladimir Lenin, "Purging the Party," 1921.

---

Essentially, as history has shown, whenever there is a successful revolutionary movement at the head of the class struggle, opportunist elements attempt to hijack the movement to suit their own interests. And it is for this reason that purges are necessary.

Leo

8th October 2006, 22:50

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)They call the purged people "counter-revolutionaries". That's the only trick they got, and it really did get old.[/b]

Criticize
Essentially, as history has shown, whenever there is a successful revolutionary movement at the head of the class struggle, opportunist elements attempt to hijack the movement to suit their own interests. And it is for this reason that purges are necessary.

See?

The Author

8th October 2006, 22:56

All true Marxists are aware of the trend of opportunism, Leo. Even Marx and Engels noticed this trend in their debates with the Anarchists.

Marukusu

8th October 2006, 23:24

How do Stalinists and Maoists justify the purges?

How do you justify Trotsky's massacres during the Russian Civil War?

Leo

8th October 2006, 23:30

All true Marxists are aware of the trend of opportunism, Leo.

:) The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists or simply political rivals. What guides this 'justification' is an unshakeable faith you have in the dear leader who was responsible for purges.

Mesijs

8th October 2006, 23:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:25 PM

How do Stalinists and Maoists justify the purges?

How do you justify Trotsky's massacres during the Russian Civil War?
Maybe he doesn't. And that't not even the question, make another topic if you like. Now answer the question.

OneBrickOneVoice

9th October 2006, 00:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:25 PM

How do Stalinists and Maoists justify the purges?

How do you justify Trotsky's massacres during the Russian Civil War?

you mean khronsdat? Very different and off topic.

The Author

9th October 2006, 06:48

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] Oct 8 2006, 04:31 PM
The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists or simply political rivals.

Some of the people purged might not have deserved it, and then there were most likely people who were rightfully purged. Of that I can be certain. I don't have access to the documents of those who were purged. But then, I sincerely doubt you do either. Yet you are quick to pass judgment and dismiss the entire event as 100% bad. How can you really be certain that the purges were 100% bad?

What guides this 'justification' is an unshakeable faith you have in the dear leader who was responsible for purges.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe in the cult of personality as you are assuming. See, as someone who tries to study the history of the USSR and the other socialist countries and tries to study the current events of the conditions in the former socialist and present socialist countries, I believe that what was performed in practice was correct and that the Soviet Union throughout the first half of the twentieth century was on the correct course towards Communism. What actually guides my justification is the fact that as history shows in practice, sooner or later when the revolutionary movement becomes more successful, the enemies of the working class will do their very best to try to disorganize the movement and spread confusion by hiding among the ranks of the organizations. The Bolshevik Communists were able to purge the counterrevolutionary elements until the Khrushchevite revisionists seized power- then you notice changes in the conditions of society towards a gradual restoration of capitalism. Because of such changes, in practice it appears that the purges were necessary.

kaaos_af

9th October 2006, 13:43

Shame everyone hated them so much and lost heart in socialism in the process.

Leo

9th October 2006, 15:39

Some of the people purged might not have deserved it, and then there were most likely people who were rightfully purged. Of that I can be certain.

How or why?

I don't have access to the documents of those who were purged. But then, I sincerely doubt you do either.

You are, of course, right. I don't have access to the documents, but it doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter even if I had access to those documents and they said all who were purged were counter revolutionaries. Documents can lie pretty easily.

Yet you are quick to pass judgment and dismiss the entire event as 100% bad. How can you really be certain that the purges were 100% bad?

I didn't say anything about them being good or bad. Obviously it was good for the people who purged, bad for the ones who were purged and simply history for me. Some people who were purged were probably opportunists but the person who purged them was much more opportunist than they could ever be. See, it is not about dismissing the purges, it is about examining the material conditions USSR was in during the purges. Capitalism was rapidly developing in Russia, the buerocratic capitalist class of middle cadres had risen into power and the old bolshevik aristocracy who had stood for the petty bourgeoise had to go as they were attempting to block the capitalist development.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe in the cult of personality as you are assuming. See, as someone who tries to study the history of the USSR and the other socialist countries and tries to study the current events of the conditions in the former socialist and present socialist countries, I believe that what was performed in practice was correct and that the Soviet Union throughout the first half of the twentieth century was on the correct course towards Communism.

