Can we justify Stalin?

[communist_kyle]

"You cannot make an Omelette without breaking eggs" (Joseph Stalin).

How far does this judgement excuse the violence of Stalinist politics?

Obviously, I am a communist. Personally, I do not conform to the 'Stalinist' way of thinking and judging by some of the posts i've read I am not alone. However I want your opinions (including the Stalinists!)

thanks.

[Red October]

i dont think so. i dont believe you can take "the ends justify the means" far enough to justify the extreme viciousness and oppression of stalin's policies.

[Comrade_Scott]

Stalin was just annother stepping stone in my view. he commited lots of crimes but on the other hand laid the foundation for someone to better rapid industrialization.... in a nut shell good ideas but horribly implimented. take thegood from the bad and leave it at that... and dont go arround ranting to the point where he may as well be called god because like trotsky and mao he made bad judgements. thats just my humble view ;)

[Red October]

i think stalin was an evil man, and the whole USSR was a fucked up system that gave communism a bad image. now when most people think of communism, they associate it with douches like stalin.

[Comrade_Scott]

I dont doubt that alls im saying is that he was just annother stepping stone or just a speed ump in the road to actual socialism

[Red October]

but the soviet union never really moved toward socialism during or after stalin

[Comrade_Scott]

i know and i understand that... im talking about us after the ussr we can learn from his mistakes and move forward trying not top repeat history... thats what i was trying to say :)

[Intelligitimate]

Most of the 'socialists' here are brain-dead teenagers who have not thrown off their public school brainwashing about the USSR (read: anarchists). Anyone who spends any amount of time actually studying the scholarly literature on the USSR can not make such ignorant statements as those in this thread have. I would also recommend actually reading Stalin to see he was most definitely a serious Marxist committed to socialist revolution all his life.

The other 'socialists' here who are not so braindead that oppose Stalin have a completely anti-communist view of 20th century history. They are nothing more than anti-communists who will never do anything, and they all are affliated with some cult. (read: Trotskyists)

[Comrade_Scott]

comrade i never bad mouthed stalin and if i gave that impression im sorry... all im saying is that like all leaders ad men in power he made mistakes but he also must not viewd as only a tyrant his positves as i said before must be seen and awknowledged his mistakes admited and we use the positives and try not to repeat the negative. thats all i said or meant to say

[Red October]

here's a thread for stalin supporters and appologists: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49516

[Comrade_Scott]

Thanks for the link Red October 1922 but i dont consider my self a stalinist i consider myself a personwho belives that stalin lenin and trotsky (what i cal the big 3) all have good points and if we look past the mistakes most of the good points can be implimented..... please tell me i i make any sense and if not some reading material would be greatly appreciated

[Cryotank Screams]

No, you really can't, there is no possible way to justify such an oppresive, blood soaked regime, without totally overlooking and or undermining historical facts.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 01:14 am
Most of the 'socialists' here are brain-dead teenagers who have not thrown off their public school brainwashing about the USSR (read: anarchists). Anyone who spends any amount of time actually studying the scholarly literature on the USSR can not make such ignorant statements as those in this thread have. I would also recommend actually reading Stalin to see he was most definitely a serious Marxist committed to socialist revolution all his life.

The other 'socialists' here who are not so braindead that oppose Stalin have a completely anti-communist view of 20th century history. They are nothing more than anti-communists who will never do anything, and they all are affliated with some cult. (read: Trotskyists)
please tell me one thing that was at all communistic about the soviet union?

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 02:06 am
please tell me one thing that was at all communistic about the soviet union?
Communist symbols ie :redstar: :hammer:

Just kidding :D That stuff didn't make the USSR communist.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 01:40 am
here's a thread for stalin supporters and appologists: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49516
Yeah, and we beat the tar out of the pseudo-socialists in that thread.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by chimx+November 09, 2006 02:06 am--> (chimx @ November 09, 2006 02:06 am)
[email protected] 09, 2006 01:14 am
Most of the 'socialists' here are brain-dead teenagers who have not thrown off their public school brainwashing about the USSR (read: anarchists). Anyone who spends any amount of time actually studying the scholarly literature on the USSR can not make such ignorant statements as those in this thread have. I would also recommend actually reading Stalin to see he was most definitely a serious Marxist committed to socialist revolution all his life.

The other 'socialists' here who are not so braindead that oppose Stalin have a completely anti-communist view of 20th century history. They are nothing more than anti-communists who will never do anything, and they all are affliated with some cult. (read: Trotskyists)
please tell me one thing that was at all communistic about the soviet union? [/b]
Tell us one thing that is socialist about yourself. You're not familiar with even basic Leftist concepts like the propaganda model, openly making idiotic statements about the nature of CNN and shit that is just completely retarded. You've admitted you're not even primarily concerned about socialism. You're a vegan liberal socialist-wannabe, and extremely anti-communist to boot.

[Red October]

Yeah, and we beat the tar out of the pseudo-socialists in that thread.

who are you referring to? the stalin supporters or the ones who oppose him?

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 02:39 am

Yeah, and we beat the tar out of the pseudo-socialists in that thread.

who are you referring to? the stalin supporters or the ones who oppose him?
You obviously have never read the thread.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+November 09, 2006 02:34 am--> (Intelligitimate @ November 09, 2006 02:34 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 02:06 am

[email protected] 09, 2006 01:14 am
Most of the 'socialists' here are brain-dead teenagers who have not thrown off their public school brainwashing about the USSR (read: anarchists). Anyone who spends any amount of time actually studying the scholarly literature on the USSR can not make such ignorant statements as those in this thread have. I would also recommend actually reading Stalin to see he was most definitely a serious Marxist committed to socialist revolution all his life.

The other 'socialists' here who are not so braindead that oppose Stalin have a completely anti-communist view of 20th century history. They are nothing more than anti-communists who will never do anything, and they all are affliated with some cult. (read: Trotskyists)
please tell me one thing that was at all communistic about the soviet union?
Tell us one thing that is socialist about yourself. You're not familiar with even basic Leftist concepts like the propaganda model, openly making idiotic statements about the nature of CNN and shit that is just completely retarded. You've admitted you're not even primarily concerned about socialism. You're a vegan liberal socialist-wannabe, and extremely anti-communist to boot. [/b]
if you can't answer the question then just say so.

[Red October]

You obviously have never read the thread.

i only had time to read the first page or so

[Labor Shall Rule]

Josef Stalin certainly did many things that can be considered "morally unacceptable", when applied to today's societal standards. The various "human rights violations" of Stalin represented the power and privilege of the party, and how they will do anything in order to retain such things. But many of the things that he did was certainly justified, and there was many positive outcomes, as clearly predicted, that would come out of his economic and political programs. The process of the collectivization of all agricultural plots of land ultimately ended 2 decades of starvation and famine in urban centers. His plans of industrialization made the Soviet Union a dependant power, and basically ensured it's survival from the surrounding imperialist countries. Overall living conditions of Russian workers improved, as healthcare and education was able to be provided to everyone, as crops were now flowing into cities such as Moscow or St. Petersburg, and as new housing projects assisted millions. But reaching socialism can only be realized by the existance of proletarian democracy; direct control of the means of production by the workers as a whole.

[chimx]

overall living conditions in workers in western capitalists states has improved. that doesn't really seem like a defining quality of socialism. Workers in the US in the 50s onwards had far better living conditions than that of the soviets.

This isn't meant to pat the US on the back, but point out that the social reforms undergone in Russia weren't that great and that the lack of proletarian democracy made it anti-communist. fuck russia!

[Leo]

"You cannot make an Omelette without breaking eggs" (Joseph Stalin).

This quote is from a film called "Fight Club"

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Are you an idiot?

Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader, the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other? The man who defeated Nazism? Who withstood capitalism? The man of Steel who is still to this day adored by the Russian people? The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied. A truly great, historical leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement?? Is this even a serious question??

Not only must we justify him, we must honor him!

http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/images/lowrez/stalin_color555.jpg

[Redmau5]

Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader

:lol:


the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other?

I don't think the colour of the flag mattered to the people living in the overly-bureaucratic, democracy-free mess that was the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.


The man who defeated Nazism?

I'm sorry, but I was unaware that Stalin was a one-man army. Stalin did more to hinder the Russian war effort than help it. He purged half of his officer class (of course you probably think they were all plotting to overthrow Stalin and set up a free market economy) and he refused to believe reports that a German invasion was imminent. This meant the Red Army could not be mobilised as quickly, resulting in the deaths of countless Russian soldiers and civilians as the wehrmacht swept through the USSR.


Who withstood capitalism? The man of Steel who is still to this day adored by the Russian people? The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied. A truly great, historical leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement?? Is this even a serious question??

Pure Stalin worship. I challenge you to name any really significant theoretical contribution Stalin made to Leninism or Marxism in general, apart from the critically flawed "socialism in one country".

