Stalinists - Traitors of the people?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Would you say Stalinists (and generally supporters of Stalin, Hoxha, Kim Jong Il etc.) are traitors of the people/working class movement, or are they just misunderstood and confused individuals? Or both?

Discuss.

[KC]

I say you should leave this forum.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 01, 2006 01:22 pm
I say you should leave this forum.

You know, as a Moderator on this board you have a certain responsibility to try and encourage a certain standard of debate. It's not a written rule, granted; but it's certainly implied by the title you chose to accept.

That doesn't mean you have to constantly make posts of an incredibly high standard, nor does it mean that you can't have the odd joke. What it does mean, is that you, at the very least, actually try to keep threads on topic and focused. That's not so hard, is it?

I mean, in this case, all you needed to say is [yes or no] "Stalinists .... are traitors of the people/working class movement" and [yes or no] they are "confused individuals". Only one line, KC -- so it's not as if you'd have to break a posting habit.

But, instead, you've just chosen to have a dig at NWOG. Okay, that's your choice. But what you have to remember is that there is a reason the question of "Stalinism" is on which is suitable for the Theory forum: it's a pretty complex question that can provoke interesting and useful debate. Your response, however, won't do anything to facilitate that debate.

As it happens. with regards the question at hand, I think it's a gross simplification to just lump all "Stalinists" into one lifeless category. Why? Well, because "Stalinists" have, throughout the last century, participated in numerous different historical events ... and their participation has meant completely different things.

The CPGB's attempts to organise "Red Unions" and their role in the Battle of Cable Street, for instance, were anything but acts of "traitors". Criticisms of aspects of these events could be raised, of course; but in and of themselves, these events were beneficial to the working class movement.

Conversely, the CPGB's alliance with the British State during WWII and their efforts to enlist the working class into an Imperialist Army, is definitely a mark of betrayal. A big one, as well.

So there we have the same "Stalinists" contributing in both beneficial and non-beneficial ways. And why they did that, is another interesting debate -- probably requiring another thread.

And all this is just a small example of "Stalinism" in action; the wider context of "historical Stalinism" would allow us to more accurately understand it's role. Hopefully, the posters after me will focus on this ... and not on the debate Khayembii Communique wishes to start.

[Hiero]

Fighting Nazi invasion is traitorous?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Fighting Nazi invasion is traitorous?


That doesn't make any sense... :huh:


What could be seen as traitorous would be robbing the Republican government in Spain for gold, not actually wanting the Republicans to win, and trying to destroy the local committees.

And then of course we have the question of who really ruled in the Soviet Union. Was it the working class, or was it Stalin and his clique?

[scawenb]

There are a number of problems here:
Partly, what exactly we mean by Stalinists? Are all those who fought fascism in the 1930s and honestly struggled political all traitors? Are Che or Chavez traitors?
What is the nature of "traitors of the people" - what is the origin and economic basis if their treachery? Did they set or to betray the people or did circumstances lead to a betrayal despite themselves?
One thing we know about "Stalinists" is that they did have a profound effect on about 1/6 of the world'd people to fundamentally alter the nature of their societies. Did the non-"Stalinists" in their failure to make such gains actually carry out a greater form of treachery which allowed the "Stalinist" to rise to the ascendency and now leave us with the present triumph of imperialism?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 01:55 am

Fighting Nazi invasion is traitorous?


That doesn't make any sense... :huh:


What could be seen as traitorous would be robbing the Republican government in Spain for gold, not actually wanting the Republicans to win, and trying to destroy the local committees.

And then of course we have the question of who really ruled in the Soviet Union. Was it the working class, or was it Stalin and his clique?
You know what doesn't make any sense at all? That you found it neccassary to quote me and then talk about something different.

[Tekun]

My belief is that Stalinists are on the right track, yet are somewhat deviated

They're not traitors in the sense that they've sold out and are treating the working man like the capitalists do (some would argue otherwise)
But they do incorporate their absolutism which has shown to deteriorate conditions, yet not worse than the conditions created by the capitalists
Like AScrotum mentioned, Stalinists have in many instances done great things for the working man, including supporting their liberation
Yet, at the same time, they've also imposed their will and perverted some of the principles of socialism/communism

We're all comrades, but Stalinists should be kept in check by the working man, so as to avoid the authoritarianism and cult of personality of men like Stalin and Mao

[Idola Mentis]

I'd cut down on the personality-cult angle. To think a single person's thought is the key to everything, and then name your ideology after that person isn't a good idea to begin with. Of course, we might easily find excuses for some of the people who do so. For example. most Marxists do the brainwork required to make Marxism seem reasonable in the herenow. But Stalinism?

There's people who became stalinists when the information available made it seem a good idea. Everything is excusable in some way or another. Becoming a stalinist today seems a truly strange project to me. It would require an excuse strange enough to match the project for me to even understand why anyone would want to. I'm sure there is at least one neo-stalinist out there, somewhere who's got one lined up for me?

[Bolshevist]

I would say they are all traitors. For Stalin to rise to power he had to physically eliminate sections of the Bolshevik party. I cannot see how a person willing to do this to suit his own goals can be considered a hero of the working class anymore than I cannot comprehend the Kim's, Hoxha, Tito, Mao etc to be hero to working people. In their young days they did contribute to the cause, but when they attained power things started to go sour. Not that it cannot be blamed on them as a individual though, the material condition necessary for socialism to exist were simply absent so if not them then it would have been somebody else, but that does not excuse the crimes committed by these people.

I think everyone who has read and agrees with Lenin's "The state and the revolution" also agrees with me here.

[Anarcho-Stalinist]

Yes. None of them were theorist.

[Rawthentic]

I reject Stalin, Mao, Lenin,a nd all those dead authoritarians. They are the ones that fucked up the name of communism around the world. Fuck 'em. Let the dead bury the dead.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

funny since in another said you said you support Leninism in the undeveloped world but w/e. Revolution is inherently authoritarian because one class is forcefully overthrowing another ruling class.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 03, 2006 02:26 am
I'd cut down on the personality-cult angle. To think a single person's thought is the key to everything, and then name your ideology after that person isn't a good idea to begin with. Of course, we might easily find excuses for some of the people who do so. For example. most Marxists do the brainwork required to make Marxism seem reasonable in the herenow. But Stalinism?

There's people who became stalinists when the information available made it seem a good idea. Everything is excusable in some way or another. Becoming a stalinist today seems a truly strange project to me. It would require an excuse strange enough to match the project for me to even understand why anyone would want to. I'm sure there is at least one neo-stalinist out there, somewhere who's got one lined up for me?
Your looking at Stalin as a leading theorist. A "Stalinist" is just used to describe people who support and defend the Stalin era of the USSR. You can't become a neo-Stalinist.


I think everyone who has read and agrees with Lenin's "The state and the revolution" also agrees with me here.

You don't think Stalin and "Stalinist" have read State and Revolutioon?


They are the ones that fucked up the name of communism around the world. Fuck 'em. Let the dead bury the dead.

These comments are so stupid and anti-materialist. I can't belive people actually think that workers in the 1st world didn't succed in a single revolution because of Stalin and Mao. If the conditions were right the workers would have staged a revolution but just not aligned with Stalin or Mao.

[Organic Revolution]

stalinists and the like are all wrong... they want a gigantic state with a figurehead who makes the decisions for everyone.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 03, 2006 04:14 pm
stalinists and the like are all wrong... they want a gigantic state with a figurehead who makes the decisions for everyone.
And you want chaos.

[Rawthentic]

These comments are so stupid and anti-materialist. I can't belive people actually think that workers in the 1st world didn't succed in a single revolution because of Stalin and Mao. If the conditions were right the workers would have staged a revolution but just not aligned with Stalin or Mao.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Im not talking about workers in the 1st world, but how Leninism cannot lead to communism and is useless in advanced capitalist nations.


funny since in another said you said you support Leninism in the undeveloped world but w/e. Revolution is inherently authoritarian because one class is forcefully overthrowing another ruling class.
Yeah, i do, because it can lead to a better position for the relatively small proletariat in feudal or semi-feudal nations, as well as accelerate the capitalist process. I agree that revolutions are authoritarian in the class overthrow, but it become bullshit when dictatorships become established like in all Leninist nations. Tell me, who took power then?

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:51 am
You don't think Stalin and "Stalinist" have read State and Revolutioon?
They obviously didn't follow it well

[YKTMX]

You don't think Stalin and "Stalinist" have read State and Revolutioon?


You're right, reading Lenin doesn't gurantee you won't be a Stalinist.

However, I do disagree with you that Stalinists are merely those who "defend" some arbitrary period in Soviet History.

Stalinism is much broader and more pervasive than that. In "theoretical" terms, it follows an extremely crude reductionist form of Marxism. In political terms, it is highly authoritarian and centralized, with "top-down" methods of organisation and action. In the social and economic context, it is openly counter-revolutionary.

So, in this sense, the whole history of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Albania and Yugoslavia is the history of "Stalinism". Krushchev was just as "Stalinist" as Stalin.

Indeed, even outside parties who defend Joseph Stalin "the man", his methods, principles and behvaviours have influence over leftist politics. He casts a bleak shadow.

[Vargha Poralli]

NWOG
Would you say Stalinists (and generally supporters of Stalin, Hoxha, Kim Jong Il etc.) are traitors of the people/working class movement, or are they just misunderstood and confused individuals? Or both?

IMHO your question missies one crucial factor which is time

Stalin Himself :

Definitely he is a traitor of both Russian people and International Proletariats.His Actions themselves are proofs of his treachery.

Comintern During Stalin's Leadership :

The real meaning of the word traitors cud just be them.

Mao and his worshipers :

They are just opportunists. Mao wud not have any problem with Trotsky if he had came to power instead of Stalin. more than that they are traitors on their own.

Supporters of Stalin today

1) In Russian Federation : Infected by a disease called Nostalgia

2) Other Places : Confused Individuals who likes Stalin because of his nice Mustache


are traitors of the people/working class movement, or are they just misunderstood and confused individuals? Or both?

If we take timne in to your question all three options fit as answers!

[Lings]

Yeah, sure. That was the problem with the soviet unions in the stalin eara. They didnt follow the great book well enough.

When it comes to the question of stalinists being traitors, that obviusly depends on the stalinist.
In the history of the last seventy or so years, you've had stalinists who have fought for the interests of working people, every day, all day, all of their lives. Their political lines may not have been correct all the time, they may have been stuck in a personality cult, but i think a lot of people misenterpets some of the sginals from stalinists in personalitycults around the world.
Yeah, some partys still carry pictures of stalin in demos, and thats a fucking horrible mass line. Its a shit stupid thing to do, and it seems weird for anyone watching.
But these people who carry these pictures arent madmen, they have a wrong political line when it comes to personallity cults. I know several stalinists and they dont really go about quoting stalin, rosepainting the USSR in the thirties, eat children and betraying workers or anything. They organize struggles for the local hospital that the government is going to close, they are active in the anti racist commitees, the unions.

But ofcourse, stalinists have betrayed people before. Sold out for power, money and bad principles.

But so do anarchists as well.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah, i do, because it can lead to a better position for the relatively small proletariat in feudal or semi-feudal nations, as well as accelerate the capitalist process. I agree that revolutions are authoritarian in the class overthrow, but it become bullshit when dictatorships become established like in all Leninist nations. Tell me, who took power then?

dictatorships naturally emerge in any system when there is massive and aggressive ideologically opposite nations surrounding you and threatening you. Look at capitalist with Diem. Look at the US in the 50s despite the fact that they had very little pressure on them and how they killed socialists. It has nothing to do with Leninism because if it did, the workers wouldn't have had control for the period they did. After the bolsheviks and leninists were purged, did the USSR become autocracy.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Short answer:

yes.

[Whitten]

I dont really see why history is being discussed in the theory forum. Let me make a simple statement: Who gives a fuck what Stalin may, or may not, have done?

He did some good and some bad but I cant comprehend some peoples inability to distinguish between the actions of a historical individual and the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism.

[Wanted Man]

2) Other Places : Confused Individuals who likes Stalin because of his nice Mustache
Congratulations on the successful completion of your research of Marxism-Leninism out of Russia. What a brilliant conclusion.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 12:12 am

2) Other Places : Confused Individuals who likes Stalin because of his nice Mustache
Congratulations on the successful completion of your research of Marxism-Leninism out of Russia. What a brilliant conclusion.

I am a Marxist-Leninist but i don't support with the way stalin captured power, destroyed the revolution , betrayed the international proletariat , screwed revolutions in spain and china , handled the WW2 and further betrayed the international proletariat by doing favours for imperialists. as far as i am concerned stalin is an unfortunate burden of the Marxist Leninists and i consider khrushev did the right thing by putting his legacy to the right place - dustbins.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:31 pm
I dont really see why history is being discussed in the theory forum. Let me make a simple statement: Who gives a fuck what Stalin may, or may not, have done?