You obviously never studied the economy of those so-called socialist countries. Economically speaking, workers controll was over in Soviet Russia at 1919, latest, and after that period, first land-ownership was introduced to the peasantry with NEP, and than capitalist industrial development started with Stalin's five year plans, under a strong command economy. The ruling class started off as a collective and buerocratic capitalist class, without much place for individual capitalists. However, as capitalism developed further, slowly individual capitalists started to emerge. Anyway, what was practiced in the Soviet Union throughout the first half of the twentieth century was the same thing Germany practiced in the second half of the nineteenth century, or Japan in early twentieth century. Developing capitalism under a strong command economy.

The Bolshevik Communists were able to purge the counterrevolutionary elements until the Khrushchevite revisionists seized power- then you notice changes in the conditions of society towards a gradual restoration of capitalism.

Do you see how un-marxist your analysis here is? "If only that revisionist Khruschev didn't sieze power, USSR was going to be a paradise." No, if it wasn't Khruschev, it would have been someone else. It would have been Stalin himself if he lived long enough. That was where the course taken in Russia had taken it to such position, and it was the same course that brought Russia to modern capitalism today.

Marx Lenin Stalin

10th October 2006, 19:37

Why should anyone care what some liberal like LIBERAL Henry says or thinks about Comrades Stalin and Mao?

He is a lackey for bourgeois propaganda as are many here. Liberal Henry - why not read a book from someone other than a capitalist or bourgeois propagandist to get your information about comrades? And Orwell doesn't count! :lol:

Leo and others have shown that the purges are necessary for any Marxist revolutions. Whether the leader was Stalin or Mao it would not have mattered.

Long live their contributions!

http://acuf.org/images/photos/mao-stalin.jpg

chimx

10th October 2006, 20:09

i rest easy knowing that MLS probably would have been purged in the 1930s and sent to a concentration camp.

Zeruzo

11th October 2006, 00:30

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 8 2006, 08:31 PM

All true Marxists are aware of the trend of opportunism, Leo.

:) The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists or simply political rivals. What guides this 'justification' is an unshakeable faith you have in the dear leader who was responsible for purges.
And you have no proof of you're 'claim' either...
But a good source would be someone from inside the party such as Molotov. Ohw, and guess what? He said it was Genuinely Stalins idea to purge opportunists. While being unaware of the fact that everything he stated was being noted.

bloody_capitalist_sham

11th October 2006, 00:48

Marx Lenin Stalin is unable to even write sentences that doesnt sound like some stupid party line.

Marxists should never be purging people from parties. Lenin Liked debate, ever heard of democratic centralism?

Karl Marx's Camel

11th October 2006, 01:01

The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists
If I recall correctly, a Soviet veteran officer from the Spanish Civil War was executed simply because he criticized NKVD's actions.

I read this in Antony Beevor's book.

Cryotank Screams

11th October 2006, 01:17

How do Stalinists and Maoists justify the purges?

Why are the purges always, ALWAYS brought up here when talking about comrades Mao and Stalin? You can't post a tribute, have an intellectual talk and discussion about their contributions to Communism, Maoist/Stalinist theory, or even mention their name without someone saying something to the effect of

"like omg, you can't like them, wat bout dos PURGEZZZZ ND DEATHZZ?????"

Or gives a long list of negative and counter-revolutionary adjectives, or any combination of the two.

At any rate the purges where necessary (as Leo was quick to point out), to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution, case closed; why should there be any more discussion about it? What good would it do? Why does the purging plans require multiple answers, other than the straight forward answer given, and the basis of them given by the quotes from Lenin and Marx?

Granted the purges got out of hand yes, and they were probably innocent lives lost, yes, however that does not mean we need to give a black mark to Stalin and Mao completely; EVERY Communist leader and icon has had their faults, and killed some innocent people, even Che.

Revolutions will have their share of innocent blood lost, it's sad, yes, yet inevitable.

How would you argue them against a capitalist?

Again what would be the point?

However, I would simply point out all the deaths, alienation, strife, and starvation, capitalism has left in it's wake, which by far has killed far more people than any Communist leader has.

Not just that "the were necessary to supress the bourgious takeover".

Again why does the "Aggravation of class struggle under Socialism," theory i.e. the purging theory need more than that straight forward answer?