Now run off and build a church to your god.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:48 pm
I don't think the colour of the flag mattered to the people living in the overly-bureaucratic, democracy-free mess that was the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.
Didn't know we allowed liberals on this site. :rolleyes:

You must be very happy with the elections and your party winning. Now Go fuck off to lib.com, and suck on John Kerry.

http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00157/John_Kerry_hilser_l_157244a.jpg

[Red October]

why dont you respond to what he said instead of telling him to suck john kerry's dick? then maybe people would actually take stalin worshippers like you seriously.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 10:56 pm
why dont you respond to what he said instead of telling him to suck john kerry's dick? then maybe people would actually take stalin worshippers like you seriously.
I doubt that's gonna happen. People don't really take Stalinists seriously.

And anyway you idiot, I live in Ireland, so how the fuck could the Democratic Party be my party?

[Red October]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 10:56 pm
why dont you respond to what he said instead of telling him to suck john kerry's dick? then maybe people would actually take stalin worshippers like you seriously.
I doubt that's gonna happen. People don't really take Stalinists seriously.

And anyway you idiot, I live in Ireland, so how the fuck could the Democratic Party be my party?

true. no one who actually thinks stalin is the greatest communist leader of all time has much credibility. are there separate stalinist forums out on the web?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Red October 1922+November 09, 2006 11:04 pm--> (Red October 1922 @ November 09, 2006 11:04 pm)

Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 10:56 pm
why dont you respond to what he said instead of telling him to suck john kerry's dick? then maybe people would actually take stalin worshippers like you seriously.
I doubt that's gonna happen. People don't really take Stalinists seriously.

And anyway you idiot, I live in Ireland, so how the fuck could the Democratic Party be my party?

true. no one who actually thinks stalin is the greatest communist leader of all time has much credibility. are there separate stalinist forums out on the web? [/b]
There used to be one called Ernesto Guevara which was full of them. It was just a place for dictator worship, with many even praising Saddam Hussein along with their hero Uncle Joe. Typical of Stalinists really. But the site closed down amid a scandal about of the administrators masturbating on webcam or something. :lol:

[Red October]

There used to be one called Ernesto Guevara which was full of them. It was just a place for dictator worship, with many even praising Saddam Hussein along with their hero Uncle Joe. Typical of Stalinists really. But the site closed down amid a scandal about of the administrators masturbating on webcam or something. laugh.gif

sounds like something those dumbasses might do

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 06:21 pm
Are you an idiot?

Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader, the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other? The man who defeated Nazism? Who withstood capitalism? The man of Steel who is still to this day adored by the Russian people? The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied. A truly great, historical leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement?? Is this even a serious question??

Not only must we justify him, we must honor him!


Try to stop yourself from having an orgasm there comrade, ;) .


The man who defeated Nazism?

I do believe he also made a treaty/agreement with hitler as well.

Hitler-Stalin Pact.

Ring any bells? How was that a step forward in trying to wipe out fascism, and nazism?


Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader, the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other?

He merely took control of the USSR, and usurped the achievments of the people, and then oppressed and killed the majority of said people.


The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied.

Bullshit; provide a catalog of examples, please.

[Intelligitimate]

Stalin did more to hinder the Russian war effort than help it. He purged half of his officer class (of course you probably think they were all plotting to overthrow Stalin and set up a free market economy) and he refused to believe reports that a German invasion was imminent.

There are two lies here. Namely the Trotskyite lie that Stalin somehow hurt his army by purging the officers, and the Khrushchevite lie about Stalin's reactions to the invasion. Here is what Hitler himself thought about the Purges, as related by Goebbels:

“The Führer explained the case of Tukhachevsky and added that we were absolutely wrong if we thought Stalin would ruin the Red Army. It was the opposite that was true: Stalin got rid of all the opposition circles in the Red Army and thus succeeded in making sure there were no more defeatist groups in the Army."

The US ambassador to Russia during the purges, Joseph Davies, wrote a essay on this topic. The first paragraph reads:

“Passing through Chicago, on my way home from the June commencement of my old University, I was asked to talk to the University Club and combined Wisconsin societies. It was just three days after Hitler had invaded Russia. Someone in the audience asked: ``What about Fifth Columnists in Russia?'' Off the anvil, I said: ``There aren't any-they shot them.''”

You can read the full thing here:

Fifth Columnists in Russia
A study in Hindsight-1941 (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/5thC.html).

Part of this lie is also bound up in supposed what a great communist/militarist Tukchavesky was, neither of which are true. Trostky himself said after the purge that he never thought the communist convictions of this ex-Tsarist general were genuine. Nor was Tukchavesky involved in any battles after the civil war period, and his efforts at Kronstadt can only be called disastrous.

The next lie comes from Khruschev's 'Secret Speech'. This lie is incredibly easy to refute, because nearly everyone who was actually there when Stalin was informed about the German advance said Krushchev was full of shit. Ian Grey goes over the memoir material from people like Zhukov showing it was bullshit in his Stalin: Man of History. I'll provide sources if you're interested, though I find anti-communists are never concerned with scholarly analysis.


Pure Stalin worship. I challenge you to name any really significant theoretical contribution Stalin made to Leninism or Marxism in general, apart from the critically flawed "socialism in one country".

This is easy. His greatest theoretical contribution to Marxism is his Marxism and the National Question (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html), which Lenin asked him to write and which he highly praised. Trotsky had to resort to basically claiming Lenin wrote most of it, which is just pure bullshit. The next best thing was his Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html), a work which even Trotsky said was basically accurate, which is no small praise coming from such a hostile opponent as Trotsky.

Stalin also wrote many other interesting works, but these two are his most prominent.


I do believe he also made a treaty/agreement with hitler as well.

This is so stupid. The whole time before this pact was signed, the Bolsheviks were trying desperately to form alliances with the Western powers to oppose Hitler. None of them would go for it, hoping Hitler would invade the USSR and destroy Bolshevism. The whole purpose was to forestall the inevitable war so the Russians could better prepare.


He merely took control of the USSR, and usurped the achievments of the people, and then oppressed and killed the majority of said people.

Complete and total bullshit. No one, not even the most insane anti-communist Cold War scholars have ever claimed Stalin killed a majority of people in his country. You are pulling this straight from your ass.

[chimx]

i wish you would answer my initial question intelligitimate.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:03 am
i wish you would answer my initial question intelligitimate.
I don't give a shit what you think a socialist society should look like.

[Red October]

I don't give a shit what you think a socialist society should look like.

then just answer it

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Ah, Intellitimate, I am glad to finally see another one here who is truly Marxist Leninist...amid the cesspool of fucking anarchists and hippies and liberals that are here pretending to play "revolutinary for a day" :lol:

[Cryotank Screams]

The whole time before this pact was signed, the Bolsheviks were trying desperately to form alliances with the Western powers to oppose Hitler. None of them would go for it, hoping Hitler would invade the USSR and destroy Bolshevism. The whole purpose was to forestall the inevitable war so the Russians could better prepare.

Point made, my point is retracted due to the fact that it was rather stupid, on the grounds that I did not read fully the history of the pact.


No one, not even the most insane anti-communists Cold War scholars have ever claimed Stalin killed a majority of people in his country.


By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000. You probably have come across this many times. Just to see how numerous this total is, look up “Stalin” and “20 million” in Google, and you will get 183,000 links. Not all settle just on the 20,000,000. Some links will make this the upper and some the lower limit in a range. Yet, virtually no one who uses this estimate has gone to the source, for if they did and knew something about Soviet history, they would realize that the 20,000,000 is a gross under estimate of what is likely the Stalin’s true human toll

Even if that is not the literal majority (which I never meant the literal majority), that still is a big chunk of the russian population, which was my point, I didn't mean majority as in a literal calculation but as a figure of speech meaning a huge chunk of the population.

[Intelligitimate]

You have just quoted the crank Libertarian anti-communist R. J. Rummel. Rummel's work is not respected at all in the field of Soviet Studies. No one from the field quotes Rummel. Rummel is a moron.

If you want to actually learn something about where and how these numbers are arrived at, I highly suggest Silver and Anderson's paper Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR. The article will explain to you how these figures are arrived at (basically you take a census, make a 'prediction' about population growth, and compare it with another census. The difference between the numbers are 'victims'). They will also show you that none of these huge figures are in the slightest justifiable.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+November 09, 2006 02:31 am--> (Intelligitimate @ November 09, 2006 02:31 am)
Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 01:40 am
here's a thread for stalin supporters and appologists: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49516
Yeah, and we beat the tar out of the pseudo-socialists in that thread. [/b]
Hah, they got teabagged pretty badly there, I do recall. Although now it seems that they are back for more. :D

As for Rummel, I cannot believe anyone takes that guy seriously. It makes me a bit doubtful of this "former Maoist" when he suddenly cites Rummel so easily. But then again, most "communists" here rely on the "numbers" of Cold Warriors from the 70s, rather than serious research from after the Cold War.