He did some good and some bad but I cant comprehend some peoples inability to distinguish between the actions of a historical individual and the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism.
exactly. Leninism in general is about more than just Stalin. He is just a leader who advanced Marxist-Leninism.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:10 pm

exactly. Leninism in general is about more than just Stalin. He is just a leader who advanced Marxist-Leninism.
So you are a supporter of Stalin? Or at least believe he helped "advance the revolutionary cause"???

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 06, 2006 12:42 am--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 06, 2006 12:42 am)
[email protected] 05, 2006 07:10 pm

exactly. Leninism in general is about more than just Stalin. He is just a leader who advanced Marxist-Leninism.
So you are a supporter of Stalin? Or at least believe he helped "advance the revolutionary cause"??? [/b]
no he is not .

no he does not

[Cryotank Screams]

Well considering Stalin was, would it not be safe to assume so are his followers?

[Prairie Fire]

This thread... This is enough to make my fucking head explode. STOP SAYING STALINIST! If any of you ar efarmiliar with any of my posts, you will have heard me say , "Stalinist" is a politcial slur, and a very derogatory one at that.

I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread:

NWOG:


Would you say Stalinists (and generally supporters of Stalin, Hoxha, Kim Jong Il etc.) are traitors of the people/working class movement, or are they just misunderstood and confused individuals? Or both?

Discuss

Are you aware that you have just negated the discussion? You restrict the discussion to " Are 'stalinists' traitors, or just confused", revealing your prejudices right off the bat. You didn't even bother, for the sake of argument, to present anti-revisionism as a legitimate ideology, but rather resort to condescending insults and accusations. This is a typical anti-stalin/anti-communist tactic: Have discussion, but control all of the questions and restrict the point of view to turn the discussion in your favour.


Amusing Scrotum:


You know, as a Moderator on this board you have a certain responsibility to try and encourage a certain standard of debate. It's not a written rule, granted; but it's certainly implied by the title you chose to accept.

What a coincidence; I said the same thing to Malte when he, as a moderator, was discouraging discussion and spreading anti-stalin slander on the "Once again: Stalins crimes" thread under history. Kayhembii isn't the only mod taking a less than impartial stand in discussions.


I mean, in this case, all you needed to say is [yes or no] "Stalinists .... are traitors of the people/working class movement" and [yes or no] they are "confused individuals".

Once again, trying to constrict the discussion to either a hostile view of anti-revisionism, or a condescending view of anti-revisionism.


there is a reason the question of "Stalinism" is on which is suitable for the Theory forum: it's a pretty complex question that can provoke interesting and useful debate

And you hope to do that with yes or no answers? :D


Conversely, the CPGB's alliance with the British State during WWII and their efforts to enlist the working class into an Imperialist Army, is definitely a mark of betrayal. A big one, as well

Right; it would have been much more proletarian if the CPGB had formed their own army of volunteers, poorly armed and trained, and had thrown them at the western front to fight the Nazi war machine, rather than sinking to the low level of fighting in an imperialist army. Or better yet, maybe the CPGB shouldn't have sent anyone to fight fascism. Dogmatist.

I have to give you credit though for at least putting "Stalinist" in quotation marks. I appreciate the gesture.

Tekun:


My belief is that Stalinists are on the right track, yet are somewhat deviated


Yet, at the same time, they've also imposed their will and perverted some of the principles of socialism/communism

First of all, explain your point of view; How have anti-revisionists "perverted" communism.

Oy, we "Stalinists" can't win. When we adhere to the theory of Marxism-Leninism, we are called dogmatists and dictator worshippers; When we try and adapt Marxism-Leninism to the concrete cricumstances of our social conditions, we are acused of perverting the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Some people just want to hate Stalin, so I'm wrong no matter what I say.



We're all comrades, but Stalinists should be kept in check by the working man, so as to avoid the authoritarianism and cult of personality of men like Stalin and Mao

And keeping certain comrades "in check" is not Authortarianism? Hypocrite.
Besides, if your going to make allegations, back them up. Cite sources that Stalin, and even Mao, were authortarians.

Idola Mentis:


There's people who became stalinists when the information available made it seem a good idea. Everything is excusable in some way or another. Becoming a stalinist today seems a truly strange project to me. It would require an excuse strange enough to match the project for me to even understand why anyone would want to. I'm sure there is at least one neo-stalinist out there, somewhere who's got one lined up for me?

This individual wins the "Condescending. self-righteous prick" award for this entire thread. This is the lowest method to avoid argument: assume an air of intellectual superiority, and speak of your opponents as though they are naive and beneath your intellectual greatness. This way, you can effectively chip at your opponents argument, with out actually making any points. If you have something to say,say it, but don't look down your nose at me.

Bolshevist:


I would say they are all traitors. For Stalin to rise to power he had to physically eliminate sections of the Bolshevik party. I cannot see how a person willing to do this to suit his own goals can be considered a hero of the working class anymore than I cannot comprehend the Kim's, Hoxha, Tito, Mao etc to be hero to working people. In their young days they did contribute to the cause, but when they attained power things started to go sour. Not that it cannot be blamed on them as a individual though, the material condition necessary for socialism to exist were simply absent so if not them then it would have been somebody else, but that does not excuse the crimes committed by these people.

I'm oly going to say this to you one more time: If you're going to accuse Stalin and company of crimes,you better be prepared to back it up. Show me some sources. And by the way, get your facts straight: Josip "Tito" Broz was NOT an anti-revisionist. This just goes to show your own knowledge of history.

HastalaVictoria:


I reject Stalin, Mao, Lenin,a nd all those dead authoritarians. They are the ones that fucked up the name of communism around the world. Fuck 'em. Let the dead bury the dead.

I've read alot of your posts, and you are a grade- A shit- distruber. You go on a thread, insult leninism, and then take off. You contribute absolutely nothing even remotely intellectual to a discussion. Fuck off! And by the way, if you really want to be an anti-leninist, I suggest you take the hammer and sickle off of your avatar, you hypocrite. That was the symbol of the Soviet Union, Founded by Lenin, built by Stalin, and presided over by a party that you fucking hate.
Seriously, quit using the hammer and sickle.

Organic Revolution:

stalinists and the like are all wrong... they want a gigantic state with a figurehead who makes the decisions for everyone

The best thing about talking shit about Stalin is, it's easy. You just have to say the first stupid thing that comes to your mind, and every one around you will nod their heads. Usually, no one wil lever demand that you provide some proof for the stupid shit that you're spewing; I, on the other hand, do. What do you know about anti-revisionism? What can you back up your claims with? If you have nothing intellectual to say, then get off of the bandwagon!

YKTMX:


Stalinism is much broader and more pervasive than that. In "theoretical" terms, it follows an extremely crude reductionist form of Marxism. In political terms, it is highly authoritarian and centralized, with "top-down" methods of organisation and action. In the social and economic context, it is openly counter-revolutionary.

I see. And you know this from experience, do you? I've been an anti revisionist for years, and I know how my party, and most parties affiliated with us, do buisness. I participate in "Democratic-Centralism", forming descisions from the bottom up, and we have discussion about everything. But don't take my word for it; Obviously you know more about anti-revisionism than me. Do some research before you type, retard.


So, in this sense, the whole history of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Albania and Yugoslavia is the history of "Stalinism". Krushchev was just as "Stalinist" as Stalin.

Another pearl of Historical reasearch, or lack thereof. You are aware that Kruschev openly denounced Stalin after his death, and Yugoslavia was the first to
break relations with the USSR under Stalin, right? Wow. Seriously, pick up a history book. At this point, even a bourgie history book would do you some good.

[Prairie Fire]

g.ram:


IMHO your question missies one crucial factor which is time

Ah, well played. You make many many, accusations against Stalin, but don't back any of them up, because it would "take too long". How long do you think it has taken me to read this thread, and write these comments? Nice try.

Lings:


Yeah, sure. That was the problem with the soviet unions in the stalin eara. They didnt follow the great book well enough.

The often repeated College-Marxist assertion that Stalin deviated from the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Have you read Stalin? More importantly, have you read Marx,Engles and Lenin? Read at least a little bit of all four, and then com back to me and alert me to any contradictionsyou found in the theory. To date, I have found none.


In the history of the last seventy or so years, you've had stalinists who have fought for the interests of working people, every day, all day, all of their lives.


know several stalinists and they dont really go about quoting stalin, rosepainting the USSR in the thirties, eat children and betraying workers or anything. They organize struggles for the local hospital that the government is going to close, they are active in the anti racist commitees, the unions

Wow, I would almost take this as a compliment, if you didn't resort to refering to anti-revisionists as "Stalinists", and speaking the typical "personality cult" BS.

Oh well. At least we are known for our deeds by those who are active. Me, i'm not such a dogmatist that I criticize purely on the basis of theory. I mean, I could start a thread like this on "Are Trotskyists Social Democratic sympathizers", and I could give a lot of compelling evidence, but that is not the issue. I know many trots who do good works, so I'm not going to rip on Trotsky or Trotskyism without provocation.


Peaceful Anarchist:


Short answer: yes.

You're right. Why couldn't Stalin be more like Chomsky and just publish his books, rather than actually fighting in a revolution, and trying to build socialism afterwards? Oh yeah... Most Russians, and other ethnic groups of the Czarist Russian empire, were illiterate.

I'll admit that Stalin defeated Fascism in Europe, turned the USSR into a superpower, greatly increased industrialization, literacy, healthcare and life expectancy, but the fact remains: He was no Noam Chomsky. Sure Chomsky never created Literacy programs or initiated industrialization, but he's given Speeches and written books.

Yep, Stalin could really look up to a guy like Chomsky.

Whitten:


I dont really see why history is being discussed in the theory forum. Let me make a simple statement: Who gives a fuck what Stalin may, or may not, have done?

He did some good and some bad but I cant comprehend some peoples inability to distinguish between the actions of a historical individual and the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism.

Perhaps you are correct. I think that organization is more important than arguing about the past.

[Vargha Poralli]

Ah, well played. You make many many, accusations against Stalin, but don't back any of them up, because it would "take too long". How long do you think it has taken me to read this thread, and write these comments? Nice try.

time for some flame baiting i think :angry:

i don't need to back up anything i have said . because it is the truth. if i say trees and plants are green i don't need to back up , they are all around and you are blind to not to see them! what use is for me to give you my sources. even if i did you will just ignore them as either a bourgeoisie propaganda or accuse me of being either (a) a Trotskyist whom i have never fully read or understood or (b) an anarchist which to which i was never attracted.

that is the real problem with you people . i was surrounded by stalin supporters . the purpose i am visiting here is to study not to support Stalin or to back up why i think Stalin sucks.

since you ask for it i some what back up my claims

1) Stalin was not the right leader to succeed Lenin at that time Lenin's testament is proof for that. if you don't believe Lenin then i can do nothing about it!!

2) Stalin severely jeopardized the collectivization of USSR. which has led to severe famine and death . the number does not matter. its the reason why the nazis where welcomed by the Ukrainians initially.

3) In the name of defending the revolution if conducted various unnecessary purges against the whole bunch of old Bolsheviks including his former supporters Zinonev ,Bukharin , Kamenev and all others. do you really believe they were counterrevolutionaries ? all that he did to solidify his base. because he feared them . he feared that they would one day catch power just like he did .

4) Assassination of Trotsky. this act itself shows Stalin deserves no respect. even after exiling him and depriving him every chance of rising an opposition to his power Stalin had been afraid of Trotsky. I don't don't know why people admire a man who is a COWARD .

5) Misusing COMINTERN : Stalin screwed COMINTERN and international proletariat evidence:
(a) The way he misdirected the CPC during late twenties. Even Mao admits it.
(b) He forbade KPD to not to work with SPD after 1933 German elections. their combined vote would have stopped Hitler's ascension to power. So he helped Hitler's Rise to power in the first place. The first thing Hitler would do is ban both KPD and SPD. Within a decade he will order the invasion of USSR and kill millions of Russians to whom Stalin was "dear father".
© He dissolved the COMINTERN during the final days of WW2. Satisfying the Imperialist assholes like Churchill , Roosevelt and Truman became priority than world revolution for Stalin. afterwards Truman and his butchers will kill millions of communists in Korea, Vietnam and Chile.
(d) Stalin's Back stabbing in Spain deserves a book.

6) World War 2:
Most of his supporters bring up the ww2 victory as Stalin's accomplishment. well you know what He Screwed it . it is bcoz of him the wehrmacht advanced till Moscow.it was because of him wehrmacht besiged Leningrad for 4 fucking years.it was because of him the German's were at Stalingrad in first place. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 10,600,000 DEAD RUSSIANS. Only after he let General Zhukov to take tactical decisions freely did the tables turn in the war. HE IS NOT A WAR HERO ANYWAY

there you go i have backed up my arguments. but as you stalin supportersd usually turn blind,deaf and dumb when someone argues against stalin i cant help. when you have closed your eyes it doesn't mean that the whole world became dark.

and again i agree with the original post

:angry: YES STALIN IS A TRAITOR :angry:


QUOTE
I dont really see why history is being discussed in the theory forum. Let me make a simple statement: Who gives a fuck what Stalin may, or may not, have done?