Personally I find you and your ilk trying to constantly trying to find cracks in the Mao and Stalin armor annoying, and pointless.

Zeruzo

11th October 2006, 01:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:02 PM

The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists
If I recall correctly, a Soviet veteran officer from the Spanish Civil War was executed simply because he criticized NKVD's actions.

I read this in Antony Beevor's book.
yes, innocent people were purged.

Or as Molotob put it:

Dzerzhinksy was a radiant, spotless personality. Yagoda was a filthy nobody who wormed his way into the party and was only caught in 1937. We had to work with reptiles like that, but there were no others. No one! Now you understand why so many mistakes were made. They deceived us, and innocent people were sometimes incriminated. Obviously one or two out of ten were wrongly sentenced, but the rest got their just desserts.

Raj Radical

11th October 2006, 02:34

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 10 2006, 10:18 PM

Why are the purges always, ALWAYS brought up here when talking about comrades Mao and Stalin?

The same reason concentration camps are always brought up when talking about Hitler.

Perhaps because Stalin was a paranoid monster who slaughtered millions of his comrades.

Stalin is no Comrade of mine, Comrade.

EDIT: I enjoy much of the conversations and debates of RevLeft. But I can see how places like Infoshop and RAAD get the idea that RevLeft is just a haven for Stalinists and the like, as of late.

OneBrickOneVoice

11th October 2006, 05:36

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 10 2006, 04:38 PM
Why should anyone care what some liberal like LIBERAL Henry says or thinks about Comrades Stalin and Mao?

He is a lackey for bourgeois propaganda as are many here. Liberal Henry - why not read a book from someone other than a capitalist or bourgeois propagandist to get your information about comrades? And Orwell doesn't count! :lol:

Leo and others have shown that the purges are necessary for any Marxist revolutions. Whether the leader was Stalin or Mao it would not have mattered.

Long live their contributions!

http://acuf.org/images/photos/mao-stalin.jpg
Please explain how purges are necessary for a revolution? millions have to die in the name of socialism? That's umm kinda fucked up. Besides I have read Stalinist takes on the purges. In both cases they don't ignore the fact that millions died. It's impossible to defend an ideology when millions have died in the past because of it simply because they're capitalists. It's even harder when you say you'd do it again.

grove street

11th October 2006, 11:58

The difference between Mao and Stalin was that Stalin did whole his dirty work behind closed doors and got his secret police and military to take care of any problem. Mao on the other hand was able to get the people to do the job for him, think about it the majority of people killed during the Cultural Revolution were not killed by police or military, but by normal citizens who were supporters of Mao.

The Teneman square massacre would of never of happened under Mao, because Mao would of inspired the students to masacre the teachers that didn't support the revolution in the first place.

I don't care if you like Mao or not, because personally I don't, but you have to give him credit for being able to inspire the masses to lead their own revolution.

Zeruzo

11th October 2006, 14:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:37 AM
Please explain how purges are necessary for a revolution? millions have to die in the name of socialism? That's umm kinda fucked up. Besides I have read Stalinist takes on the purges. In both cases they don't ignore the fact that millions died. It's impossible to defend an ideology when millions have died in the past because of it simply because they're capitalists. It's even harder when you say you'd do it again.
Who ever said millions?
If you would study the purges you'd find out that the majority of the people's purged were just kicked out off the party. In fact, the purges were only appliable to the party. Which you voluntarily joined, knowing quite well you'd take that risk. As i recall in total 800.000 people were executed in the USSR during the 'Stalin-era' and 1,7 million died in gulag-camps (mostly during WW2, etc...). When thinking of the USSR, please also take into account the conditions of that country.
Everybody just acts as if the USSR was a 1st world country that could have smouthly developed into a communist society. Ever heard of this small concept called class-struggle?

Vanguard1917

11th October 2006, 21:13

Marxists don't deny that Stalin's purges were necessary: they were a necessary part of the process of counter-revolution. The old Bolsheviks had to be removed from the party (especially its upper echelons) in order to allow the bureaucrats - the new, ascending ruling caste - to move in.

Leo

11th October 2006, 22:26

It seems that I have made an interesting reputation among the Stalinists after my long debates opposing "letting the bourgeoise act freely" in the post-revolutionary society and opposing liberal arguements in general, to such extent that they now some of them say that I said the purges were necessary even in a thread where I wrote long posts trying to prove that Stalin was a conscious capitalist and imperialist and said that the purges happened to strengthen the newly formed bureaocratic capitalist class. Funny, I guess I shouldn't write too long sentences on threads about Stalin, Stalinists just can't read them.