[manic expression]

Response to Intelligitimate

Part of this lie is also bound up in supposed what a great communist/militarist Tukchavesky was, neither of which are true. Trostky himself said after the purge that he never thought the communist convictions of this ex-Tsarist general were genuine. Nor was Tukchavesky involved in any battles after the civil war period, and his efforts at Kronstadt can only be called disastrous.

On your first point, I would agree that the purges of the military were never as extensive as many hold them to be. However, the "elimination" of Tukchavesky was completely unreasonable. Whatever you say about the man, Tukchavesky was a factor in the Red Army's victory in the Russian Civil War. Furthermore, it seems curious that one would condemn Tukchavesky and Trotsky, who successfully defended the revolution, while defending Stalin, who did what, exactly, in the Russian Civil War?

On another point, Stalin was absolutely miserable at handling the military. He almost caused Moscow to fall by himself by staying out of sight until the last possible moment, and his tactical decisions were inexplicable (he ordered Soviet forces to hold their ground no matter what, and so they would subsequently be surrounded and compromised). Stalin was a disaster whenever he tried to manage military actions (far from Tukchavesky and Trotsky).


This is so stupid. The whole time before this pact was signed, the Bolsheviks were trying desperately to form alliances with the Western powers to oppose Hitler. None of them would go for it, hoping Hitler would invade the USSR and destroy Bolshevism. The whole purpose was to forestall the inevitable war so the Russians could better prepare.

While I won't disagree that pickings were slim for the Soviets at this point, I do think there is more to this story. You must agree that signing an agreement (mutual agreement) with a Nazi power is pretty unsavory. In fact, it is my view that Stalin's treatment of the Spanish Civil War, where he provided little support to and actually interfered with an ally, shows his intentions. Did he try to keep the leftist republic of Spain strong? Not really. In the same way, his pact with *Hitler* (doesn't that speak for itself?) did not seem to be done with any interest beside his own ambitions. Regardless, he signed a pact with a Nazi nation while neglecting to aid an ally in their time of need. That is beyond unforgivable.

By the way, please cite your claim of failed USSR attempts at alliances with the western powers (since I'm not too clear on the specifics).


Complete and total bullshit. No one, not even the most insane anti-communist Cold War scholars have ever claimed Stalin killed a majority of people in his country. You are pulling this straight from your ass.

No argument on that point. However, at the very least, his policies did cause great troubles for the people of the USSR. Lenin's policies of developing the Soviet Union, on the other hand, were radically different, and were not the extraordinary burden for the people that Stalin proved to be.

Also, what of Stalin's relentless "elimination" of the Bolsheviks (the "Old Bolsheviks")? By 1938, practically every single original Bolshevik was dead, many of them executed, and those who still lived were marginalized (sometimes through being sent abroad). That, clearly, is unjustifiable.

(This is to say nothing of his consolidation of power in the party at the expense of countless members, and ultimately at the expense of the party itself)

Lastly, there are many other instances of alleged brutality (as in epic brutality) that you have likely addressed innumerable times. However, the existence of Soviet records, eyewitness accounts and other historical sources do seem to be persuasive toward the argument you oppose. I bring this up because I haven't seen anything to discredit them (and I will read the rest of the threads on Stalin, but I thought I might as well bring them up here).

[Intelligitimate]

However, the "elimination" of Tukchavesky was completely unreasonable.

No, it was not. We know he was never a serious communist. This is Trotsky's own personal assessment of the man from extensive contact with him. We also have the testimony of Rémy Roure. A prisoner of war with Tukhachevsky before 1917 in Bavaria, he recalls this account in his 1928 book Pierre Fervacque:

“You are an anti-semite, then, I said to him. Why? -- The Jews brought us Christianity. That's reason enough to hate them. But then they are a low race. I don't even speak of the dangers they create in my country. You cannot understand that, you French, for you equality is a dogma. The Jew is a dog, son of a dog, which spreads his fleas in every land. It is he who has done the most to inoculate us with the plague of civilization, and who would like to give us his morality also, the morality of money, of capital. -- You are now a socialist, then? -- A socialist? Not at all! What a need you have for classifying! Besides the great socialists are Jews and socialist doctrine is a branch of universal Christianity. ... No, I detest socialists, Jews and Christians.”


Furthermore, it seems curious that one would condemn Tukchavesky and Trotsky, who successfully defended the revolution, while defending Stalin, who did what, exactly, in the Russian Civil War?

Stalin was sent to Tsaritsyn to organize grain deliveries, and started sacking corrupt and inept officials. Afterwards he began taking part in the military operations. A few days later, the Supreme War Council created a War Council of the Northern Caucasus Military District, and Stalin was appointed chairman. Trotsky sent him a message, informing him he was to be in charge of all military activity from Voronezh to Baku. The Supreme War Councile was abolished and turned into the Revolutionary War Council of the Republica, and Stalin was in charge of the Southern Front. He was recalled after a conflict with Trotsky, but appointed a seat to the Revolutionary War Council. Afterwards, he was appointed to the military council of the Ukrainian Front, in charge of occupying the Ukraine. At this time he was also Lenin's deputy on the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense. Lenin then sent Stalin out to clean up the 3rd army, which Trotsky approved of. In May, Stalin was sent to Petrograd to take charge in defending the city from General Yudenich's army. Following the successful repulsion of the White advance there, Stalin was appointed to the Military Council of the West Front. Fed up with Trotsky, Lenin reorganized the Revolutionary War Council, and it was no longer packed with Trotsky supporters, diminishing his control greatly (Trotsky would later blame Stalin for this, when it was clearly his own fault for acting like a dictator). In September 1919, Stalin took control of the Southern Front, and would remain there for 6 months, where the White forces were successfully crushed, with Trotsky in Petrograd. After the Budenny's defeat at Cossack hands, Lenin sent a telegram to Stalin, signed by Lenin and Trotsky, appointing him to the Caucasian Front. At this time Stalin also predicted the defeat at Warsaw (another great failure of Tukhachesky).

Trotsky and Stalin both were awarded with the Order of the Red Banner. For Stalin, this was “for his service in the defense of Petrograd and for his self-sacrificing work at the Southern Front”. You can even find praise from Trotsky at this time. Once when Trotsky was worried over an attack by Wrangel in Crimea, he wrote that “Comrade Stalin should be charged with forming a new military council with Egorov or Frunze as commander by agreement between the Commander-in-Chief and Comrade Stalin.” Everyone had come to admire Stalin abilities by this time as an pragmatic organizer. Stalin emerged from the Civil War with a greatly enhanced reputation, while Trotsky's was only hurt.


While I won't disagree that pickings were slim for the Soviets at this point, I do think there is more to this story. You must agree that signing an agreement (mutual agreement) with a Nazi power is pretty unsavory.

Sheer nonsense. Signing that pact saved millions of lives.


In fact, it is my view that Stalin's treatment of the Spanish Civil War, where he provided little support to and actually interfered with an ally, shows his intentions. Did he try to keep the leftist republic of Spain strong?

The sheer amount of support the USSR gave Spain is incredible. I highly recommend reading something scholarly on the subject, instead of the usual Trot/Anarchist/Fascist propaganda. I recommend Daniel Kowalsky's Stalin and the Spanish Civil War. To quote from his conclusion:

“Was Stalin the malicious meddler, saboteur, opportunist, and murderer that detractors from both Spanish camps have long maintained? The evidence presented in this study allows for an emphatic if qualified refutation of the long-held demonization of Stalin's role in the Spain.”


By the way, please cite your claim of failed USSR attempts at alliances with the western powers (since I'm not too clear on the specifics).

This information is readily available with a google search.


No argument on that point. However, at the very least, his policies did cause great troubles for the people of the USSR. Lenin's policies of developing the Soviet Union, on the other hand, were radically different, and were not the extraordinary burden for the people that Stalin proved to be.

You must not be very familiar at all with War Communism.


Also, what of Stalin's relentless "elimination" of the Bolsheviks (the "Old Bolsheviks")?

Such as?


Lastly, there are many other instances of alleged brutality (as in epic brutality) that you have likely addressed innumerable times. However, the existence of Soviet records, eyewitness accounts and other historical sources do seem to be persuasive toward the argument you oppose. I bring this up because I haven't seen anything to discredit them (and I will read the rest of the threads on Stalin, but I thought I might as well bring them up here).

I suggest you actually familiarize yourself more with the scholarly literature before you claim such things.

[Klement Gottwald]

I'm sorry, but I was unaware that Stalin was a one-man army. Stalin did more to hinder the Russian war effort than help it. He purged half of his officer class .

No, he didn't. That is false. First off, there is no evidence that Stalin himself was the one who initiated for the likes Tukhachevsky and Blücher to be eliminated. Rather, the ones who lobbied for their elimination were rival officers like Budenny and Timoshenko. Plus, rightwing historians and reactionary Trotskyists alike greatly exaggerate the effect this had on the military.