He did some good and some bad but I cant comprehend some peoples inability to distinguish between the actions of a historical individual and the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism.


Perhaps you are correct. I think that organization is more important than arguing about the past.


This is not wholly useless. those who never learn from the past are doomed to repeat the mistakes done in the past/Yeah better this shall be in the history forum.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 05, 2006 07:12 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 05, 2006 07:12 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 07:10 pm

exactly. Leninism in general is about more than just Stalin. He is just a leader who advanced Marxist-Leninism.
So you are a supporter of Stalin? Or at least believe he helped "advance the revolutionary cause"??? [/b]

I wouldn't say I "support Stalin", but as of recent I've been leaning more towards Marxist-Leninism.

[Zeruzo]

1) Stalin was not the right leader to succeed Lenin at that time Lenin's testament is proof for that. if you don't believe Lenin then i can do nothing about it!!

This question was discussed by the party and the after Stalin requisted his resignation it was refused, even by Trotsky. Next to that you have to take into account that it was a sick man talking, that was next to that very pissed off at Stalins way of talking to his wife.



2) Stalin severely jeopardized the collectivization of USSR. which has led to severe famine and death . the number does not matter. its the reason why the nazis where welcomed by the Ukrainians initially.

The famine wans&#39;t beceause of the collectivisation but beceause of the rich peasants reaction towards it, thanks for doing such in-dept research <_<.



3) In the name of defending the revolution if conducted various unnecessary purges against the whole bunch of old Bolsheviks including his former supporters Zinonev ,Bukharin , Kamenev and all others. do you really believe they were counterrevolutionaries ? all that he did to solidify his base. because he feared them . he feared that they would one day catch power just like he did .

Typical trots... first start rambling about bureaucracy and when something is done about the bureaucracy, they start to complain. In fact the purges were even dangerous to Stalins position.



4) Assassination of Trotsky. this act itself shows Stalin deserves no respect. even after exiling him and depriving him every chance of rising an opposition to his power Stalin had been afraid of Trotsky. I don&#39;t don&#39;t know why people admire a man who is a COWARD .

Of course someone that co-operates with the Nazi&#39;s in an attempt to overthrow the soviet government right in front of a Nazi-invasion of the soviet-union is not dangerous at all. But of course he should have come there by himself and make it up with a fist-fight right? :rolleyes: .

Of course Stalin made mistakes on foreign policy, but i&#39;ll just take the worst accusations you made:



(b) He forbade KPD to not to work with SPD after 1933 German elections. their combined vote would have stopped Hitler&#39;s ascension to power. So he helped Hitler&#39;s Rise to power in the first place. The first thing Hitler would do is ban both KPD and SPD. Within a decade he will order the invasion of USSR and kill millions of Russians to whom Stalin was "dear father".

Well a source would be fine, but truth is that the SPD never wanted to co-operate with the KPD anyhow. In fact they hated the KPD so much that they prefered the Nazi&#39;s to be with them in a coalition over the communists. Just blaiming Stalin would be historical simplism...


© He dissolved the COMINTERN during the final days of WW2. Satisfying the Imperialist assholes like Churchill , Roosevelt and Truman became priority than world revolution for Stalin. afterwards Truman and his butchers will kill millions of communists in Korea, Vietnam and Chile.

Are you saying he shouldn&#39;t have made compromises on some part?
Winning WW2 and defeating the fascists became priority&#33; not satisfying imperialist assholes&#33; Again historical simplism...


(d) Stalin&#39;s Back stabbing in Spain deserves a book.

Actually, there&#39;s probably some anarchist book about it...
But besides that, it wasn&#39;t one-sided &#39;back-stabbing&#39;. There was sectarianism on both sides, in fact the POUM and such-like organizations were far more sectarian then the &#39;stalinists&#39;.



6) World War 2:
Most of his supporters bring up the ww2 victory as Stalin&#39;s accomplishment. well you know what He Screwed it . it is bcoz of him the wehrmacht advanced till Moscow.it was because of him wehrmacht besiged Leningrad for 4 fucking years.it was because of him the German&#39;s were at Stalingrad in first place. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 10,600,000 DEAD RUSSIANS. Only after he let General Zhukov to take tactical decisions freely did the tables turn in the war. HE IS NOT A WAR HERO ANYWAY

You are over-estimating Stalins real power, the power of the secretary-general of the CPSU was far smaller then that of the president of the U.S.A.. He didn&#39;t screw up anything you&#39;re just over-simplifying everything that happened. Zhukov got the chance to show his tactics many times before, and Stalin himself was proven to be very good at war-time decisions. You can not seriously claim Stalin was personally responsible for the advances made by the Nazi&#39;s. Especially considering the fact the Soviets had a smaller and less technologically advanced army.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 06:11 pm
6) World War 2:
Most of his supporters bring up the ww2 victory as Stalin&#39;s accomplishment. well you know what He Screwed it . it is bcoz of him the wehrmacht advanced till Moscow.it was because of him wehrmacht besiged Leningrad for 4 fucking years.it was because of him the German&#39;s were at Stalingrad in first place. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 10,600,000 DEAD RUSSIANS. Only after he let General Zhukov to take tactical decisions freely did the tables turn in the war. HE IS NOT A WAR HERO ANYWAY
Are you joking? Seriously, only a retard would suggest this. Please, go back to your computer "strategy" games where you can crush your enemy with 20 tanks. It doesn&#39;t take a general Zhukov to know that your knowledge of anything military is exactly nil. You are so empty-headed and so devoid of any idea about military affairs, you must be a joke account or something.

If any other numbnuts are reading this as well, it&#39;s time to put this ridiculous "Stalin ruined the war effort" bullshit to rest for good. Let&#39;s have a look at some of the most persistent myths.

1: Stalin ruined it because he did not mobilise the army, even though he was constantly told that the USSR was about to be attacked.

Let me take you back to that little thing known as the Great War, WWI, The First World War, or whatever you call it. What was that again? Oh, right, it was only the most devastating conflict in the history of the world before the Great Patriotic War began. And guess what? When general mobilisations started, battles were not far off&#33; Because when millions of troops right across the border start mobilising, there is no time to hesitate - you must go to war&#33; We all know the state that the Red Army was in by that time, so why would Stalin want to provoke Hitler by mobilising? If he had done that, Hitler would have had no choice but to mobilise as well, and go to war immediately.

As for the reports he got, they were seen as British provocations, and with good reason: Stalin had every reason to believe that the British were first of all trying to divert attention away from them, to the east. So, all the more reason to be suspicious of such reports, especially when the facts mentioned in the previous paragraph are taken into consideration. Nobody in their right mind would provoke a war just because a power which was interested in having you and someone else destroy each other told you so. Besides, if Hitler himself had been more logical, he would not have attacked, either, and that is ultimately how it failed, because he had to help the Italians take Yugoslavia and Greece first(naturally - securing these ports at that time was extremely important for Axis interests).

So, to summarise:
Mobilisation = provocation. Had Stalin mobilised, war would be inevitable.
Stalin needed as much time as possible to prepare. Why provoke a war early?
The British were mostly interested in diverting German attention away from them to the east. Therefore, intel reports about Germany were distrusted.
It was highly unlogical for Hitler to attack at that time.

That&#39;s one myth busted. Anyone who still dares to use it as an argument after reading this is intellectually dishonest.

2: Operation Barbarossa was a dazzling success. Stalin totally messed up the defence.

This is just completely false. The initial attack failed to overwhelm the Soviets. If Barbarossa had been as successful as pro-nazi propagandists claim, then Germany&#39;s amazing Blitzkrieg would have had German soldiers marching through Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad before winter. This was not the case. Only by September, two and a half months after the initial attack, were the Baltics, Bielorussia and Ukraine completely overwhelmed. The harsh Russian winter set in before the main objectives were reached.

When the winter was already fully in progress, the Germans finally came near Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. But hey, don&#39;t take my word for it, just look at the map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b8/Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png/783px-Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png

Anyone who still dares to claim that Barbarossa was wildly successful is intellectually dishonest, or simply knows jack shit about the German objectives for this operation.

3: the only reason the USSR won, is because of the Lend-Lease. Without US and British equipment, they would have lost.

In fact, the most important supplies only started arriving by 1943, when the tides had already turned. Not to mention that it was not "aid", but trade. The USSR paid for the equipment in hard currency, or resources and products. IIRC, Russia still has to pay the USA for this.

Morever, western aid to the Nazis was prominent as well. IBM machinery for the death camps, Ford vehicles/vehicle parts, British petroleum... The west did not exclusively support the Soviet war effort, and when they did, it was hardly decisive. The west certainly did not make the T-34s, the Il-2 Shturmoviks, the Katyushas, etc.

4: the Red Army totally got its ass kicked until the turning point at Stalingrad.

On the contrary, after what was described above, the Soviets launched a counter-offensive during the winter, which the Germans, unprepared for winter warfare and with partisans in their back, had quite a lot of trouble with:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png

Only after the winter settled, the Germans could strike back hard again. And so they did in Fall Blau, their attempt to take the oil-rich Caucasus, as well as the important city of Stalingrad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png

Some effects, if the Germans had been successful in securing this area:
Capture of oil reserves in the Caucasus.
Ability to move north and attack Moscow from two sides.
Ability to cut through Iran, being able to attack British posessions in the Middle East and Northern Africa from two sides.

Anyway, we all know what happened afterwards. The Siege of Leningrad was broken, the Germans were stopped in front of Moscow, Stalingrad was taken... I&#39;d say more maps are appropriate:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Eastern_Front_1943-02_to_1943-08.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1943-02_to_1943-08.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png





Now then, I&#39;m going to make a prediction: you will not be able to point out how you could have done better if you were in charge of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. In fact, I&#39;ll go further: if you were in charge of the Red Army during the GPW, we would all be learning how to salute the Swastika flag now.

Think about all this for a moment before you start mouthing off about how "Stalin ruined the war effort". He was not perfect, but even Zhukov, whom you referred to earlier, as well as Vasilievskiy, admit that, especially after Stalingrad and Kursk, Stalin&#39;s military leadership improved exponentially, and even before that, the Germans failed to reach their objectives.

It was the millions of Soviet people, military leaders like Zhukov, Timoshenko, Konev, etc., and of course comrade Stalin. Together, they crushed Germany and its occupied territories, four other fascist states, as well as "co-belligerent" Finland.

The cries of revisionist propaganda from the likes of you these days, are only outvoiced by the sound of millions of people liberated from fascism, and many millions more dying for this cause. If you still think that you could have done this better than them, then I must ask you to step outside for a moment. Have a nice day, sir.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

3: the only reason the USSR won, is because of the Lend-Lease. Without US and British equipment, they would have lost.

This one is a joke mainly because lend lease was really only accessable to the British. The US tried to make it so that only the british and not the british could take advantage of it although in theory it was for both.

Second, it&#39;s false because most equipment was Russian made. The centrally planned economy allowed the switch from tractor factories to tank factories to be made very quickly.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I am a Marxist-Leninist but i don&#39;t support with the way stalin captured power, destroyed the revolution , betrayed the international proletariat , screwed revolutions in spain and china , handled the WW2 and further betrayed the international proletariat by doing favours for imperialists. as far as i am concerned stalin is an unfortunate burden of the Marxist Leninists and i consider khrushev did the right thing by putting his legacy to the right place - dustbins.

That&#39;s trotskyism or some strange Maoist anti-Stalin hybrid thing.

[combat]

Originally posted by Matthijs+November 07, 2006 06:34 pm--> (Matthijs @ November 07, 2006 06:34 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2006 06:11 pm
6) World War 2:
Most of his supporters bring up the ww2 victory as Stalin&#39;s accomplishment. well you know what He Screwed it . it is bcoz of him the wehrmacht advanced till Moscow.it was because of him wehrmacht besiged Leningrad for 4 fucking years.it was because of him the German&#39;s were at Stalingrad in first place. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 10,600,000 DEAD RUSSIANS. Only after he let General Zhukov to take tactical decisions freely did the tables turn in the war. HE IS NOT A WAR HERO ANYWAY
Are you joking? Seriously, only a retard would suggest this. Please, go back to your computer "strategy" games where you can crush your enemy with 20 tanks. It doesn&#39;t take a general Zhukov to know that your knowledge of anything military is exactly nil. You are so empty-headed and so devoid of any idea about military affairs, you must be a joke account or something.