At any rate the purges where necessary (as Leo was quick to point out), to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution

What I said was this:

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)They call the purged people "counter-revolutionaries". That's the only trick they got, and it really did get old.[/b]

So I said that it was your only execuse and it wasn't working because it was baseless and that it depended on your faith on Stalin, the great leader and how he would not be wrong. Anyway, I also said this:

Me
Economically speaking, workers controll was over in Soviet Russia at 1919, latest, and after that period, first land-ownership was introduced to the peasantry with NEP, and than capitalist industrial development started with Stalin's five year plans, under a strong command economy. The ruling class started off as a collective and buerocratic capitalist class, without much place for individual capitalists. However, as capitalism developed further, slowly individual capitalists started to emerge. Anyway, what was practiced in the Soviet Union throughout the first half of the twentieth century was the same thing Germany practiced in the second half of the nineteenth century, or Japan in early twentieth century. Developing capitalism under a strong command economy.

To sum up, I said that revolution in USSR was completely dead in 1921 with NEP, and all happened after that helped the capitalist development and the new capitalist ruling class, including the purges. That's my take on the purges. I hope this is clear enough :rolleyes:

Leo

11th October 2006, 22:28

This said;

Originally posted by The Stalinist Who Was Clever Enough to Understand That I Opposed Stalin+--> (The Stalinist Who Was Clever Enough to Understand That I Opposed Stalin)
Me
The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists or simply political rivals. What guides this 'justification' is an unshakeable faith you have in the dear leader who was responsible for purges.And you have no proof of you're 'claim' either...[/b]

My claim comes from me saying that capitalism developed in the USSR, and I have a valid proof for that: the current state of the Russian Federation.

But a good source would be someone from inside the party such as Molotov.

Yeah, cause "Molotov is always right"... Wait, wasn't it Mussolini who was always right? Ah it doesn't matter after the Ribbentop-Molotov treaty now does it?

He said it was Genuinely Stalins idea to purge opportunists. While being unaware of the fact that everything he stated was being noted.

Uh, yeah, that's called "lying to the reporters". People like George Bush, Tony Blair etc. do it constantly, you might have noticed it if you watch tv or read newspapers. Oh wait, you've heard of George Bush and Tony Blair right?

Zeruzo

11th October 2006, 23:04

My claim comes from me saying that capitalism developed in the USSR, and I have a valid proof for that: the current state of the Russian Federation.

Like the state of Paris after the collapse of the commune?

Yeah, cause "Molotov is always right"... Wait, wasn't it Mussolini who was always right? Ah it doesn't matter after the Ribbentop-Molotov treaty now does it?

What an insightfull reply. First, at least try to study the Molotov-Ribbentop pact and it's background before criticizing thin air.

Uh, yeah, that's called "lying to the reporters". People like George Bush, Tony Blair etc. do it constantly, you might have noticed it if you watch tv or read newspapers. Oh wait, you've heard of George Bush and Tony Blair right?

Problem is, he never told it to reporters. He told it after Stalin died, after the de-stalinization program to a close friend of his who wrote a book about it.

OneBrickOneVoice

11th October 2006, 23:05

So wait, you guys are saying that in order for socialism to succeed we must kill every single capitalist man, woman, and child to prevent capitalism from rising simply because they're capitalist? wtf?

Zeruzo

11th October 2006, 23:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:06 PM
So wait, you guys are saying that in order for socialism to succeed we must kill every single capitalist man, woman, and child to prevent capitalism from rising simply because they're capitalist? wtf?
No. From preventing capitalists to infiltrate the political system, thats about it.

Leo

11th October 2006, 23:20

Like the state of Paris after the collapse of the commune?

You are comparing a commune which was 86.9 km², where workers controlled the means of production for about two months after being crushed by external forces with a superpower which was 22,402,200 km², did not have workers power since 1918 and existed for about seventy years where finally members of the ruling class decided that it was time for a modern capitalist system? That's just sad :rolleyes:

What an insightfull reply. First, at least try to study the Molotov-Ribbentop pact and it's background before criticizing thin air.