1937: 15,578 arrested and discharged

1938: 12,750 officers arrested and discharged

1939: 357 officers discharged and arrested

Reinstatements occurred in the same span. In 1937, 4544 of those discharged for political reasons or arrested were returned to their posts; in 1938, this was 4089 and in 1939, this was 152. This leaves 8785 out of 19,900 unaccounted for. 6.9% of all infantry officers in the ranks as of 1936-37 had been dismissed but not reinstated by May 1940. Source: "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia", Robert J. Thurston

Stalin is the greatest thing to have happened to Russia since Peter the Great. Singlehandedly, Russia was modernized through his brilliant economic plans. Living standards drastically improved and the Russian proletariat endured unprecendented social mobility. Any worker or peasant had the opportunity to become an extraordinary success in USSR during Stalin. It was only after Stalin when during the 1970s and 1980s when conditions of the country become stagnant, militarist, and enormously corrupt.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 12:59 am
No, it was not. We know he was never a serious communist. This is Trotsky's own personal assessment of the man from extensive contact with him. We also have the testimony of Rémy Roure. A prisoner of war with Tukhachevsky before 1917 in Bavaria, he recalls this account in his 1928 book Pierre Fervacque:

If Tukachevsky was seen fit to serve under Lenin, why should Stalin go against this judgement? The point is that the man did contribute massively to the Red Army's successes (as well as pushing the Red Army toward utilizing armor such as tanks, something Stalin opposed). Did Lenin see it reasonable to "eliminate" him? No, so how can anyone say that it was reasonable to do so?


Stalin was sent to Tsaritsyn to organize grain deliveries, and started sacking corrupt and inept officials. Afterwards he began taking part in the military operations. A few days later, the Supreme War Council created a War Council of the Northern Caucasus Military District, and Stalin was appointed chairman. Trotsky sent him a message, informing him he was to be in charge of all military activity from Voronezh to Baku.

Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, not Stalin, defeated the White Armies in the Caucuses. Tsaritsyn was actually captured in the White Army's initial push north, IIRC.


The Supreme War Councile was abolished and turned into the Revolutionary War Council of the Republica, and Stalin was in charge of the Southern Front. He was recalled after a conflict with Trotsky, but appointed a seat to the Revolutionary War Council. Afterwards, he was appointed to the military council of the Ukrainian Front, in charge of occupying the Ukraine. At this time he was also Lenin's deputy on the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense. Lenin then sent Stalin out to clean up the 3rd army, which Trotsky approved of. In May, Stalin was sent to Petrograd to take charge in defending the city from General Yudenich's army. Following the successful repulsion of the White advance there, Stalin was appointed to the Military Council of the West Front.

It was Trotsky who personally oversaw the defense of Petrograd. He was extremely important in the city's defense (not Stalin). In fact, the city would most likely have fallen if not for the efforts of Trotsky.


Fed up with Trotsky, Lenin reorganized the Revolutionary War Council, and it was no longer packed with Trotsky supporters, diminishing his control greatly (Trotsky would later blame Stalin for this, when it was clearly his own fault for acting like a dictator). In September 1919, Stalin took control of the Southern Front, and would remain there for 6 months, where the White forces were successfully crushed, with Trotsky in Petrograd. After the Budenny's defeat at Cossack hands, Lenin sent a telegram to Stalin, signed by Lenin and Trotsky, appointing him to the Caucasian Front. At this time Stalin also predicted the defeat at Warsaw (another great failure of Tukhachesky).

No, it was Stalin who was truly the dictator, after he took out any and all opposition to himself. Stalin was guilty of taking wanton power, not Trotsky.

At any rate, I do think you are mistaken here. Trotsky sent Tukhachevsky against the threat in the Caucuses, and that is who crushed the Whites.


Sheer nonsense. Signing that pact saved millions of lives.

So you have no problem with signing agreements with Nazis? I do. It was not necessary at the time, and more importantly, Stalin only had his own interests in mind. Is there any reason to think that Hitler would have attacked Russia before Poland and France? No, and in that time Stalin was off wasting resources needlessly in Finland (for example, he used troops from southern Russia because he trusted them over others, even though they were not used to Finland's climate and were not able to perform efficiently).


The sheer amount of support the USSR gave Spain is incredible. I highly recommend reading something scholarly on the subject, instead of the usual Trot/Anarchist/Fascist propaganda. I recommend Daniel Kowalsky's Stalin and the Spanish Civil War. To quote from his conclusion:

“Was Stalin the malicious meddler, saboteur, opportunist, and murderer that detractors from both Spanish camps have long maintained? The evidence presented in this study allows for an emphatic if qualified refutation of the long-held demonization of Stalin's role in the Spain.”

I will try to read it, thank you for the recommendation. However, many in Spain at the time were more than aware of the ineptitude of Stalin's "aid". While young men were giving their lives to defend the leftist Spanish Republic, Stalinist propaganda was smearing those same young men for their efforts (see Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia"). Just look at what happened to the POUM for an example of this. IMO, this shows that Stalin put himself above the struggles of a people's leftist revolution.


This information is readily available with a google search.

I'll try that.


You must not be very familiar at all with War Communism.

You must not be very familiar with the fact that Lenin was beginning to change this at the end of the Russian Civil War. Lenin's policies coming out of War Communism were not nearly the burden that Stalin was. War Communism was for war, not development.


Such as?

http://www.marxists.org/subject/bolsheviks/index.htm

Look at a good number of the biographies, as they end with "killed by Stalin" (or something to that effect) at an alarming frequency. Also, look at what is written for Stalin:

"Stalin played little role in the Revolution, at first sceptical of the prospects of insurrection, but followed Lenin in favour of insurrection, and during the Civil War his undisciplined experiments in irregular warfare brought him close to court marshall. As General Secretary of the Party, he became very powerful after the end of the Civil War and became a spokesperson for “socialism in one country”. He isolated Lenin during his last days and eventually gained the ascendancy in the Party after the international setbacks of 1923. During the Moscow Trials, he systematically eliminated all the Old Bolsheviks and instituted personal rule over the Party. After having executed all the experienced military cadre of the Red Army and making a Pact with Hitler in 1940, he brought the Soviet Union close to defeat, but emerged after World War Two more powerful than ever. He was denounced by Nikita Khrushchev only after his death in 1953."


I suggest you actually familiarize yourself more with the scholarly literature before you claim such things.

I have already said that I would. Furthermore, I have put forth these arguments (in specific, the commonly held notions of Stalin's brutality) partly because I wish to see the other side of them.

[zein al-abdeen]

you can say whatever you want<<but there&#39;s no reason to kill a human/communisem is to make us free not the opposite&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Nilats]

The bourgeoisie must be oppressed against. The capitalists must be oppressed against. Or else they will come back and re-institute capitalism.

Do you not believe in the dictatorship of the proleteriat? Are you a Marxist? Or are you a pacifist?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:21 pm
Do you not believe in the dictatorship of the proleteriat?
Dictatorship of the proleteriat is a phantom, ;) .

[Nilats]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+November 11, 2006 08:34 pm--> (Scarlet Hammer @ November 11, 2006 08:34 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 04:21 pm
Do you not believe in the dictatorship of the proleteriat?
Dictatorship of the proleteriat is a phantom, ;) . [/b]
You must not understand it then. I"m not saying that to attack you, just making an honest observation.

You also seem not to have understood the Chairman&#39;s "The Question of Leadership" which is truly groundbreaking but that&#39;s OK, some people can not understand what the Chairman is saying and can never understand it when he writes advanced theory. It requires careful,close observation.

Same rule applies when reading Marx or Stalin.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:38 pm
You must not understand it then.
No, I understand it perfectly, when the proletariat (the working class). assume power, form a vanguard, get control of the means of production, and rule the state, they cease to be the proletariat (working class), and instead become the ruling class, and are no longer the working class at all, in any sense, therefore the DoP is an impossibility, and a hoax (phantom).

[Joby]

We shouldn&#39;t justify Stalin. Saying he weeded out the opposition, making him justifiable is like saying Hitler was only weeding out his opposition.

Also, if arguing for socialism and someone brings up Stalin, simply ask if said person supports Hitler. If being a socialist means I justify my most famous totalitarian dictator, the same rule applies to you capitalists.

[Intelligitimate]

That&#39;s why no one will listen to you. That strategy is basically going to get you nowhere with people. It is lame, and any idiot can see it.

[Intelligitimate]

If Tukachevsky was seen fit to serve under Lenin, why should Stalin go against this judgement?

This is a silly, loaded question. Lenin was dead, and Tukhachevsky was accused of being a traitor. There is no evidence Stalin just decided to up and eliminate him.


Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, not Stalin, defeated the White Armies in the Caucuses. Tsaritsyn was actually captured in the White Army&#39;s initial push north, IIRC.