If any other numbnuts are reading this as well, it&#39;s time to put this ridiculous "Stalin ruined the war effort" bullshit to rest for good. Let&#39;s have a look at some of the most persistent myths.

1: Stalin ruined it because he did not mobilise the army, even though he was constantly told that the USSR was about to be attacked.

Let me take you back to that little thing known as the Great War, WWI, The First World War, or whatever you call it. What was that again? Oh, right, it was only the most devastating conflict in the history of the world before the Great Patriotic War began. And guess what? When general mobilisations started, battles were not far off&#33; Because when millions of troops right across the border start mobilising, there is no time to hesitate - you must go to war&#33; We all know the state that the Red Army was in by that time, so why would Stalin want to provoke Hitler by mobilising? If he had done that, Hitler would have had no choice but to mobilise as well, and go to war immediately.

As for the reports he got, they were seen as British provocations, and with good reason: Stalin had every reason to believe that the British were first of all trying to divert attention away from them, to the east. So, all the more reason to be suspicious of such reports, especially when the facts mentioned in the previous paragraph are taken into consideration. Nobody in their right mind would provoke a war just because a power which was interested in having you and someone else destroy each other told you so. Besides, if Hitler himself had been more logical, he would not have attacked, either, and that is ultimately how it failed, because he had to help the Italians take Yugoslavia and Greece first(naturally - securing these ports at that time was extremely important for Axis interests).

So, to summarise: Mobilisation = provocation. Had Stalin mobilised, war would be inevitable.
Stalin needed as much time as possible to prepare. Why provoke a war early?
The British were mostly interested in diverting German attention away from them to the east. Therefore, intel reports about Germany were distrusted.
It was highly unlogical for Hitler to attack at that time.
That&#39;s one myth busted. Anyone who still dares to use it as an argument after reading this is intellectually dishonest.

2: Operation Barbarossa was a dazzling success. Stalin totally messed up the defence.

This is just completely false. The initial attack failed to overwhelm the Soviets. If Barbarossa had been as successful as pro-nazi propagandists claim, then Germany&#39;s amazing Blitzkrieg would have had German soldiers marching through Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad before winter. This was not the case. Only by September, two and a half months after the initial attack, were the Baltics, Bielorussia and Ukraine completely overwhelmed. The harsh Russian winter set in before the main objectives were reached.

When the winter was already fully in progress, the Germans finally came near Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. But hey, don&#39;t take my word for it, just look at the map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b8/Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png/783px-Eastern_Front_1941-06_to_1941-12.png

Anyone who still dares to claim that Barbarossa was wildly successful is intellectually dishonest, or simply knows jack shit about the German objectives for this operation.

3: the only reason the USSR won, is because of the Lend-Lease. Without US and British equipment, they would have lost.

In fact, the most important supplies only started arriving by 1943, when the tides had already turned. Not to mention that it was not "aid", but trade. The USSR paid for the equipment in hard currency, or resources and products. IIRC, Russia still has to pay the USA for this.

Morever, western aid to the Nazis was prominent as well. IBM machinery for the death camps, Ford vehicles/vehicle parts, British petroleum... The west did not exclusively support the Soviet war effort, and when they did, it was hardly decisive. The west certainly did not make the T-34s, the Il-2 Shturmoviks, the Katyushas, etc.

4: the Red Army totally got its ass kicked until the turning point at Stalingrad.

On the contrary, after what was described above, the Soviets launched a counter-offensive during the winter, which the Germans, unprepared for winter warfare and with partisans in their back, had quite a lot of trouble with:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png

Only after the winter settled, the Germans could strike back hard again. And so they did in Fall Blau, their attempt to take the oil-rich Caucasus, as well as the important city of Stalingrad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png

Some effects, if the Germans had been successful in securing this area: Capture of oil reserves in the Caucasus.
Ability to move north and attack Moscow from two sides.
Ability to cut through Iran, being able to attack British posessions in the Middle East and Northern Africa from two sides.
Anyway, we all know what happened afterwards. The Siege of Leningrad was broken, the Germans were stopped in front of Moscow, Stalingrad was taken... I&#39;d say more maps are appropriate:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/Eastern_Front_1943-02_to_1943-08.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1943-02_to_1943-08.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png/782px-Eastern_Front_1945-01_to_1945-05.png





Now then, I&#39;m going to make a prediction: you will not be able to point out how you could have done better if you were in charge of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. In fact, I&#39;ll go further: if you were in charge of the Red Army during the GPW, we would all be learning how to salute the Swastika flag now.

Think about all this for a moment before you start mouthing off about how "Stalin ruined the war effort". He was not perfect, but even Zhukov, whom you referred to earlier, as well as Vasilievskiy, admit that, especially after Stalingrad and Kursk, Stalin&#39;s military leadership improved exponentially, and even before that, the Germans failed to reach their objectives.

It was the millions of Soviet people, military leaders like Zhukov, Timoshenko, Konev, etc., and of course comrade Stalin. Together, they crushed Germany and its occupied territories, four other fascist states, as well as "co-belligerent" Finland.

The cries of revisionist propaganda from the likes of you these days, are only outvoiced by the sound of millions of people liberated from fascism, and many millions more dying for this cause. If you still think that you could have done this better than them, then I must ask you to step outside for a moment. Have a nice day, sir. [/b]
Points 1 and 2 are grotest stalinist lies, while points 3 and 4 make sense and show the power of a degenerated worker&#39;s state. The stalinist clique forgets to talk about the purges that led to the anihilation of the red army. Amost every division officer was shot in 36-39 so there was no way the soviet army could be able to resist efficiently.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+--> (Idola Mentis)To think a single person&#39;s thought is the key to everything, and then name your ideology after that person isn&#39;t a good idea to begin with.[/b]

To be fair, I don&#39;t think there is even one Marxist-Leninist Communist Party that calls itself "Stalinist". I certainly can&#39;t think of one, can you?


Originally posted by Bolshevist+--> (Bolshevist)I cannot see how a person willing to do this to suit his own goals can be considered a hero of the working class....[/b]

I really do love the hypocrisy of "anti-Stalinist" Bolshevik-Leninists....

Yes, Stalin did preside over the particularly ruthless destruction of the Bolshevik cadre, but he didn&#39;t start that destruction. It was during Lenin&#39;s reign, for instance, that the Workers&#39; Opposition and the Workers&#39; Group -- two groups which argued for principled proletarian positions -- were suppressed. Not as brutally as the later suppressions, but brutal enough.

But, brutality aside, the suppression, sidelining and slandering of people like Kollontai, Shlyapnikov, Medvedev and Myasnikov, set a definite precedent -- as did the undermining of organised labour. A precedent which the Stalin faction simply pursued with a particular voracity.

And, given all that, it is strange when people hold up Leon "one man management" Trotsky as "a hero of the working class" and call Stalin a "traitor" ... in my view, it underlines a particularly childlike approach to political questions.


Originally posted by RavenBlade
I hope I only have to say this one more time: :"Stalinist" Is a vulgar political slur, akin to the N-word, but without the same social taboo surrounding it.

You what? :o

The word "Nigger" is a racial insult that reflects the systematic oppression of Black people over the last few centuries. The term "Stalinist", however, is, as you correctly say, a political insult that was populised by a political fossil and carried on by his descendants.

There is absolutely no basis for comparison between the two. And, that you could even think that someone calling you a "Stalinist" was akin to a Black person being called a "Nigger", only reflects on your own misconceptions on what racist power structures actually are and how they work.

I do hope that that is the last time you say that, but not for the reasons you use. I hope, instead, that you manage to acquire an ounce of political sense ... and not that people stop using the word "Stalinist".


Originally posted by YKTMX
In political terms, it is highly authoritarian and centralized, with "top-down" methods of organisation and action.

The fact is that in the last 15 years (perhaps longer) there has not been a single substantial issue on which the CC has been defeated at a conference or party council or NC. Indeed I don’t think that in this period there has ever been even a serious challenge or a close vote. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of conference or council sessions have ended with the virtually unanimous endorsement of whatever is proposed by the leadership. Similarly, in this period there has never been a contested election for the CC: ie, not one comrade has ever been proposed or proposed themselves for the CC other than those nominated by the CC themselves. -- John Molyneux; from the Weekly Worker (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/553/swpdemocracy.htm).

A description of "Stalinism" in action? You decide.


[email protected]
He he. I seem to recall that you actually have quite a problem with Joking

Yes, I have a problem with jokes about Prison Guards gang raping female inmates ... obviously meaning I completely lack a sense of humour. :rolleyes:

You, on the other hand, as shown by the comment by you I highlighted earlier, just lack sense. Basic, bog standard political sense.


RavenBlade
And you hope to do that with yes or no answers?

No. However, a "yes or no answer" is a significant improvement on no answer at all.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yes, Stalin did preside over the particularly ruthless destruction of the Bolshevik cadre, but he didn&#39;t start that destruction. It was during Lenin&#39;s reign, for instance, that the Workers&#39; Opposition and the Workers&#39; Group -- two groups which argued for principled proletarian positions -- were suppressed. Not as brutally as the later suppressions, but brutal enough.

It was during Lenin&#39;s "reign", that the USSR was either to establish itself or be crushed by germany and other capitalist nations. It was during his "reign" that worker democracy was set up despite the tremendous pressure internally and externally.




And, given all that, it is strange when people hold up Leon "one man management" Trotsky as "a hero of the working class" and call Stalin a "traitor" ... in my view, it underlines a particularly childlike approach to political questions.

&#39;one man management&#39; was supposed to be temporarily used for the deep post-war depression Russia faced and it&#39;s need to quickly be pulled out. Trotsky was a leader in the Left Opposition and supported democratic rights in the USSR.

[Leo]

Stalin himself was a pretty conscious capitalist actually. As for Stalinists being traitors, it kind of became obvious to the working class in Europe and US after 1968.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)It was during Lenin&#39;s "reign", that the USSR was either to establish itself or be crushed by germany and other capitalist nations.[/b]

And?

Unless you&#39;re going to argue Myasnikov & co. were open agents of the German counter revolution, I don&#39;t see what any of this relates to. After all, if the threat of invasion is enough to justify the suppression of proletarian views, then on what basis can you condemn Stalin&#39;s treatment of Trotsky?

That is what I was referring to when I talked about Bolshevik-Leninist hypocrisy. One rule for Lenin and Trotsky ... and another rule for Stalin and friends. It&#39;s politics based on individual personalities, nothing more.


Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)It was during his "reign" that worker democracy was set up despite the tremendous pressure internally and externally.[/b]

The institutions of working class power came into place before October -- they were set up by rank and file workers, some Bolsheviks, some not, but had very little to do with the Bolshevik leadership. Indeed, it was under the Bolshevik leadership that the Russian working class lost a series of important battles to maintain those institutions ... from around 1918 to the late 1920&#39;s.

To ignore the question of differing class interests between the Bolshevik leadership and their hangers on, and the Russian working class, is to ignore the class question itself. Something you already do ... which shouldn&#39;t really surprise anyone familiar with your politics.

After all, you are a proponent of one of the most vulgar Leninist myths -- that the Bolsheviks, and not the working class, "set up" the institutions of workers democracy. So it&#39;s not really surprising that you would actually substitute the stated interests of flesh and blood workers for the lofty declarations of the Bolshevik leadership. It&#39;s what all good substitutionalists do.


[email protected]
&#39;one man management&#39; was supposed to be temporarily used for the deep post-war depression Russia faced and it&#39;s need to quickly be pulled out.

Even if we accept Trotsky&#39;s verbal declarations at face value, it still shows one thing. That someone who would propose and support such a measure, simply had no idea of the implications of said measure -- that is, never having been a worker himself, he simply wasn&#39;t able to understand what it meant to forcefully reintroduce capitalist structures into the workplace.

Actual workers at that time, both Bolshevik and non-Bolshevik, weren&#39;t under any such illusions. They knew what it meant to erode the democratic control of the economy by workers and replace it with capitalist management structures ... and, when they spoke out about this, they were silenced.

After all, the voices of flesh and blood workers are dangerous. Lenin, Trotsky & co. had to save the revolution from counter revolution ... by becoming counter revolutionaries themselves.

Now, you can blabber all you want that these were "temporary", but even you must admit that they became anything but that. So why don&#39;t you display an iota of political honesty here, and admit that Lenin and Trotsky fucked up? Actually, you better not. Whatever Party you&#39;re in, would probably boot you out for such "blasphemy".


LeftyHenry
Trotsky was a leader in the Left Opposition and supported democratic rights in the USSR.

He supported democratic rights for himself ... and the rest of the bureaucracy. When the issue of the working classes democratic rights came up, he actively tried to neutralise it. In other words, he stood on the wrong side of the barricade.

[Vargha Poralli]

Matthijs: as combat has siad in his post you first 2 points are nuthing more than the propaganda of your sorts any way:


1: Stalin ruined it because he did not mobilise the army, even though he was constantly told that the USSR was about to be attacked.