Yeah, I'm sorry I suddeny forgot about Stalin's "noble" imperialist ambitions about Poland.

Problem is, he never told it to reporters. He told it after Stalin died, after the de-stalinization program to a close friend of his who wrote a book about it.

Yeah I guess he never managed to get over the fact that he didn't succeed Stalin for good. He is kind of similar to Trotsky with that actually, pity he didn't end up with an ice axe in his brain, it would have looked much better on him, I'm sure :)

OneBrickOneVoice

11th October 2006, 23:34

Originally posted by Zeruzo+Oct 11 2006, 08:13 PM--> (Zeruzo @ Oct 11 2006, 08:13 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 08:06 PM
So wait, you guys are saying that in order for socialism to succeed we must kill every single capitalist man, woman, and child to prevent capitalism from rising simply because they're capitalist? wtf?
No. From preventing capitalists to infiltrate the political system, thats about it. [/b]
yeah but that can be done constitutionally. I.E. Every man and woman is garunteed the right to a job, healthcare, housing, electricity, free education through college, and etc... and that wages are banned and shit like that? things that cannot be changed? That makes no sense just purging capitalists. What's the next step? Purging trots? Anarchists? anyone who the worker's state deems a fascist or capitalist? It'll be madness. That is the type of thing which makes it so that people equate Communists and Nazis in there minds as the same.

Zeruzo

11th October 2006, 23:47

Uhm, it was done constitutionaly...
And Trots were already kicked out for undermining democratic centralism, and wlel you prolly know the story about the anarchists, as a trot.

Ohw, i'm sorry i forgot to reply to the silly guy :).

You are comparing a commune which was 86.9 km², where workers controlled the means of production for about two months after being crushed by external forces with a superpower which was 22,402,200 km², did not have workers power since 1918 and existed for about seventy years where finally members of the ruling class decided that it was time for a modern capitalist system? That's just sad rolleyes.gif

And you are comparing revisionism with Marxist-Leninism, thats quite as silly.
You gave air, so i give air. Fair exchange if you ask me.

Yeah, I'm sorry I suddeny forgot about Stalin's "noble" imperialist ambitions about Poland.

Of course, completely forgetting the fact that the USSR and Nazi-germany already knew they were going to war with eachother years before the pact.

The Author

12th October 2006, 00:37

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] Oct 11 2006, 03:27 PM
Funny, I guess I shouldn't write too long sentences on threads about Stalin, Stalinists just can't read them.

It's not that we can't read them, it's that they're filled with subjectivity and not objectivity. Comments such as "documents can lie pretty easily" do not make you sound very convincing. What it shows instead is that if we were to go through the trouble of trying to describe the economy or social conditions of the U.S.S.R and they were not in line with your views, you would immediately dismiss us as "cultists" without even giving our comments a second thought. Based on your posts, this is precisely what you have done.

it was baseless and that it depended on your faith on Stalin, the great leader and how he would not be wrong.

And I tried pointing out to you how ever since days of Marx, history has shown that whenever there is a successful revolutionary movement, opportunists always try to hijack it. I cited quotes by Marx and Lenin, and gave the names of the articles where such quotes came from in the hopes you would take the trouble to read them. Apparently you performed no such task. Instead you went on a rant about how we have this "undying faith on Stalin- the Great Leader and Teacher." There are some who might hold that mistaken view, and have not yet studied the Marxist-Leninist works, and then there are others such as myself who do not hold such a view, who do not believe in the cult of personality. But push come to shove, whenever we debate the historical events of the U.S.S.R, and certain "leftists" around here cannot try to debate in a rational manner, they resort to name-calling and baseless accusations.

It's ironic how you say that we "can't read" when there has been a common tendency on this board to completely ignore the arguments of the Marxist-Leninists and their sources. Otherwise we wouldn't see members say "Stalin killed millions!" and "the U.S.S.R. was a totalitarian fascist nightmare" on an almost daily basis.

As for your economic analysis of the U.S.S.R. and its "state capitalist, bureaucratic apparatus degeneration" apparently you forgot what Marx and Engels said in "Critique of the Gotha Program" and "On Authority" respectively; that to get to communism, the transition period arises straight from capitalism and that aspects of capitalism remain in the first phase of communism. Also, that aspects of administration remain in the first phase as well- for one needs engineers, technicians, managers, and so on to help manage the economy and to make the necessary huge leap to the second phase. Without an appropriate apparatus, without trained cadres working with the masses, it will be nearly impossible to reach communism. The U.S.S.R followed the Marxist course: it needed to recover from the Civil War and the First World War through the NEP, and once enough resources were secured, it carried out full socialism. That is, until the Khrushchevites launched their coup in the 1950s.