Tsaritsyn was not captured while Stalin was there. Voroshilov attributed the successful defense of the city in October 1918 to “Stalin&#39;s indomitable will to victory”. This was during Krasnov&#39;s attempt at taking the city. Stalin returned to Moscow shortly afterward.


It was Trotsky who personally oversaw the defense of Petrograd. He was extremely important in the city&#39;s defense (not Stalin). In fact, the city would most likely have fallen if not for the efforts of Trotsky.

And? You asked what Stalin was doing during the war, and I gave you a very brief description. He was sent to Petrograd by Lenin on May 17, 1919.


No, it was Stalin who was truly the dictator, after he took out any and all opposition to himself. Stalin was guilty of taking wanton power, not Trotsky.

Then feel free to demonstrate that.


At any rate, I do think you are mistaken here. Trotsky sent Tukhachevsky against the threat in the Caucuses, and that is who crushed the Whites.

You simply do not comprehend what I wrote. You asked what Stalin was doing, and I told you. These facts are simple to check. Stalin was appointed chairman of the Northern Caucasus Military District in 1918.


So you have no problem with signing agreements with Nazis? I do.

So did Stalin. This was nothing more than an attempt to forestall the war. Stalin personally had Ribbentrop remove a phrase in the preamble about future friendly German-Soviet relations.


and more importantly, Stalin only had his own interests in mind.

Prove it.


Is there any reason to think that Hitler would have attacked Russia before Poland and France?

Your reveal your own ignorance with such a stupid question. Have you never once looked at Nazi propaganda? They wanted to destroy Bolshevism, pure and simple.


No, and in that time Stalin was off wasting resources needlessly in Finland

More nonsense. This was done to acquire the necessary space to secure Russia when the war came. They tried everything they could to get the Finnish government to lease the area to them, but they flatly refused.


(for example, he used troops from southern Russia because he trusted them over others, even though they were not used to Finland&#39;s climate and were not able to perform efficiently).

More idiocy. They were not effective because they did not have the proper training and equipment to fight a modern war. It was a humiliating defeat, which Stalin saw. Zhukov would go on later to describe this as “the year of great transformation,” because Stalin took this defeat and learned from it, transforming the Red Army.


I will try to read it, thank you for the recommendation. However, many in Spain at the time were more than aware of the ineptitude of Stalin&#39;s "aid". While young men were giving their lives to defend the leftist Spanish Republic, Stalinist propaganda was smearing those same young men for their efforts (see Orwell&#39;s "Homage to Catalonia"). Just look at what happened to the POUM for an example of this. IMO, this shows that Stalin put himself above the struggles of a people&#39;s leftist revolution.

The POUM were collaborating with the Nazis. The head of Soviet Intelligence, Sudoplatov, wrote his memoirs awhile back, and stated a member of the Red Orchestra had given them the Nazi documents proving it. This is collaborated by the Nazi trial transcripts of members of the Red Orchestra, which accuse one of them of doing just that.

The POUM were Nazi-Collaborators. In fact, it is precisely this discovery which undoubtedly set the Great Purges into motion.


You must not be very familiar with the fact that Lenin was beginning to change this at the end of the Russian Civil War. Lenin&#39;s policies coming out of War Communism were not nearly the burden that Stalin was. War Communism was for war, not development.

Go ahead and try and quantify these burdens. You will quickly see far, far more people died in the Civil War than during collectivization. You ever see pictures of the Volga famine? You ever read anything about the “war in the countryside” that was going on at the time over grain acquisition? You ever read Lenin&#39;s orders to shoot any SR&#39;s found?

I doubt it.


Look at a good number of the biographies, as they end with "killed by Stalin" (or something to that effect) at an alarming frequency.

You want to talk about any individual in particular?


Also, look at what is written for Stalin:

Everyone knows marxists.org was hijacked by Trots a long time ago.


I have already said that I would. Furthermore, I have put forth these arguments (in specific, the commonly held notions of Stalin&#39;s brutality) partly because I wish to see the other side of them.

Good.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We shouldn&#39;t justify Stalin.

You&#39;ve got a Fidel avatar and a Che quote in your sig. Do you know what they thought of Stalin?

[manic expression]

This is a silly, loaded question. Lenin was dead, and Tukhachevsky was accused of being a traitor. There is no evidence Stalin just decided to up and eliminate him.

It&#39;s valid. Why was Tukhachevsky executed after he had served the Red Army for so long under Lenin? My point is that if Lenin had seen him fit to serve, that is a judgment we need to consider. Furthermore, this accusation did not occur in a vacuum. Many other individuals were being condemned as traitors at the time, so was Tukhachevsky&#39;s fate not a part of a wider "purge"? Is it not suspicious that Tukhachevsky, a proven leader for the Soviets, was condemned at this point?


Tsaritsyn was not captured while Stalin was there. Voroshilov attributed the successful defense of the city in October 1918 to “Stalin&#39;s indomitable will to victory”. This was during Krasnov&#39;s attempt at taking the city. Stalin returned to Moscow shortly afterward.

Noted.


And? You asked what Stalin was doing during the war, and I gave you a very brief description. He was sent to Petrograd by Lenin on May 17, 1919.

You simply do not comprehend what I wrote. You asked what Stalin was doing, and I told you. These facts are simple to check. Stalin was appointed chairman of the Northern Caucasus Military District in 1918.

I wasn&#39;t questioning the information you gave. However, my purpose was to point out that Stalin did indeed play a minor role in the Russian Civil War. This is important because it puts a needed perspective on what happened afterwards (him taking power).


Then feel free to demonstrate that.

OK (this is simply my understanding of it). After Lenin&#39;s death, Stalin isolated Trotsky by forming the Troika. After Trotsky was minimilized, Stalin turned on his former allies and later the "right opposition". By 1928, he had effectively consolidated power and eliminated a great amount of opposition to himself. Later, he would make moves against others, including the "Old Bolsheviks", first in the "Moscow Trials", then in the trial of Red Army generals and finally in the "Trial of the Twenty-One". This all shows that Stalin took power for himself at the expense of other members and at the expense of the Party itself.


So did Stalin. This was nothing more than an attempt to forestall the war. Stalin personally had Ribbentrop remove a phrase in the preamble about future friendly German-Soviet relations.

What evidence is there of Stalin&#39;s opinion on signing the agreement?


Prove it.

First, he isolated the USSR with his "socialism in one country" policy. Instead of spreading the revolution abroad, he pursued an insular course. Next, his targeting of other Party members indicated no goals apart from taking power for himself. That is why I would say Stalin put his interests first.


Your reveal your own ignorance with such a stupid question. Have you never once looked at Nazi propaganda? They wanted to destroy Bolshevism, pure and simple.

I am quite well aware of the Nazis&#39; hatred for Bolshevism, thank you. However, the question of the necessity of the pact remains. That is what I am asking, if it was truly necessary. To me, it was not, and although I do know that the USSR had few friends at the time, the pact did not seem to be the only option.


More nonsense. This was done to acquire the necessary space to secure Russia when the war came. They tried everything they could to get the Finnish government to leash the area to them, but they flatly refused.

The Soviets lost precious resources in the Winter War. Why not use those resources to build an effective defense against Germany during that time?


More idiocy. They were not effective because they did not have the proper training and equipment to fight a modern war. It was a humiliating defeat, which Stalin saw. Zhukov would go on later to describe this as “the year of great transformation,” because Stalin took this defeat and learned from it, transforming the Red Army.

It is not idiocy to say that Stalin&#39;s use of southern troops in the Finnish winter was a mistake. Moreover, the result of the Germans&#39; initial invasion shows that the Red Army was not transformed just yet. If Stalin had learned from it, he would not have ordered his troops not to retreat as they were outflanked and sorrounded, as he did during the initial German invasion of the USSR.


The POUM were collaborating with Nazis. The head of Soviet Intelligence, Sudoplatov, wrote his memoirs awhile back, and stated a member of the Red Orchestra had given them the Nazi documents proving it. This is collaborated by the Nazi trial transcripts of members of the Red Orchestra, which accuse one of them of doing just that.

The POUM were Nazi-Collaborators. In fact, it is precisely this discover which undoubtedly set the Great Purges into motion.

Stalin&#39;s actions in Spain greatly hurt the Republican cause. People who were on the front fighting the fascists were being labelled as "Trotskyist traitors" by Stalin&#39;s supporters. That was a great blow to the hopes of the people of Spain, and subsequently the Soviet&#39;s opportunities of having an ally.


Go ahead and try and quantify these burdens. You will quickly see far, far more people died in the Civil War than during collectivization. You ever seen pictures of the Volga famine? You ever read anything about the “war in the countryside” that was going on at the time over grain acquisition? You ever read Lenin&#39;s orders to shoot any SR&#39;s found?

I doubt it.

And what of the NEP? Was that remotely equal or comparable to the burden of Stalin? I doubt it. And it&#39;s not news that Lenin resented the SR&#39;s, and likewise it doesn&#39;t weaken my argument.


You want to talk about any individual in particular?