Let me take you back to that little thing known as the Great War, WWI, The First World War, or whatever you call it. What was that again? Oh, right, it was only the most devastating conflict in the history of the world before the Great Patriotic War began. And guess what? When general mobilisations started, battles were not far off&#33; Because when millions of troops right across the border start mobilising, there is no time to hesitate - you must go to war&#33; We all know the state that the Red Army was in by that time, so why would Stalin want to provoke Hitler by mobilising? If he had done that, Hitler would have had no choice but to mobilise as well, and go to war immediately.

As for the reports he got, they were seen as British provocations, and with good reason: Stalin had every reason to believe that the British were first of all trying to divert attention away from them, to the east. So, all the more reason to be suspicious of such reports, especially when the facts mentioned in the previous paragraph are taken into consideration. Nobody in their right mind would provoke a war just because a power which was interested in having you and someone else destroy each other told you so. Besides, if Hitler himself had been more logical, he would not have attacked, either, and that is ultimately how it failed, because he had to help the Italians take Yugoslavia and Greece first(naturally - securing these ports at that time was extremely important for Axis interests).

So, to summarise:

* Mobilisation = provocation. Had Stalin mobilised, war would be inevitable.
* Stalin needed as much time as possible to prepare. Why provoke a war early?
* The British were mostly interested in diverting German attention away from them to the east. Therefore, intel reports about Germany were distrusted.
* It was highly unlogical for Hitler to attack at that time.

That&#39;s one myth busted. Anyone who still dares to use it as an argument after reading this is intellectually dishonest.

you agree with me in most point that stalin didn&#39;t prepare well in time and those intelligence reports not only came form the the British but also came form from his own spies. he ignored them because he is doubhtful of his own men. her is also doubtful because all the efficient men were purged some years b4 and are all replaced with politically reliable ones. this greatly undermined the operational capacity of the red army. moreover even after Barbarossa commenced on June 21 officers in the front desperately seeked order to counterattack they were told not to fall into "provocations". only on June 22 did the order came. any one who still apologies stalin has no intelligence.


2: Operation Barbarossa was a dazzling success. Stalin totally messed up the defense.

This is just completely false. The initial attack failed to overwhelm the Soviets. If Barbarossa had been as successful as pro-nazi propagandists claim, then Germany&#39;s amazing Blitzkrieg would have had German soldiers marching through Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad before winter. This was not the case. Only by September, two and a half months after the initial attack, were the Baltics, Bielorussia and Ukraine completely overwhelmed. The harsh Russian winter set in before the main objectives were reached.

When the winter was already fully in progress, the Germans finally came near Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. But hey, don&#39;t take my word for it, just look at the map:
Anyone who still dares to claim that Barbarossa was wildly successful is intellectually dishonest, or simply knows jack shit about the German objectives for this operation.


no one is claiming OB is a success but it did not fail because of Red army&#39;s capacities at that time. in reality Hitler sheerly underestimated the Red army&#39;s sheer man power and overestimated the Wehrmacht&#39;s operation capacity in the eastern front. and in the first place comparing both Wehrmacht&#39;s and Red army&#39;s both men and machine power
clearly the latter had the huge advantage. Wehrmacht should have never reached till Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Stalin is the huge disadvantage to red army .Stalin issued orders to his troops not to retreat or surrender, resulting in a return to static linear positions which the German tanks still easily breached, again quickly cutting supply lines and surrounding whole Soviet armies. Only later did Stalin allow his troops to retreat to the rear wherever possible and regroup to mount a defense in depth or to counterattack. More than 2.4 million Soviet troops had been taken prisoner by December 1941, when German and Soviet forces fought in the suburbs of Moscow.


3: the only reason the USSR won, is because of the Lend-Lease. Without US and British equipment, they would have lost.


I never made that claim read my posts again.


4: the Red Army totally got its ass kicked until the turning point at Stalingrad.

I never made that point too.


On the contrary, after what was described above, the Soviets launched a counter-offensive during the winter, which the Germans, unprepared for winter warfare and with partisans in their back, had quite a lot of trouble with:


Al the counter-offensives during winter failed miserably. they were carried on Stalin&#39;s order. Initially Zhukov favored strengthening the lines established during winter as the Germans obviously where short of supplies for the offensive but had well prepared for the defenses. but since stalin ordered to attack there were more failures.


Only after the winter settled, the Germans could strike back hard again. And so they did in Fall Blau, their attempt to take the oil-rich Caucasus, as well as the important city of Stalingrad:

here you have underestimated one important factor. Hitler specifically refused Paulus to breakout of the soviet encirclement shortly b4 the launch of operation Uranus. it was same blunder Stalin did during the initial stages of Barbarossa.


Now then, I&#39;m going to make a prediction: you will not be able to point out how you could have done better if you were in charge of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. In fact, I&#39;ll go further: if you were in charge of the Red Army during the GPW, we would all be learning how to salute the Swastika flag now.


You are all really full of shit. any how I would have rather taken backseat and let my generals to take tactical decisions if had had been in Stalin&#39;s position

If you want i recommend reading this book


http&#58;//rapidshare.de/files/32790554/The_Eastern_Front_in_Photographs.rar

Password&#58; www.devilived.com



Amusing Scrotum:

all your arguments for anti Stalinist Bolshevik-Leninist hypocrisy is completely biased. unfortunately i bring up this argument , what would you have done if you are in Lenin&#39;s shoes at that time ? would you have allowed dear Kerensky to continue the war ? how will you have defended the young socialist states from the reactionaries and their imperialist supporters ? exactly how will you have prevented it from (in Churchill&#39;s words) strangled at its infancy ?

I would renounce Leninism and become an anarchist if you answer satisfactorily to my questions &#33;&#33;&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)all your arguments for anti Stalinist Bolshevik-Leninist hypocrisy is completely biased.[/b]

And water is wet. So what?

My "bias" is neither here nor there, when one considers it is a reasonable "bias". That is, I&#39;ve formulated my arguments based on the historical facts that concern the actions of the early Bolshevik Government ... and just moaning about my "bias" is not a refutation, of any kind.

That you asked me "what would you have done if you are in Lenin&#39;s shoes at that time ?" is actually rather telling. It shows how you conceptualise the power structures of the early Bolshevik Government. That is, you haven&#39;t asked me what line I would have argued if I was a worker participating in the institutions of workers democracy -- rather, you&#39;ve asked me what I would have done in "Lenin&#39;s shoes".

That you&#39;ve said that, indicates two things ... which aren&#39;t necessarily separate of each other. Either you, consciously or unconsciously, substitute Lenin&#39;s voice for the collective voices of the working class; or you understand that it was in Lenin&#39;s Office -- and other Governmental Offices -- that decisions were made. In other words, you recognise the institutions of workers power, the Soviets, were made "null & void" by the Bolshevik State.

It&#39;s probably a mix of the two ... and after a few more years of being a "Party Communist", they&#39;ll have ironed these mistakes out of you. That is, they&#39;ll have taught you Leninist history v1.2 ... or v1.3, or v1.4, and so on.

But, whilst a Party education will iron out all the little flaws in your arguments, it&#39;ll avoid on crucial thing ... the class question.

Sure, you&#39;ll be taught a version of the class question -- the one that goes: the working class ruled during the time of Lenin and Trotsky, but then came the "Stalinist" counter revolution which led to [definition of the Soviet Union] ... blah, blah, blah.

But that&#39;s a very self serving answer. And a wrong one, as well. It treats the bureaucracy, as you folks like to call it, as something that first appeared whilst Lenin was on his deathbed and as something which was then fought against by the brave Trotsky.

However, the counter revolution led by Stalin, as I&#39;ve mentioned, pre-dates Stalin&#39;s rule. From around 1918 onwards, the working class, including many working class Bolsheviks, waged important battles against the Bolshevik leadership ... ones which defined the eventual course of the old USSR.

So, to go back to your question, if I were in "Lenin&#39;s shoes", I would have taken a side in this debate -- the side of the working class. And, at the very least, that would have meant supporting the measures proposed by the Workers&#39; Opposition.

If Lenin had done that, then I think we could see his contribution in a generally positive light. But he didn&#39;t do that, did he? Instead of siding with the working class, he sided with the ever growing bureaucracy -- the legions of Managers and "Specialists", that swarmed around the Bolshevik State like flies round shit.

You see, your ramblings -- standard issue, I must add -- about Kerensky, the Civil War and so on, are neither here nor there. You may like to think of the affair as something which took place between the Bolsheviks and [Kerensky&#39;s Government, the Imperialists, "the reactionaries" ... and so on], but even a cursory glance at the historical record would tell you otherwise.

There was another force in this conflict: the working class. And whilst, at times, they had similar interests to the Bolsheviks, sometimes even the same interests, they still had historically different interests. And, in time, those interests would show themselves ... and conflict would happen.

You can ignore that, embrace it, or flush it down the toilet ... it&#39;s your choice, after all. But, rest assured, that in the future situations like this will come up, and if you&#39;re the sincere revolutionary I think you are, then you&#39;d do well to understand and remember the manner in which the Russian working class lost. And, for that matter, to identify the mistakes they made that contributed to said loss.


Originally posted by [email protected]
exactly how will you have prevented it from (in Churchill&#39;s words) strangled at its infancy ?

Strange line of argument. After all, it seems to work on the assumption that the USSR "won" ... it didn&#39;t. In fact, it died over a decade ago. So, really, what&#39;s the difference between it falling apart in its infancy, as opposed to it falling apart in its old age? Failure is failure is failure.

As for the question itself, I imagine I would have used the same general methods as were used. That is, the brave brothers and sisters that compromised the Red Army. Seems like a bit of a "no-brainer" to me....

But, maybe it stems from your confusion over this issue. You seem to think that the platforms of the Workers&#39; Opposition and the Workers&#39; Group, if implemented, would have led to a "White Government". Overlooking, of course, that these two groups started agitating after the Civil War had finished.

They stoutly resisted the Whites during the Civil War; and, afterwards, they just wanted the democracy taken during the Civil War to be restored. Lenin & co., of course, had other ideas.

Granted, you&#39;ve probably never heard about the Bolshevik opposition to Lenin -- bar the obvious examples, that is; like Bukharin&#39;s opposition to Brest-Litovsk. Indeed, you particular Party probably does its best to mask the differences between Lenin and Trotsky -- suggesting, for instance, that Lenin "came around" to the idea of Permanent Revolution ... and so on.

So, basically, there&#39;s little chance that you know about the working class Bolshevik opposition to the Bolshevik leadership. But, now you do. And the question really is, what side are you going to take?


g.ram
I would renounce Leninism and become an anarchist if you answer satisfactorily to my questions &#33;&#33;&#33;

That&#39;ll make the anarchist contingent happy....

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

What is with all the anti-Marxist Leninist threads on this site? Too many anarchists and hippy liberals here.

Anarchism has failed. Meanwhile this still goes on.

http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/a/a4/Soviet_Union,_Stalin_(15).jpg

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 10:45 pm
What is with all the anti-Marxist Leninist threads on this site? Too many anarchists and hippy liberals here.

Anarchism has failed. Meanwhile this still goes on.

http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/a/a4/Soviet_Union,_Stalin_(15).jpg
Can you go one thread without posting a picture of your idol?

Name one truly successful socialist nation to have built from Stalinist ideas.

[combat]

Well, a few hundreds of old people(average age=65)..that&#39;s not going to bring a revolution.
Electoral results of the KPRF(Stalino-reformist):
32% in 1996
25% in 2000
13% in 2004
What about 2008?

The hardcore stalinists get less than 1%.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 10:45 pm
What is with all the anti-Marxist Leninist threads on this site? Too many anarchists and hippy liberals here.

Anarchism has failed. Meanwhile this still goes on.

http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/a/a4/Soviet_Union,_Stalin_(15).jpg
So what if some old people walk around with pictures of Stalin?

In East Germany a lot of people are nazi&#39;s, and if they were allowed, they would have walked around with pictures of Hitler. Does that make Hitler revolutionary, just because some old farts walk around with a picture of Hitler?

[Nilats]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+November 06, 2006 10:24 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ November 06, 2006 10:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:12 pm

[email protected] 05, 2006 07:10 pm

exactly. Leninism in general is about more than just Stalin. He is just a leader who advanced Marxist-Leninism.
So you are a supporter of Stalin? Or at least believe he helped "advance the revolutionary cause"???

I wouldn&#39;t say I "support Stalin", but as of recent I&#39;ve been leaning more towards Marxist-Leninism. [/b]
Hooray&#33; Congratulations comrade LeftyHenry&#33;

[Nilats]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 07:21 pm
Does that make Hitler revolutionary, just because some old farts walk around with a picture of Hitler?
No. And your logic is heavily flawed. Holding a picture of a reactionary does not make one a revolutionary, just a reactionary. Ditto with fascist. Holding up a picture of a revolutionary like Stalin does at least make one an admirer of a revolutionary.