Yeah, I'm sorry I suddeny forgot about Stalin's "noble" imperialist ambitions about Poland.

You forget that Poland invaded the Western Ukraine and Belarus from 1919-1921, and occupied those territories until 1939. Those were the parts that were liberated. The people who argue about "Soviet imperial ambitions in Poland" are the reactionary Polish nationalists.

Leo

12th October 2006, 00:38

And you are comparing revisionism with Marxist-Leninism, thats quite as silly.

Only to you it sounds silly, actually it is a very subjective and unimportant difference... Your fethisization of what you call revisionism is completely lacking the economical analysis also, of course. What you call revisionism was a period in the development of capitalism in so-called socialist countries, where every single anti-revisionist state also ended up experiencing. But you don't care about the economic infrastructure, you care about the "greatness" of your leaders. Sigh, cultists :rolleyes:

Of course, completely forgetting the fact that the USSR and Nazi-germany already knew they were going to war with eachother years before the pact.

Oh, right - I forgot that they had pschic powers they used to predict the future :)

In 1939, when the English prime minister Chamberlein gave Sudethenland to Hitler, he returned home and said that they took a great step towards peace. He probably wouldn't destroy his entire career with this move with such a speech. Stalin is said to be shocked when he learned that Hitler had broken the pact. It was an ambigious situation.

Zeruzo

12th October 2006, 01:43

Only to you it sounds silly, actually it is a very subjective and unimportant difference... Your fethisization of what you call revisionism is completely lacking the economical analysis also, of course. What you call revisionism was a period in the development of capitalism in so-called socialist countries, where every single anti-revisionist state also ended up experiencing. But you don't care about the economic infrastructure, you care about the "greatness" of your leaders. Sigh, cultists rolleyes.gif

I wasn't really talking about revisionism in an economic way. Revisionism is abolishing class-struggle. I do not oppose revisionist states as such, but i do oppose the fact they oppose class-struggle :).

Oh, right - I forgot that they had pschic powers they used to predict the future smile.gif

*sigh*

I hope you got what i meant and are truly joking...
otherwise i'll just pretend you're not here...

In 1939, when the English prime minister Chamberlein gave Sudethenland to Hitler, he returned home and said that they took a great step towards peace. He probably wouldn't destroy his entire career with this move with such a speech. Stalin is said to be shocked when he learned that Hitler had broken the pact. It was an ambigious situation.

I dont get what you're trying to say with the Chamberlain part.
Of the Stalin-part: well you said it yourself already...
Stalin is said to be shocked when he learned that Hitler had broken the pact.

Leo

12th October 2006, 08:39

I wasn't really talking about revisionism in an economic way. Revisionism is abolishing class-struggle. I do not oppose revisionist states as such, but i do oppose the fact they oppose class-struggle

Well, Leninism opposes class struggle as well, considering that workers controll of the means of production was over in 1918. Stalinism just follows.

I hope you got what i meant and are truly joking...

No, I actually believe that they had psychic powers...

.

.

.

:P :lol:

I dont get what you're trying to say with the Chamberlain part.

I wanted to point out that leaders were not really sure of what was going to happen, how it was going to happen and when it was going to happen.

Zeruzo

12th October 2006, 15:09

Well, Leninism opposes class struggle as well, considering that workers controll of the means of production was over in 1918. Stalinism just follows.

Yeah, the NEP and Stalins policy's are about the same <_< .

No, I actually believe that they had psychic powers...

I knew you were kidding about that, stupid.
I mean, if you were kidding about the fact that you didn't know they knew they were going to war with eachother.

I wanted to point out that leaders were not really sure of what was going to happen, how it was going to happen and when it was going to happen.

Leaders, as in western leaders.
In the U.K. they weren't sure, but if you would have even takent he slightest interest in the Nazi-ideology, then you would know that it was created as a responce to Communism.