Well, there are a few: Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Preobrazhensky, Radek, Riazanov, Rakovsky. They were all targeted as "Old Bolsheviks".


Everyone knows marxists.org was hijacked by Trots a long time ago.

That may be the case, but it doesn&#39;t mean those people who were executed by Stalin weren&#39;t executed by Stalin, and it doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s completely unfactual.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2006 11:06 am

We shouldn&#39;t justify Stalin.

You&#39;ve got a Fidel avatar and a Che quote in your sig. Do you know what they thought of Stalin?
What&#39;s your point? People should &#39;justify&#39; Stalin if they support Guervara or the Cuban revolution/Cuba? Why? :unsure:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That&#39;s actually not my point at all, nice try though. The point is that the vicious anti-communism that&#39;s practiced by many here is more rabid than some of what the right spews.

Anytime I hear talk about Stalin the genocidal maniac who was as bad as Hitler, etc. I get annoyed; even more so when it comes from someone rocking quotes in his signature of a guy who once swore "on a picture of our old and bewailed comrade Stalin" not to rest until capitalism was destroyed.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by CDL+--> (CDL)That&#39;s actually not my point at all, nice try though. The point is that the vicious anti-communism that&#39;s practiced by many here is more rabid than some of what the right spews.[/b]

I didnt&#39; understand your point, that&#39;s why i asked, &#39;what&#39;s your point?&#39; And finished my post with an &#39;unsure&#39; smiley, no need to be so hostile.


CDL
Anytime I hear talk about Stalin the genocidal maniac who was as bad as Hitler, etc. I get annoyed; even more so when it comes from someone rocking quotes in his signature of a guy who once swore "on a picture of our old and bewailed comrade Stalin" not to rest until capitalism was destroyed.


Hypothetically, do you really think Guevara would have held Stalin in such high esteem if he were alive today? Communists worldwide upheld Stalin and the Soviet Union at the time, with the benefit of historical hindsight peoples views have changed.

Regardless, it&#39;s not hypocrtical to attack Stalin or deride him for being a brutal anti-WC dictator (which he was), whilst at the same time supporting Guevara, because Guevaras&#39; admiration was misplaced, one can support or admire Guevara, but not every sentence he spoke.

The point is, for communists of the 21st century, there is little utility in associating with or defending the actions of Stalin, it only serves to maintain the popular conception that Stalin = Communism, i.e. that communism = a brutal one party (and one leader) dictatorship etc. By all means we should correct falsfications, but that is all.

[Hiero]

Hypothetically, do you really think Guevara would have held Stalin in such high esteem if he were alive today? Communists worldwide upheld Stalin and the Soviet Union at the time, with the benefit of historical hindsight peoples views have changed.

Guevara was alive when Krushchev&#39;s "secret" speach became public. The speech is used by revisionist (which a majority of first world CPs became) and anti communists to attack Stalin. If Che was ever going to change his position on Stalin he would have done so after the speach become public. That is what the this historical hindsight is based on, potical opportunism.


The point is, for communists of the 21st century, there is little utility in associating with or defending the actions of Stalin, it only serves to maintain the popular conception that Stalin = Communism, i.e. that communism = a brutal one party (and one leader) dictatorship etc. By all means we should correct falsfications, but that is all.

Third world comrades have no problem with Stalin = Communism. Maybe there is something wrong with the first world.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Hiero
Third world comrades have no problem with Stalin = Communism. Maybe there is something wrong with the first world.

And you can speak for &#39;third world&#39; comrades because...?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 12, 2006 04:38 pm--> (Black Dagger @ November 12, 2006 04:38 pm)
Hiero
Third world comrades have no problem with Stalin = Communism. Maybe there is something wrong with the first world.

And you can speak for &#39;third world&#39; comrades because...? [/b]
Because I know of no significant Trotskyist, or Anarchist organisation in the 3rd world. Besides India and Pakistan which have Trotskyist parties.

The fact that 3rd world movements have been Stalinist. If you weren&#39;t so obsessed with identity politics you will find that with a little investigation you can speak for other people when tehy are not present.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)Because I know of no significant Trotskyist, or Anarchist organisation in the 3rd world. Besides India and Pakistan which have Trotskyist parties.
[/b]

:lol:

Of course there are plenty of Trotsykist/anarchist groups in the &#39;third world&#39; (you mentioned two&#33;)

So how does your admission that, "India and Pakistan which have Trotskyist parties"

Square up with your claim that "Third world comrades have no problem with Stalin = Communism" :unsure:



Originally posted by [email protected]
The fact that 3rd world movements have been Stalinist. If you weren&#39;t so obsessed with identity politics you will find that with a little investigation you can speak for other people when tehy are not present

Actually, no Hiero, you CANT speak for &#39;third world&#39; comrades.

Your &#39;knowledge&#39; of the &#39;third world&#39; comes from the internet and books, you don&#39;t live &#39;there&#39;, so you cannot claim with any credibility to speak for &#39;third world&#39; comrades or with any serious knowledge of what is happening on the ground in &#39;third world&#39; countries.

It&#39;s absurd for you, with no authority whatsoever to make massive generalisations like:


Hiero
Third world comrades have no problem with Stalin = Communism.

As if you can speak on behalf of around 5 billion people :rolleyes:

[encephalon]

i&#39;m not a fan of stalin, but a papa joe lunchbox would be awesome.

The USSR failed miserably. While you can attribute a lot of this to capitalist aggression, you also have to consider that the direction its leaders (lenin, stalin, etc) took it were doomed from the start. The system had inherent flaws, and its leaders exponentially expanded those flaws.

The Soviet Union wasn&#39;t all clowns and flowers when all of a sudden Kruschev released a flock of crying babies into the disarray. Don&#39;t be foolish.

[Hiero]

Of course there are plenty of Trotsykist/anarchist groups in the &#39;third world&#39; (you mentioned two&#33;)

So how does your admission that, "India and Pakistan which have Trotskyist parties"

Square up with your claim that "Third world comrades have no problem with Stalin = Communism"

Trotsykist groups have a minimal impact in the 3rd word. I don&#39;t even know of the existance of anarchist movements in the 3rd word. In China early in the revolution there was an Anarchist faction in the Communist Party. It&#39;s power base seems to have only been the students, as revolution grew the Communist Party became Stalinist dominated.

Seriously give me one example where a non-Stalinist party has made a large impact through revolution?


Actually, no Hiero, you CANT speak for &#39;third world&#39; comrades.

Your &#39;knowledge&#39; of the &#39;third world&#39; comes from the internet and books, you don&#39;t live &#39;there&#39;, so you cannot claim with any credibility to speak for &#39;third world&#39; comrades or with any serious knowledge of what is happening on the ground in &#39;third world&#39; countries.

It&#39;s absurd for you, with no authority whatsoever to make massive generalisations like:

Actually I am not speaking for anyone. I am repeating a fact, and facts do not change regardless of race, ethnicity or location. Should I stop believing that the USSR, China, DPRK, the Maoist in Nepal, Philipines, Peru and North India do not or did not exist because I livee in the 1st world?

China, India, Veitnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Brazil, Peru the list goes on where parties that are considered Stalinist have been the major players in revolution.

If I get someone from the 3rd world to repeat it, does that make it true?


As if you can speak on behalf of around 5 billion people

The actions of thoose people speak for themselves.

[Xiao Banfa]

Hiero, he&#39;s a such a sophisticated Stalinist.

Very rare these days ( cept for the 3rd world).

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 12, 2006 08:18 pm
Hiero, he&#39;s a such a sophisticated Stalinist.

Very rare these days ( cept for the 3rd world).
Are you having a go at me?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 05:49 am
Because I know of no significant Trotskyist, or Anarchist organisation in the 3rd world. Besides India and Pakistan which have Trotskyist parties.
Don&#39;t forget Sri Lanka. Oh, wait, the trots there are kind of participating in a "socialist" government that is brutally butchering Tamils, so they may not be very examplary. :lol:

[Intelligitimate]

It&#39;s valid. Why was Tukhachevsky executed after he had served the Red Army for so long under Lenin?

He was found guilty of being a traitor. Unless you&#39;re just assuming he was completely innocent of the very serious charges against him, this is a non-question. Of course Lenin would execute traitors. Just look at Malinovsky. When it was discovered he was an Okhrana agent, he was shot.


Furthermore, this accusation did not occur in a vacuum. Many other individuals were being condemned as traitors at the time, so was Tukhachevsky&#39;s fate not a part of a wider "purge"? Is it not suspicious that Tukhachevsky, a proven leader for the Soviets, was condemned at this point?

1.We know from his own words he hated socialism and Jews prior to 1917.

2.He was a Tsarist officer before 1917. Trotsky stated he never took his communist convictions seriously.

3.Trotsky had made a big push at the time for getting these people to work with the government. Trotsky would do such things like hold their family&#39;s hostage and make them agree to work with them. Many in the Party didn&#39;t like this idea, but it was approved, with reservations.