[Nilats]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 07:03 pm
Well, a few hundreds of old people(average age=65)..that&#39;s not going to bring a revolution.
Electoral results of the KPRF(Stalino-reformist):
32% in 1996
25% in 2000
13% in 2004
What about 2008?

The hardcore stalinists get less than 1%.
Wooo hoo&#33; Way to go mr. bourgeois liberal&#33; Yup, a bunch of bourgeois elections, that&#39;ll surely sure the masses what&#39;s what&#33;

Tell you something else, how did all those far left parties do in the US general elections?? How did the right wing Democrats and Republicans do?? Uh ohhh, you know what that means&#33;&#33;&#33; :o

[Cryotank Screams]

Wooo hoo&#33; Way to go mr. bourgeois liberal&#33; Yup, a bunch of bourgeois elections, that&#39;ll surely sure the masses what&#39;s what&#33;

Yea, someone offers something, and you denounce it with name calling, some debater you are, :rolleyes: .

[Nilats]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 12, 2006 08:02 pm

Wooo hoo&#33; Way to go mr. bourgeois liberal&#33; Yup, a bunch of bourgeois elections, that&#39;ll surely sure the masses what&#39;s what&#33;

Yea, someone offers something, and you denounce it with name calling, some debater you are, :rolleyes: .
Someone offers bourgeois elections as that "something" and I will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

I also make a valid point that if winning bourgeois elections is all that matters, then you should consider joining the Democrats or Republicans or some other bourgeois party since they seem to do well in bourgeois elections while all revolutionary left parties don&#39;t do as well. This point you conveniently ignore, of course.

[IronLion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:18 pm
Short answer:

yes.
^ Agreed.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:14 pm
Someone offers bourgeois elections as that "something" and I will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

Ok, hot shot, tell me how what he offered was bourgeoisie.

[Nilats]

Can you read my posts? He brought up the results of bourgeois elections for crying out loud&#33;&#33; How can bringing up bourgeois elections as proof that a movement does not have a lot of support be called anything other than bourgeois&#33;&#33;??

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:43 pm
Can you read my posts? He brought up the results of bourgeois elections for crying out loud&#33;&#33; How can bringing up bourgeois elections as proof that a movement does not have a lot of support be called anything other than bourgeois&#33;&#33;??
Oh, for the love of science, <_< .

I will ask this once more, how (you still with me?), was what he posted (still grasping it? here comes the important part) bourgeosie?

Meaning, prove to me it was a bourgeoisie election.

[Nilats]

Do you know what bourgeois elections are? He was referring to an election in a bourgeois country, how the hell can a bourgeois election in a bourgeois country not be bourgeois??

Do you consider the elections in the US to be bourgeois? OK then, same rules apply.

[Cryotank Screams]

Do you know what bourgeois elections are?

Yes.


He was referring to an election in a bourgeois country, how the hell can a bourgeois election in a bourgeois country not be bourgeois??

The elections results he said was from the KPRF, or The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and is a communist/democratic socialist group, so again how is the results that he gave bourgeoisie related?

[Cassius Clay is back]

Haven&#39;t bothered to read the whole of this thread.

Forgive me then in advance if what I say isn&#39;t entirely accurate to this thread.

However it seems to me that it&#39;s not really possible to engage in any sought of rational debate about &#39;Stalinists&#39; when the poster is implying that people who &#39;defend&#39; Stalin are somehow mentally deluded or &#39;confused&#39;.


Not very productive is it?

It also seems that alot of people are living in another world here.

Where and when are all these fights in subways between supporters of Stalin and supporters of Trotsky actually taking place?

I&#39;m alot less naive than I was a few years back but even then I never pretended the various self-proclaimed Marxist or Leftist organisations were anything more than a minority. A small one at that.

Here in Britain the largest Marxist (should say self-proclaimed) party is the SWP. Is Trotskyite and has about 10,000 members. Also bare in mind that alot of those &#39;members&#39; will be people who sighned up when going on a demonstration.

I&#39;m making a guess here and could be wrong so if someone from SWP finds that offensive please dont take it wrongly. Just I been on to many demo&#39;s to know how party&#39;s go about getting people to sign up. The SWP being the biggest is the worst for this in my experience.

Worth mentioning that I have never once seen the SWP or any other Trotskyite org in Britain talk about the &#39;Dictatorship of the working class&#39;. Very rarely did I see the word proletariat mentioned either.

Again could be wrong but that my experience.

Does this mean I regard members of the SWP as &#39;traitors to the working class&#39;? No. It&#39;s been a while since I gave up my saturday morning to sell papers outside the local Tesco or what have you. And all credit to them.

Much like people I knew in the &#39;Stalinist&#39; NCP (New Communist Party). Used to be a member and certainly none of them ever &#39;betrayed&#39; anyone.

Alot were extremely hard working individuals who after a days work would put in another 5 to 8 hours doing &#39;Party work&#39;, organising meetings, writing the paper, raising money and organising/taking part in demo&#39;s for local hospitals and such.

Many did this while living on next to nothing in the material sense. Some were really on the poverty line.

So let me make this clear. They have not &#39;betrayed&#39; anyone least of all the working class.

But let&#39;s not get all deluded.

The NCP had 400 members if that. Alot of them in retirement age aswell.

Do they affect the working class in Britain? No they dont. Do the SWP? No. You are all extremely deluded if you think the theories of respective Stalin supporters or Trostky or Anarchists affects anyone here. I&#39;d say the same applies throughout the western world.

Why is that? Do we have a working class at all? Bought of labour aristocracy or merely just a underclass content to try and cheat the system just like it&#39;s been cheating us for hundreds of years?

Probably a bit of both, and probably not important to this thread. But is important to make clear that at the moment it&#39;s not really poss for anyone to be betraying the working class.

We aren&#39;t big enough.


Now I take Stalin&#39;s side historically and in theory. I am NOT deluded or betraying anyone.

Historically there are to many examples of &#39;Stalinists&#39; laying down their lifes. Not for but as part of the working class.

Were mistakes made? Yeah for sure, sometimes complete fuck ups no doubt. But I&#39;ve never had anyone show me evidence (or anything near to evidence) that there was ever a delibarate and pre-planned policy to sell out the working-class on behalf of Stalin or others.

[Klement Gottwald]

Would you say Stalinists

There is no such thing as a "Stalinist". That is just a bullshit pejorative term coined and incessantly used by Trotskyist polemicist frustrated about their lack of support among the working class.


are traitors of the people/working class movement

That is preposterous. Communist parties that supported the USSR have dominated the labour movement in France, Italy, and others. If there are traitors to working people, they are elitist Trotskyists. In fact, since Trotskyists typically are of petit-bourgeois roots, they are enemies of the people.


the way stalin captured power

Stalin did not capture power. He had the power of the rank and file communists and therefore the proletariat.


destroyed the revolution

Stalin revolutionized the USSR and proletarianized the Communist Party.


betrayed the international proletariat

Members of the Comintern frequently led strikes and demonstrations for the working class.


screwed revolutions in spain and china

Stalin cannot be held responsible for the civil war started by Chiang Kai-Shek. Stalin did not really take sides in the post-WWII Chinese Civil War. But this did not matter because without the support of the proletariat that the CCP had, there would never have been a Red victory. In regard to Spain, Stalin did all that could have been done to support the Republicans. It was actually the idealist adventurism by the anarchists that obstructed unity amongst the Republicans. War is never the time for revolution. In a way the the POUM and anarchists assisted Franco with their systematic attempts to fragment the Popular Front.


handled the WW2

You would have preferred for the USSR to lose?


and further betrayed the international proletariat by doing favours for imperialists

Such as?

[Cryotank Screams]

Were mistakes made? Yeah for sure, sometimes complete fuck ups no doubt.

Complete fuck ups is an understatment.

For example during WWII, he treated soldiers as if they were pawns in a chess game, no loss was to great, or meant anything, because the ends justify the means right? Who were these soldiers?

The true working class, it has been reported that the total death toll for the soviets was 23,200,000, or 13.77% of the USSR&#39;s population, and then in the end, he claimed all the glory, and it led to his deification, and his entire cult was built on the blood of the working class who fought and died all for stalin to be lifted up as the great defender of communism, when he did nothing, he was a horrid strategist, and cared nothing about war loses.

However many of you will probably debate me on the total death toll, and say it&#39;s a bourgeoisie total, and such, and I say it&#39;s not, it is very close to the total given by Khrushchev, however I know even that won&#39;t pacify you because Khrushchev is the infamous and diabolic reformist.

Also the stalin kiddies probably claim that all this was needed to defeat the axis, that the numbers don&#39;t matter as long as the war was one, the ends justify the means, however might I remind you that the US lost 418,500 people, or .32% of it&#39;s population, and the UK only lost 450,400 people, or .94% of it&#39;s population, and the USSR&#39;s war loses even overshadow&#39;s the total loss of the Chinese.

13.77% of the population seems a bit more than "oops, I fucked up."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png

[Cassius Clay is back]

Er are you for real?

There is no point continuing this discussion if you are actually being serious.

The sad thing is I&#39;m pretty sure that you are being serious.

So let&#39;s make this a 100% clear.

The above poster is blaming Stalin for all the deaths in the USSR during the course of the WW2 when the Nazis and their allies invaded.

And he/she is saying this with a straight face.

He/she does not even repeat traditional bourgesie/trotskyite criticisms of Stalin for the war (which can be refuted).

No according to the above poster Stalin is responsible for the deaths of everyone during the war.


So who invaded who again? Was it the USSR that launched the war? No.

Was it Nazi Germany and it&#39;s allies? Yes.

Did not the Nazis have a specific policy to kill every member of the Communist Party and every Jew when they invaded the USSR?

Yes they did.

Since the USSR had both the largest Jewish population in Europe and the most members of the Communist Party this might mean something.

Also were not the Slavs believed to be racially inferior by the Nazis?

Yes.

Who had the most Slavs in Nazi occupied terriotar? That will be the USSR again.

And how did the Nazis deal with those they thought &#39;inferior&#39;?

Do I need to answer?

And do I need to waste my time pointing out the obvious to you?

[Cryotank Screams]

First off how about you actually read my post before ranting and saying I said something which I clearly didn&#39;t.

I wasn&#39;t saying stalin was the cause of all these deaths I was saying that he had total disregard for the ever increasing death tolls, and human life, meaning he didn&#39;t take into account what effect this would have on the soldiers, the working class, how many would be killed in the process, would such victory [X] really be worth losing [X] number of lives in the process, never did I claim he was responsible for the deaths, just that he didn&#39;t care and treated soldiers like pawns in a chess game, and not as human beings.

The chart I think shows that the war could have been more skillfully carried out, and that human lives should have came first and foremost, and that if that had happened a lot of lives may have been saved.

Read my posts, don&#39;t sit there and quickly glance over it, cause you obviously didn&#39;t grasp what I was trying to say.

[ItalianCommie]

The true working class, it has been reported that the total death toll for the soviets was 23,200,000, or 13.77% of the USSR&#39;s population, and then in the end, he claimed all the glory, and it led to his deification, and his entire cult was built on the blood of the working class who fought and died all for stalin to be lifted up as the great defender of communism, when he did nothing, he was a horrid strategist, and cared nothing about war losses.

Nothing more true.


There is no such thing as a "Stalinist". That is just a bullshit pejorative term coined and incessantly used by Trotskyist polemicist frustrated about their lack of support among the working class.

That is not true. there are some parties that openly declare themselves as Stalinist, yet not in a pejorative way.


That is preposterous. Communist parties that supported the USSR have dominated the labour movement in France, Italy, and others. If there are traitors to working people, they are elitist Trotskyists. In fact, since Trotskyists typically are of petit-bourgeois roots, they are enemies of the people.

Yea right. Only a total ignoramus would say such a hing. To your information I am a member of one of those parties. Stalinism was rejected back in the sixties, when Kruschev openly exposed the crimes perpetrated by the man. In fact, nowadays Trotskyist movements or parties in Italy, France and Spain are by far more influential than any whatsoever Stalinist one.
I&#39;m a member of Rifondazione Comunista, heir to the now defunct Italian Communist Party. Half of the Party declares itself as tendentially Trotzkyist. Last elections we got 7.4% in the last elections. National, that is.

What do you define as "the people"? Bourgeois And Proletarians?


Stalin did not capture power. He had the power of the rank and file communists and therefore the proletariat.

Read Lenin&#39;s Testament and maybe you&#39;ll change your mind.

[luxemburg89]

I would agree with the view that Stalin was a traitor, of both the people and the revolution movement. It is generally agreed that Leon Trotsky was meant to succeed Lenin as the leader of the Bolshevik party, but Stalin cheated his way to power. In fact it was Lenin&#39;s wish that Stalin did not succeed him.