Leo

12th October 2006, 16:39

Yeah, the NEP and Stalins policy's are about the same

They seem different because the level of command in the economy is different, but a strong command economy had always followed the land ownership of peasants. It all serves the same purpose: the development of capitalism.

I knew you were kidding about that, stupid.

Just checking :)

I mean, if you were kidding about the fact that you didn't know they knew they were going to war with eachother.

Their interests as imperial was going to conflict at one point or another, but it was impossible to predict how the conflict would develop and when it would break off.

Leaders, as in western leaders.
In the U.K. they weren't sure, but if you would have even takent he slightest interest in the Nazi-ideology, then you would know that it was created as a responce to Communism.

Not really, the economic infrastructure of Germany was decisive to the socio-political superstructure, so the economic relationships and Germany's potential as a strong imperial power caused Nazism to rise.

Cryotank Screams

13th October 2006, 00:04

Where did I say I thought you agreed with me? I posted your name in my post because you where the first anti-Stalinist to scream “they only got one reason!” which is correct, there is/was only one reason behind the “aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism,” theory/policies, like I said in my post.

I said;

(as Leo was quick to point out)

How is that saying you agree with me?

I know you don’t agree with me or Stalin, never did, so don’t fucking sit there and post some asinine bullshit, and saying;

Funny, I guess I shouldn't write too long sentences on threads about Stalin, Stalinists just can't read them.

Leo

13th October 2006, 00:17

How is that saying you agree with me?

I know you don’t agree with me or Stalin, never did, so don’t fucking sit there and post some asinine bullshit, and saying;

First of all you aren't the only person I was mostly reffering to:

Leo and others have shown that the purges are necessary for any Marxist revolutions.

You said that:

At any rate the purges where necessary (as Leo was quick to point out), to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution, case closed; why should there be any more discussion about it?

So it means that you think that I pointed out that purges were necessary to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution. I didn't see anything about my talking about Stalinists execuses, or this being the execuse.

Anyway, I really wasn't reffering that much on your post, as it was sort-of ambigious, but after that other guys post, I saw a pattern there. Also I wonder why you took it so personal. Yeah, it's cool, just try to calm down okay?

Cryotank Screams

13th October 2006, 00:26

First of all you aren't the only person I was reffering to

I know.

So it means that you think that I said they were necessary to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution. I didn't see anything about my talking about Stalinists execuses or anything.

Actually it means or was meant to mean that you quickly pointed out that there was only one reason, or as you would say “excuse.”

However I do see what you mean, I should have posted the reference to you after I said to keep out the counter-revolutionaries and not before hand, to solve this confusion, that is my fault, I apologize, it was really mean to be read something to the effect of “as Leo was so quick to point out it was to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution.”

Leo

13th October 2006, 00:35

Actually it means or was meant to mean that you quickly pointed out that there was only one reason, or as you would say “excuse.”

Lets say justification done by Stalinists and Maoists for it to fit the thread's title.

However I do see what you mean, I should have posted the reference to you after I said to keep out the counter-revolutionaries and not before hand, to solve this confusion, that is my fault, I apologize, it was really mean to be read something to the effect of “as Leo was so quick to point out it was to keep the counter-revolutionaries out of the revolution.”

Apology accepted ;)

Mesijs

13th October 2006, 00:54

Zeruzo

13th October 2006, 01:58

Originally posted by Mesijs+Oct 12 2006, 09:55 PM--> (Mesijs @ Oct 12 2006, 09:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:13 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 08:06 PM
So wait, you guys are saying that in order for socialism to succeed we must kill every single capitalist man, woman, and child to prevent capitalism from rising simply because they're capitalist? wtf?
No. From preventing capitalists to infiltrate the political system, thats about it.
So you're OK with the killing part? [/b]
No, i'm against the death-penalty, but in overall i agree.

They seem different because the level of command in the economy is different, but a strong command economy had always followed the land ownership of peasants. It all serves the same purpose: the development of capitalism.

Yes, just words... so no sources/analyses?

Their interests as imperial was going to conflict at one point or another, but it was impossible to predict how the conflict would develop and when it would break off.

I never said they predicted that. I merely stated that a conflict between the 2 states was inevitable, and both of the states knew this.

Not really, the economic infrastructure of Germany was decisive to the socio-political superstructure, so the economic relationships and Germany's potential as a strong imperial power caused Nazism to rise.

Showing how you haven't studied the Nazi-ideology.