You have to take those facts into account before you can even say he was a “proven leader”. And then there is still the nature of the charges against him. You seem to be just assuming they were false based on his past, when in fact, his past only confirms the idea he was a likely traitor.


I wasn&#39;t questioning the information you gave. However, my purpose was to point out that Stalin did indeed play a minor role in the Russian Civil War.

This is simply not true. His role was not minor. It might not have been as great as Trotsky&#39;s, but so what? Stalin did all kinds of stuff during the Civil War, and everyone, including Trotsky, relied on his abilities.


OK (this is simply my understanding of it). After Lenin&#39;s death, Stalin isolated Trotsky by forming the Troika. After Trotsky was minimilized, Stalin turned on his former allies and later the "right opposition".

Trotsky isolated himself. Many people in the party did not like him because of his tendency to form factions and his flagrant disregard for democratic centralism.


By 1928, he had effectively consolidated power and eliminated a great amount of opposition to himself.

Stalin&#39;s line is the one that won out against the Right and Left oppositions. That many of them refused to accept the decisions of the Party and were expelled (like Trotsky) is their own fault. That they conspired against the Party afterwards is again their own fault.


Later, he would make moves against others, including the "Old Bolsheviks", first in the "Moscow Trials", then in the trial of Red Army generals and finally in the "Trial of the Twenty-One". This all shows that Stalin took power for himself at the expense of other members and at the expense of the Party itself.

This is all just an assumption of the anti-communist paradigm created initially by Trotsky and later picked up by people like Robert Conquest. Namely one of the assumptions involved is that all the charges against these people were completely manufactured by Stalin, when there is no justification for such an assumption.


What evidence is there of Stalin&#39;s opinion on signing the agreement?

I just told you about the preamble.


First, he isolated the USSR with his "socialism in one country" policy.

Completely untrue. I have posted the full text of Stalin&#39;s letter to Pokoyev many times on this forum. I suggest you read it:

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PBS26.html


Comrade Pokoyev,
I am late in replying, for which I apologise to you and your comrades.
Unfortunately, you have not understood our disagreements at the Fourteenth Congress. The point was not at all that the opposition asserted that we had not yet arrived at socialism, while the congress held that we had already arrived at socialism. That is not true. You will not find a single member in our Party who would say that we have already achieved socialism.
That was not at all the subject of the dispute at the congress. The subject of the dispute was this. The congress held that the working class, in alliance with the labouring peasantry, can deal the finishing blow to the capitalists of our country and build a socialist society, even if there is no victorious revolution in the West to come to its aid. The opposition, on the contrary, held that we cannot deal the finishing blow to our capitalists and build a socialist society until the workers are victorious in the West. Well, as the victory of the revolution in the West is rather late in coming, nothing remains for us to do, apparently, but to loaf around. The congress held, and said so in its resolution on the
page 102
report of the Central Committee,[46] that these views of the opposition implied disbelief in victory over our capitalists.
That was the point at issue, dear comrades.
This, of course, does not mean that we do not need the help of the West-European workers. Suppose that. the West-European workers did not sympathise with us and did not render us moral support. Suppose that the West-European workers did not prevent their capitalists from launching an attack upon our Republic. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be that the capitalists would march against us and radically disrupt our constructive work, if not destroy us altogether. If the capitalists are not attempting this, it is because they are afraid that if they were to attack our Republic, the workers would strike at them from the rear. That is what we mean when we say that the West-European workers are supporting our revolution.
But from the support of the workers of the West to the victory of the revolution in the West is a long, long way. Without the support of the workers of the West we could scarcely have held out against the enemies surrounding us. If this support should later develop into a victorious revolution in the West, well and good. Then the victory of socialism in our country will be final. But what if this support does not develop into a victory of the revolution in the West? If there is no such victory in the West, can we build a socialist society and complete the building of it? The congress answered that we can. Otherwise, there would have been no point in our taking power in October 1917. If we had not counted on giving the finishing blow to
page 103
our capitalists, everyone will say that we had no business to take power in October 1917. The opposition, however, affirms that we cannot finish off our capitalists by our own efforts.
That is the difference between us.
There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable -- without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.
What follows then in conclusion?
It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital -- for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.
page 104
In my opinion, your mistake and that of your comrades is that you have not yet found your way in this matter and have confused these two questions.
With comradely greetings,

J. Stalin
P. S. You should get hold of the Bolshevik [47] (of Moscow), No. 3, and read my article in it. It would make matters easier for you.
J. Stalin
February 10, 1926


Instead of spreading the revolution abroad, he pursued an insular course.

Again, this is simply not true. Spain is the primary example of just such concern for internationalism on the part of Stalin.


However, the question of the necessity of the pact remains. That is what I am asking, if it was truly necessary. To me, it was not, and although I do know that the USSR had few friends at the time, the pact did not seem to be the only option.

I&#39;m sure that is a very convenient belief to have in 2006. What pray tell would you have done differently? Start a war with the Nazis even sooner?


The Soviets lost precious resources in the Winter War. Why not use those resources to build an effective defense against Germany during that time?

I already told you what the purpose was. Playing armchair general now is pretty pointless. The fact is that it exposed a great weakness in the Red Army, and was actually a good thing for that alone. It also secured many important strategic positions for the USSR.


It is not idiocy to say that Stalin&#39;s use of southern troops in the Finnish winter was a mistake.

It is if you think that had anything to do with their failure.


Stalin&#39;s actions in Spain greatly hurt the Republican cause. People who were on the front fighting the fascists were being labelled as "Trotskyist traitors" by Stalin&#39;s supporters.

They were traitors. The POUM even played football with the fascists.


And what of the NEP?

What of it? We are talking about the burdens people had under Lenin and Stalin. The death toll of the Civil War period was far, far worse than anything experienced under Stalin until WW2. Try to stay on subject.


Well, there are a few: Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Preobrazhensky, Radek, Riazanov, Rakovsky. They were all targeted as "Old Bolsheviks".

The first three knew about the Riutin Platform and said nothing, and the others were close associates of the first. We know Trotsky tried to form an anti-Stalin opposition with Kamenev and Zinoviev. Allow me to post something I wrote awhile back on the subject:


Originally posted by me
After Trotsky’s exile in 1929, Trotsky maintained contact with Lev Sedov in the USSR until 1938 (when Sedov was shot). These communications are known as the “Exile Correspondence” sections in the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, opened in January 1980. Trotsky lied about having contact with former followers in the USSR in his Biulleten’ oppozitsii and to the Dewey Commission, which was setup to defend Trotsky of charges against him made in the show trials.

In 1932, he sent letters to former oppositionists Radek, Sokolnikov, Preobrazhenskii, and others. These letters were removed from Trotsky’s papers by someone, but they forgot to remove the certified-mail receipts signed by Trotsky’s secretaries. In October that same year, E. S. Gol’tsman met Sedov in Berlin and gave him some internal memorandum regarding the Soviet economy. He also brought Sedov a proposal from Left Oppositionists to form a united bloc consisting of Trotskyists, Zinovievists, members of the Lominadze group, and others. The proposal came from Ivan Smirnov.

Sedov wrote back to Trotsky, who wrote “The proposition of the bloc seems to me completely acceptable,” but “it is a question of a bloc, not a merger.” “How will the bloc manifest itself? For the moment, mainly through exchanging information. Our allies will keep us up to date on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Comintern.” Trotsky also stipulated that the opposition should sent materials to be published in Biulleten&#39;, and that capitulationists should be excluded from the bloc. Smirnov proposed that Rightists should be allowed into the bloc, which Trotsky rejected: “The allies’ opinion that one must wait until the rights can easily join does not have my approval.”

The bloc was disrupted by the arrest of Zinoviev, Smirnov, and Kamenev, but Sedov didn’t think they had found anything on them regarding the bloc (they were arrested for other matters).

This block didn’t come out till 1936, during Ezhov’s participation with the NKVD. Stalin was suspicious of the late discovery of this bloc. Yagoda’s sympathy for the defeated oppositionists was documented by Serdiuk to the Twenty-Second Congress in 1961 (Pravda, Oct. 31, 1961). But perhaps Yagoda just discovered it in 1936.

Getty: Origin of the Great Purges, pages 119-128.

[Joby]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 12, 2006 01:06 am

We shouldn&#39;t justify Stalin.

You&#39;ve got a Fidel avatar and a Che quote in your sig. Do you know what they thought of Stalin?
Yes.

I also know of what Che thought of the USSR as, at least the USSR under Kruschev.

To say Cuba today resembles anything like Stalinist Russia is far-fetched and ridiculous. I may not agree with everything Che or Fidel have said, but I support their anti-imperialist stance.