I would agree with the view that Stalin, and not the Americans, should be credited with the defeat of the Nazis. However it is important to remember that to begin with he signed a pact with hitler and would not get involved when it suited him. Fascism is a direct enemy of communism and socialism, despite hitler&#39;s claims his party was socialist (National Socialists), and therefore, as a Bolshevik, Stalin should have fought for the good of communism. However he only got involved when the Nazis made their true intentions clear, to make Russia part of their living space. Stalin did not fight for ideals, nor for the good of the people, but because his position of power was threatened.

Also many people have pointed out his contribution to the Russian Revolution and the creation of a worker&#39;s state. Again it is important to look futher into this. Stalin, once he had cheated his way to power (an example of this is available on www.wikipedia.org - look on the article about leon trotsky), he set about purging the party of &#39;old Bolsheviks&#39;. This again adds evidence that Stalin was just power hungry - and saw the revolution as the quickest way to feed his hunger.

I will admit that Stalin did many good things, but he did considreably more bad. I would not forgive him for the murder of Leon Trotsky who, despite the two&#39;s constant fueds, was loyal to Lenin&#39;s views and was the purest marxist in the movement. A fair assessment is that Stalin was a traitor the Revolution and to Lenin and Marx&#39;s views, which would then lead to being a traitor of the worker&#39;s movement.

On the other hand Stalinists themselves may simply agree more with Stalins views than with other communist theories. Picking up on the good points and not the bad. That does not make them Traitors - just not pure communists.

[A.J.]

Remember a "stalinist", as trotskyites define the term, isn&#39;t necessarilly someone who is pro-Stalin. For example, Krushchev and Gorbachev are called "stalinists" by trotskyites despite the fact both were/are anti-Stalin.

Similarly, there are even pro-Stalin communists trotskyites claim are not "stalinist". Such as, for instance, Che Guevara.



But anyway. I think you should look at some of the Communist parties around the world that openly proclaim Stalin to be a great Marxist-Leninist(i.e. Maoist and &#39;Hoxhaist&#39; parties) and say if they are "traitors of the people". Most of their cadre are from the toiling masses - the proletariat and peasantry :hammer:

This is more than can be said for trotskyite groups, who&#39;s organisation and membership is really based and concentrated in universities in the metropolises of imperialism(especially France and the anglo-saxon countries). Even here in the U.K. - the "great heartland of trotskyism" - they don&#39;t have much presence in the labour movement. Only unions representing white-collar petty bourgeois employees such as school teachers and social workers(which in my opinion communists shouldn&#39;t bother their arse about and concentrate instead on work in the unions of the industrial working class)

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 05:57 pm
But anyway. I think you should look at some of the Communist parties around the world that openly proclaim Stalin to be a great Marxist-Leninist(i.e. Maoist and &#39;Hoxhaist&#39; parties) and say if they are "traitors of the people". Most of their cadre are from the toiling masses - the proletariat and peasantry :hammer:
QFT.

I think it would really be a good idea for NWOG(who should also really read his own signature once in a while, because the hypocrisy in it is hilarious) to stop consciously distancing himself from "the people"(he speaks of "them" as if he is not part of "them"), while simultaneously trying to argue on their behalf(although the original post is posed as a question, his position becomes obvious from reading the rest of the thread).

It&#39;s disgusting that some people here who have never put in a second of work for a communist movement, are sitting here comfortably, calling proletarians who do this "traitors of the people". Or, if they don&#39;t have the guts to openly denounce them, they just claim that these workers are/were simply "misguided" by "Stalinist propaganda", because, you know, they&#39;re just a bunch of dumb proles.

These people, in my book, are no better than militarist types who also call you a "traitor" for not "supporting the troops". Hearing people mouth off like this on forums, foaming at the mouth, screaming that everyone who disagrees with them must be a "traitor", while at the same time claiming that those who would do harm to the USSR were actually just innocent victims of Stalinism. It&#39;s quite obscene, really.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Difference is that we marxists support actual workers power, and you don&#39;t.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 03:40 pm
Difference is that we marxists support actual workers power, and you don&#39;t.
:rolleyes: aren&#39;t you the little armchair socialist. ANYBODY can criticize, so take a look at the situation Stalin was in before you do so.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 03:40 pm
Difference is that we marxists support actual workers power, and you don&#39;t.
You&#39;re not a "marxist". 10 dollars that your only "knowledge" of marxism comes from Wikipedia or something. Anyway, nice little strawman. Better be careful with sparks around it, or it might burn up. You might like to point me to a post of mine where I have explicitly(hell, implicitly will do) opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anyway, you&#39;re a sneaky little dodger. Arguing with you seriously is impossible, because your ideas are bankrupt in every possible way, and thus you feel the need to either respond with a strawman wrapped into a shitty little one-liner, resorting to populism and buzzwords of marxist concepts which you do not have even the most basic knowledge of, or remove yourself from the discussion altogether, only to reappear in another one and pretend that your ideas are not bankrupt.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Cassius Clay is [email protected] 16, 2006 12:30 am
Er are you for real?

There is no point continuing this discussion if you are actually being serious.

The sad thing is I&#39;m pretty sure that you are being serious.

So let&#39;s make this a 100% clear.

The above poster is blaming Stalin for all the deaths in the USSR during the course of the WW2 when the Nazis and their allies invaded.

And he/she is saying this with a straight face.

He/she does not even repeat traditional bourgesie/trotskyite criticisms of Stalin for the war (which can be refuted).

No according to the above poster Stalin is responsible for the deaths of everyone during the war.


So who invaded who again? Was it the USSR that launched the war? No.

Was it Nazi Germany and it&#39;s allies? Yes.

Did not the Nazis have a specific policy to kill every member of the Communist Party and every Jew when they invaded the USSR?

Yes they did.

Since the USSR had both the largest Jewish population in Europe and the most members of the Communist Party this might mean something.

Also were not the Slavs believed to be racially inferior by the Nazis?

Yes.

Who had the most Slavs in Nazi occupied terriotar? That will be the USSR again.

And how did the Nazis deal with those they thought &#39;inferior&#39;?

Do I need to answer?

And do I need to waste my time pointing out the obvious to you?
I am not a Trotskyite by any means, but have you ever considered that had Stalin not abused his post in the Poliburo to gain power, there would not have been any Nazi Germany to fight? Of course, nobody can say for certain, but I&#39;m sure you&#39;re well aware of the Permanent Revolution vs. Socialism In One Country debate that dominated the power struggle?
And if you know anything about German communists at the time, you will be aware that they would have been a strong opponent of the far right had they had the support of the USSR...?

Also, if you answer, could you please consider using a method of debate that is less patronising, and perhaps consider cutting the poor attempts at sarcasm and ad hominem attacks out, it&#39;s quite irritating.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Matthijs+November 26, 2006 10:46 pm--> (Matthijs @ November 26, 2006 10:46 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2006 03:40 pm
Difference is that we marxists support actual workers power, and you don&#39;t.
You&#39;re not a "marxist". 10 dollars that your only "knowledge" of marxism comes from Wikipedia or something. Anyway, nice little strawman. Better be careful with sparks around it, or it might burn up. You might like to point me to a post of mine where I have explicitly(hell, implicitly will do) opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anyway, you&#39;re a sneaky little dodger. Arguing with you seriously is impossible, because your ideas are bankrupt in every possible way, and thus you feel the need to either respond with a strawman wrapped into a shitty little one-liner, resorting to populism and buzzwords of marxist concepts which you do not have even the most basic knowledge of, or remove yourself from the discussion altogether, only to reappear in another one and pretend that your ideas are not bankrupt. [/b]
:lol: wait, this is the guy who had the Che avatar and than would go around making sure that nothing good was ever said about Cuba.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Comrade J+November 27, 2006 12:22 pm--> (Comrade J &#064; November 27, 2006 12:22 pm)
Cassius Clay is [email protected] 16, 2006 12:30 am
Er are you for real?

There is no point continuing this discussion if you are actually being serious.

The sad thing is I&#39;m pretty sure that you are being serious.

So let&#39;s make this a 100% clear.

The above poster is blaming Stalin for all the deaths in the USSR during the course of the WW2 when the Nazis and their allies invaded.

And he/she is saying this with a straight face.

He/she does not even repeat traditional bourgesie/trotskyite criticisms of Stalin for the war (which can be refuted).

No according to the above poster Stalin is responsible for the deaths of everyone during the war.


So who invaded who again? Was it the USSR that launched the war? No.

Was it Nazi Germany and it&#39;s allies? Yes.

Did not the Nazis have a specific policy to kill every member of the Communist Party and every Jew when they invaded the USSR?

Yes they did.

Since the USSR had both the largest Jewish population in Europe and the most members of the Communist Party this might mean something.

Also were not the Slavs believed to be racially inferior by the Nazis?

Yes.

Who had the most Slavs in Nazi occupied terriotar? That will be the USSR again.

And how did the Nazis deal with those they thought &#39;inferior&#39;?

Do I need to answer?

And do I need to waste my time pointing out the obvious to you?
I am not a Trotskyite by any means, but have you ever considered that had Stalin not abused his post in the Poliburo to gain power, there would not have been any Nazi Germany to fight? Of course, nobody can say for certain, but I&#39;m sure you&#39;re well aware of the Permanent Revolution vs. Socialism In One Country debate that dominated the power struggle?
And if you know anything about German communists at the time, you will be aware that they would have been a strong opponent of the far right had they had the support of the USSR...?

Also, if you answer, could you please consider using a method of debate that is less patronising, and perhaps consider cutting the poor attempts at sarcasm and ad hominem attacks out, it&#39;s quite irritating. [/b]
Well it was a stupid claim to make and shows no basic knowledge of the war on the Eastern front. And considering Scarlet Hammer used the term "stalin kiddie&#39; he deserves what he gets.

I have decided not to debate with people who want to belittle their opponents. As soon as someone uses the word stalin kiddie, I am going to leave them with their arrogance.

[RNK]

Are you people capable of a qualitative debate about Stalin&#39;s actions concerning proletarian revolution and Communism? All I&#39;ve seen so far (or the vast majority of what I&#39;ve seen so far) revolves around "Omg he trampled on the world revolution" "Omg he was a dictator" "Omg he was a selfish, pompous arsehole who didn&#39;t bat an eye at sacraficing hundreds of thousands of his soldier&#39;s lives during WW2". How about some discussion about the socialist system of the USSR from 1925-1955? The 5-Year Plans? Socialist life in the USSR? What were the conditions of the mode of production during his reign? Were private bourgeoisie and fuedal powers simply replaced by Stalinist party beauracracy? Etc.

Stalin wasn&#39;t a nice guy. But he doesn&#39;t have to be. We&#39;re all familiar with the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" and any of us who still has dreams of a peaceful transition from fuedalism to Communism is deranged. Was Stalin and his clique essentially the epitomy of side-effects of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Or was he infact a fascist in sheep&#39;s clothing, who manipulated and maneuvered himself into a position of absolute power solely for his own benefit? How much of his "personality cult" was carried out on his order, and how much of it was simply the masses&#39; natural reaction to fight destitution by emblazening the most visible figure as a national hero? How much physical power did Stalin have? How did the Soviet government operate? What powers did he as head of the Party have?

Anyway, debating over the merit of the man is completely useless and counter-revolutionary. Learning from his mistakes, and the past mistakes of all revolutions and revolutionaries, does not require us all to think the exact same way. Take a materialistic and conditional view of Stalin&#39;s rule, try to discuss it in a civilized manner, and stop with the petty "omfg the word stalin burns my eyesss&#33;" divisional bullshit and actually DISCUSS.

And just to address Cassius&#39; post... all told, Stalin does share some of the blame. Hitler invaded, but it was Stalin that allowed Hitler&#39;s burgeoning armed forces to develop and train on tanks and armoured vehicles in the Soviet Union, and the non-aggression pact that Stalin agreed to did allow Germany the oppurtunity to switch from Poland to invade France and the Low Countries. And to refute Comrade J -- hindsight is always 20/20. Obviously, if Stalin had realized that his actions during the Spanish Civil War would inevitably lead to his country nearly being annihilated by Germany, he would&#39;ve done things differently.

[emokid08]

Would you say Stalinists (and generally supporters of Stalin, Hoxha, Kim Jong Il etc.) are traitors of the people/working class movement, or are they just misunderstood and confused individuals? Or both?

Absolutely they are traitors&#33; Stalinists want to replace the ruling capitalist elite with the ruling Party elite. They&#39;re just another group of bloodsucking parasites looking to utilize the state as a means and as a tool of oppression and exploitation.

We don&#39;t need a party or a government or a group of professional revolutionaries to "help us" along the way to revolution. Revolution has to be from the grass roots up- not from some Central Comittee or other state tool.

Stalinists, and marxists in general, fail to realize that the state is just an apparatus of exploitation and oppression utilized by the ruling class to concretize thier reign.

The state should be destroyed along with private property and the ruling exploiters when the revolution dawns.

Bakunin was right.

:A: :AO: :star:

[GX.]

Stalinists, and marxists in general, fail to realize that the state is just an apparatus of exploitation and oppression utilized by the ruling class to concretize thier reign.
Funny, that is one of the main points put forth by Marxists.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Absolutely they are traitors&#33; Stalinists want to replace the ruling capitalist elite with the ruling Party elite. They&#39;re just another group of bloodsucking parasites looking to utilize the state as a means and as a tool of oppression and exploitation.

Or the ruling workering class elite. The system directly benefits the workering class in major ways. Why? Because workers are running the system.

Workers under socialism live 10x better than their capitalist counter-parts. Cuba for example is the only Latin American country which is not malnourished: the closest country too it has twice the undernourished rate as Cuba.



We don&#39;t need a party or a government or a group of professional revolutionaries to "help us" along the way to revolution. Revolution has to be from the grass roots up- not from some Central Comittee or other state tool.

:roll: It IS from the grass-roots up. That is the whole point of democratic centralism and mass line.

http://www.massline.info

And obviously we do need a party. Workers consistantly choose marxist-leninism. Anarchism remains a first world phenomenon.

And who said they are professional revolutionaries? You cannot be a proffessional revolutionary. That makes no sense.


Stalinists, and marxists in general, fail to realize that the state is just an apparatus of exploitation and oppression utilized by the ruling class to concretize thier reign.

Without a state we see chaos. Marx knew this which is why he wasn&#39;t an anarchist and he believed in the Dictatorship of the proletariat while still being very anti-state. Without a DoP and a Cultural Revolution the bourgieous could take back power if they are organized in a minute.

[cenv]

Or the ruling workering class elite. The system directly benefits the workering class in major ways. Why? Because workers are running the system.
Hmm... last time I checked, Stalin&#39;s USSR wasn&#39;t run by the working class. There&#39;s a difference between Stalinism and Leninism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 07:00 am

Or the ruling workering class elite. The system directly benefits the workering class in major ways. Why? Because workers are running the system.
Hmm... last time I checked, Stalin&#39;s USSR wasn&#39;t run by the working class. There&#39;s a difference between Stalinism and Leninism.
Don&#39;t use the word Stalinism. And yes, it was a workers state. It was more beauracratic than a regular pure worker state but that was due to the material conditions and threats the USSR faced.

[BobKKKindle$]

If you seriously believe that the USSR was a non-deformed Worker&#39;s State, then lets examine the Economic Structure. As you no doubt know, the USSR under Stalin was a command economy, where all economic resources were under the Control of the central government and al production of goods and services was carried out according to a series of National Economic Plans. Engineers and Managers were at first hired from foreign Capitalist countries, to oversee the vast projects that took place, although later the State utilised trained Professionals emenating from Soviet Universities. These manangers wre responsible for organising the production process in such a way that the plan goals could be met, and were able to access special stores where they could purchase commodities that ordinary workers could not own.

For me, under Socialism, workers at every skill level would manange their workplaces through direct democracy and would have full ownership of the commodities that they produce. How does this bear any resemblence to the Archist and Unrepresentitive system that prevailed under Stalinism?


And obviously we do need a party. Workers consistantly choose marxist-leninism. Anarchism remains a first world phenomenon

How do Workers &#39;choose&#39; M/L? The vast majority of the &#39;Socialist&#39; countries underwent &#39;revolution&#39; as a result of foreign intervention through the USSR, not through the choice of the Workers and/or Peasantry.

It should be also noted that Anarchist Philsophy and Organisation has played a powerful role in the ongoing Zapatista insurgency in Southern Mexico and in the recent Oxaca Commune Struggle, and so your comment that Anarchism does not occur in the third world is utterly asburd. The Zapatista movement is based on the principle on self management - they aspire to liberate the indigenous Indians from the control of the Central Government - and the States in which the Zapatistas have power are organised on the basis of autonomous communes.

The Slogan &#39;This is Zapitista territory. Here, the People Command, and the Government obeys&#39; is certainly evocative of anarchism in my opinion&#33;

[Zeruzo]

For me, under Socialism, workers at every skill level would manange their workplaces through direct democracy and would have full ownership of the commodities that they produce.


That is for you, but hasn&#39;t proven that the USSR was &#39;deformed&#39;.



How do Workers &#39;choose&#39; M/L? The vast majority of the &#39;Socialist&#39; countries underwent &#39;revolution&#39; as a result of foreign intervention through the USSR, not through the choice of the Workers and/or Peasantry.

Not really, you mean the liberation of the eastern-bloc?
Well after this liberation the presense of the red army and the lack of capitalist intervention enabled these countries to develop a socialist society, but thats still not &#39;the majority&#39;.



It should be also noted that Anarchist Philsophy and Organisation has played a powerful role in the ongoing Zapatista insurgency in Southern Mexico and in the recent Oxaca Commune Struggle, and so your comment that Anarchism does not occur in the third world is utterly asburd.

Having some Anarchist tendency&#39;s does not make one an Anarchist.



The Slogan &#39;This is Zapitista territory. Here, the People Command, and the Government obeys&#39; is certainly evocative of anarchism in my opinion&#33;

If i understand you correctly, you have no understanding of Anarchism whatsoever.

[BobKKKindle$]

Not really, you mean the liberation of the eastern-bloc?
Well after this liberation the presense of the red army and the lack of capitalist intervention enabled these countries to develop a socialist society, but thats still not &#39;the majority&#39;.

These Countries were typified by repression through the Red Army in the event of any widespread dissident activity, economic stagnation, shortages of important consumer goods, control of economic activity by a managerial class of economic planners, and the withholding of freedom of speech, assembly, and worship. Is this what you would describe as a &#39;Socialist Society&#39;? Would North Korea be a Socialist Society? What about Albania? How about the world of 1984? What kind of Society do you envisage?


That is for you, but hasn&#39;t proven that the USSR was &#39;deformed&#39;

The USSR posessed none of the characteristics of Socialism, and following the October 1917 uprising, the Bolsheviks destroyed any form of Proletarian political and economic power that existed, and established a dictatorship, not of the proletariat, but of the Bolshevik Party.

A Deformed Workers State (which is a Trotskyist term, by the way, not something I have made up as your punctuation would imply) is a state in which the Bourgeoisie has been overthrown, but the Proletariat does not hold political power, and does not have ownership or control over the means of production.

Thus the USSR was a Deformed Worker&#39;s State, and you are wrong.


Having some Anarchist tendency&#39;s does not make one an Anarchist.

The original source of the quote suggested, or rather asserted, that Anarchsim had never moved beyond the first world. Characteristics of Anarchism are displayed amongst multiple movements based in the third world, even if these movements do not call themselves anarchist. Therefore your argument is nonsensical and bears no relation to the point I rebutted.


If i understand you correctly, you have no understanding of Anarchism whatsoever.

Our very own RevLeft dictionary defines Anarchism as:

A philosophy advocating the abolition of all forms of hierarchical authority, including capitalism and the state

The Zapatista movement does not describe themselves as Anarchists, granted. But the aspirations and desires encapsulated within the above slogan, and the changes they have wrought in Southern Mexico are indicative that a political philsophy similar, if not derived from anarchism lies at the heart of their struggle. They have rebelled against the state (the Central Mexican Government) and established non-heirachial and grassroots-based forms of economic and political power.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

A philosophy advocating the abolition of all forms of hierarchical authority, including capitalism and the state

The Zapatista movement does not describe themselves as Anarchists, granted.

There you go. Plus, the Zapatistas are very nationalist and there is still a government in Chiapas. Most recently there was a big scandal when the PRI pulled out from a tight gubernoral race in order to help the PAN beat the PRD. Plus I have heard that no one in Mexico cares, even the workers in Chiapas don&#39;t listen much to Marcos. According to my Dad who lives there, no one takes him seriously for never taking off his mask ever and for being a "Che-wanabe".


How do Workers &#39;choose&#39; M/L? The vast majority of the &#39;Socialist&#39; countries underwent &#39;revolution&#39; as a result of foreign intervention through the USSR, not through the choice of the Workers and/or Peasantry.

Yes the USSR did invade for position against the west, but every other struggle, China, Vietnam, Peru, Nepal, India, Angola even, Korea originally, South Africa in part, and many many other countries and revolutions have been in the tradition of Marxist-Leninism. Sure, the eastern bloc didn&#39;t &#39;choose&#39; M/L but that is not the "vast majority" It ignores every other revolutionary struggle today and in the past.


A Deformed Workers State (which is a Trotskyist term, by the way, not something I have made up as your punctuation would imply) is a state in which the Bourgeoisie has been overthrown, but the Proletariat does not hold political power, and does not have ownership or control over the means of production.

well that is basically wrong. The proletariat did hold control but there were beauracratic deformities. It still makes it a worker state because workers were running the country, the working class was the direct beneficiary of the governments policies, and living condition of the working class compared to capitalist counter-parts were often way better.


in the recent Oxaca Commune Struggle,

The Oaxaca communards don&#39;t call themselves anarchists, they have a "hiarchial" government the APPO, and plus don&#39;t really call for an end to capitalism; they just want Ruiz out. However you&#39;re right. Maybe revolution-planning-wise the Oaxaca communards has anarchist tendencies on a small scale, which explains why they been all but suppressed: a fourth of them call for peacful protest, a fourth of them want to travel to Mexico City, another fourth want violent resistance, and another 4th of the movement want to do nothing whatsoever. That is why the cops took the Zocala in hours of their arrival.

[BobKKKindle$]

well that is basically wrong. The proletariat did hold control but there were beauracratic deformities. It still makes it a worker state because workers were running the country, the working class was the direct beneficiary of the governments policies, and living condition of the working class compared to capitalist counter-parts were often way better.

Please explain to me how the workers were in charge of the country. In charge to me means having control over the economic resources and means of production; ie deciding what is produced in terms of goods and services, how it is produced, and for whom it is produced, as well as workers having ownership over the commodities that they produced. In the USSR these fundamental economic questions were all decided upon by GOSPLAN, the organisation in charge of coordinating the command economy, not the workers who actually performed the labour. In other words, the Capitalist Class was replaced by a managerial class of planners.

As for workers benefitting from the government&#39;s economic management, under Stalinism, workers were faced with discipline and repression far in excess of that in other Capitalist Countries and under Tsarism. Abseenteeism, and failing to meet production quotas were viewed as &#39;sabotage&#39; and &#39;wrecking&#39; and could be met, in the extreme instance, with a period of hard labour in the desolate kolyma reigon.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 07:34 pm

The true working class, it has been reported that the total death toll for the soviets was 23,200,000, or 13.77% of the USSR&#39;s population, and then in the end, he claimed all the glory, and it led to his deification, and his entire cult was built on the blood of the working class who fought and died all for stalin to be lifted up as the great defender of communism, when he did nothing, he was a horrid strategist, and cared nothing about war losses.

Nothing more true.


There is no such thing as a "Stalinist". That is just a bullshit pejorative term coined and incessantly used by Trotskyist polemicist frustrated about their lack of support among the working class.

That is not true. there are some parties that openly declare themselves as Stalinist, yet not in a pejorative way.


That is preposterous. Communist parties that supported the USSR have dominated the labour movement in France, Italy, and others. If there are traitors to working people, they are elitist Trotskyists. In fact, since Trotskyists typically are of petit-bourgeois roots, they are enemies of the people.

Yea right. Only a total ignoramus would say such a hing. To your information I am a member of one of those parties. Stalinism was rejected back in the sixties, when Kruschev openly exposed the crimes perpetrated by the man. In fact, nowadays Trotskyist movements or parties in Italy, France and Spain are by far more influential than any whatsoever Stalinist one.
I&#39;m a member of Rifondazione Comunista, heir to the now defunct Italian Communist Party. Half of the Party declares itself as tendentially Trotzkyist. Last elections we got 7.4% in the last elections. National, that is.

What do you define as "the people"? Bourgeois And Proletarians?


Stalin did not capture power. He had the power of the rank and file communists and therefore the proletariat.

Read Lenin&#39;s Testament and maybe you&#39;ll change your mind.
Are you serious? the refoundation party is hard to be even called a party. Its more like a parlement within itself, only fine lines are holding it together. Look at all the splits within and outside the party, ranging from anarchist, trotskists, maoist, MLísts ect... I am definitly not attacking the party as a whole, but your electoral results are marginal compared to former glory and the course unpredictable. And as a whole, they need to do a whole lot to prevent reform into social-democracy. Fausto is now even doubting that the workingclass are driving force behind the economy. Dont get me wrong, i still an supporter of the PRCI but i&#39;m quite worried about it.