[IronLion]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 09, 2006 12:55 am
i think stalin was an evil man, and the whole USSR was a fucked up system that gave communism a bad image. now when most people think of communism, they associate it with douches like stalin.
^ Basically what my sig. says.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 03:22 pm
He was found guilty of being a traitor. Unless you&#39;re just assuming he was completely innocent of the very serious charges against him, this is a non-question. Of course Lenin would execute traitors. Just look at Malinovsky. When it was discovered he was an Okhrana agent, he was shot.

Found guilty under what circumstances? The situation surrounding this event is important, as Stalin was in the process of eliminating percieved enemies and rivals (this is corroborated by the Soviet archives IIRC). The mere fact that many other individuals, many of them dedicated revolutionaries, were being "found guilty" and executed (in show trials) is suspect enough. This is to mention nothing of the archives which show that people were being condemned for little to no reason.


1.We know from his own words he hated socialism and Jews prior to 1917.

2.He was a Tsarist officer before 1917. Trotsky stated he never took his communist convictions seriously.

3.Trotsky had made a big push at the time for getting these people to work with the government. Trotsky would do such things like hold their family&#39;s hostage and make them agree to work with them. Many in the Party didn&#39;t like this idea, but it was approved, with reservations.

You have to take those facts into account before you can even say he was a “proven leader”. And then there is still the nature of the charges against him. You seem to be just assuming they were false based on his past, when in fact, his past only confirms the idea he was a likely traitor.

Yes, I do take those facts into account, but I also take into account the fact that Lenin did trust him when his past was known. If Lenin saw no problem with his past, why should Stalin? Also (on a tangent), did the Red Army not need those proven leaders (the ones Trotsky got to work with them) in the Russian Civil War?


This is simply not true. His role was not minor. It might not have been as great as Trotsky&#39;s, but so what? Stalin did all kinds of stuff during the Civil War, and everyone, including Trotsky, relied on his abilities.

This may be subjective, but it does seem that Stalin&#39;s role was minor in comparison to others (including some of the people he later had executed). That he did less than Trotsky and Tukhachevsky and others is true, at the very least. However, it is my opinion that his role was quite minor (again, that&#39;s just my opinion).


Trotsky isolated himself. Many people in the party did not like him because of his tendency to form factions and his flagrant disregard for democratic centralism.

Was it Trotsky who formed the Troika? It was Stalin who isolated Trotsky, not Trotsky. Furthermore, if you want to look for a "tendency to form factions", Stalin consistently did this to consolidate power for himself and to eliminate rivals. Moreover, Stalin effectively ended democratic centralism by making the Party his own rubber stamp and liquidating any elements of disagreement.


Stalin&#39;s line is the one that won out against the Right and Left oppositions. That many of them refused to accept the decisions of the Party and were expelled (like Trotsky) is their own fault. That they conspired against the Party afterwards is again their own fault.

Stalin turned against former allies, just as he undermined rivals (see Trotsky). Trotsky was expelled because Stalin built up allies, allies he would later turn on. This is how Stalin successfully gained control of the Party for himself.


This is all just an assumption of the anti-communist paradigm created initially by Trotsky and later picked up by people like Robert Conquest. Namely one of the assumptions involved is that all the charges against these people were completely manufactured by Stalin, when there is no justification for such an assumption.

Even before further evidence came about, it was established that they used false evidence (for example, the findings of the Dewey Commission). If one ignores this, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that almost every important Bolshevik (aside from Stalin, of course) was indeed a traitor. However, this is quite secondary. What of the "secret speech"? What of Khrushchev&#39;s testimonies? What of the accounts of Alexander Orlov? In light of this evidence, it seems safe to say that these trials were far from fair or justified.


Completely untrue. I have posted the full text of Stalin&#39;s letter to Pokoyev many times on this forum. I suggest you read it:

It seems as though the lack of a revolution in the west is almost an excuse for not aiding such efforts at that point. This does not refute my claim of an insular course. Secondly, a letter does not undo actions. What of Stalin&#39;s treatment of Eastern Europe after WWII tell us?


Again, this is simply not true. Spain is the primary example of just such concern for internationalism on the part of Stalin.

He hindered the chances of the Spanish people. Instead of fighting Franco, many Stalinists were more interested in fighting the Anarchists.


I&#39;m sure that is a very convenient belief to have in 2006. What pray tell would you have done differently? Start a war with the Nazis even sooner?

Of course it is. However, the other options on the table would have been to set up effective defensive positions against a German attack instead of invading Finland. That way, the Nazis would not be knocking on Moscow&#39;s gates within months of the initial invasion.


I already told you what the purpose was. Playing armchair general now is pretty pointless. The fact is that it exposed a great weakness in the Red Army, and was actually a good thing for that alone. It also secured many important strategic positions for the USSR.

Would you not agree that it was detrimental? If they had concentrated those resources on solidifying their defenses in that time, the initial Nazi invasion would have never had such success. Furthermore, the weaknesses in the Soviet Army could have been fixed without losing men and material (in fact, the biggest weakness of the Soviet Army turned out to be their adherence to Stalin&#39;s orders).


It is if you think that had anything to do with their failure.

Why wouldn&#39;t it? They weren&#39;t accustomed to the climate. Being used to an environment you need to fight in is a huge factor in war, it hurts morale as much as effectiveness.


They were traitors. The POUM even played football with the fascists.

Even those who were giving their lives in defense of the Republic (not just the POUM)?


What of it? We are talking about the burdens people had under Lenin and Stalin. The death toll of the Civil War period was far, far worse than anything experienced under Stalin until WW2. Try to stay on subject.

Lenin&#39;s economic development was not the burden that Stalin&#39;s was. The NEP was done after the Russian Civil War, and it did not see the extreme quotas put upon the workers&#39; heads. By the way, this ignores the extraordinary amounts of people sent to camps during Stalin (and, according to most sources, for no reason).


The first three knew about the Riutin Platform and said nothing, and the others were close associates of the first. We know Trotsky tried to form an anti-Stalin opposition with Kamenev and Zinoviev. Allow me to post something I wrote awhile back on the subject:

How was it established that they knew about it? Further, guilt by association is unsatisfactory at best. Opposing Stalin carries such a punishment? Is that justifiable? Also, it was because of Stalin that Trotsky was in exile in the first place, so in my mind the root cause of what you cited was Stalin, not disloyalty.

[Cloud]

Sorry, don&#39;t have the time to read through every single reply so i&#39;m gonna post my reply.

Stalin, who was apparently a believer in Leninism, put more power into himself and took more power from the state to himself instead of spreading the powers of the state out. He was a state-capitalist and dictator. There is no justification in that.

[The Red Czar]

Lemme try fixing his image.
...
...
...
Give me a few minutes...
...
...
...
He was too paranoid. *shrug* Tis all I got.

[bezdomni]

Our duty as materialists is not to "justify" Stalin, but simply to explain the significance of Stalin and the reasons why he became General Secretary.

Justice is an arbitrary and subjective concept, and arguing over it just gets us into some bullshit platonic debate about "what is justice?", and we don&#39;t end up coming out of that discussion with any new insights or understandings of history...so it is really pointless to argue about if Stalin&#39;s leadership is just or not.

[The Red Czar]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 10:21 pm
Are you an idiot?

Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader, the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other? The man who defeated Nazism? Who withstood capitalism? The man of Steel who is still to this day adored by the Russian people? The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied. A truly great, historical leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement?? Is this even a serious question??

Not only must we justify him, we must honor him&#33;

http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/images/lowrez/stalin_color555.jpg
O_o;

Weird.
Stalin isn&#39;t a god, idiot, he was a paranoid poop-head psycopath.

[Fawkes]

The Red Czar: in response to your original question, no you cannot justify him if you actually support the people.

[emokid08]

There is no justification for Stalin or others that followed in his blood soaked foot steps (Hoxa, the Ils, Pot etc). There is no excuse for the authoritarianism that he and his followers carried out against the workers and peasants, and there&#39;s no excuse for the totalitarianism his proponents espouse today.

We have to ask ouselves one simple question when we talk about Stalin (also those like him) in particular and Marxism-Leninism in general:

Are they (were they) truly liberatory movements?
or
Does Stalinism really free us from the burdensome yolk of Capitalism?

We on the Revolutionary Left have to seek out the ideology that liberates us from all reaches of capitalism. Stalinism doesn’t smash capitalist society or destroys capitalist culture. Maoism barely chips away at the surface. Instead Authoritarian Marxism (Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Juche) transfers the reigns of government from group of ruling elite to another group of ruling elite. The tools of oppression and the weapons of exploitation are simply utilized by a new group of bloodsucking parasites.

I support Freedom, Liberty, and Socialism.
I support the only ideology that really frees us from the chains of capitalism and liberates us from the exploitation of wage slavery:

:AO:

[bezdomni]

You either don&#39;t know what you are talking about, or lack some serious reading comprehension skills.

Anarchists are always so quick to call anything that isn&#39;t anarchism "authoritarian", but have you ever actually tried to define it? Where is the brightline between libertarian and authoritarian communism? How can actual communism even be "authoritarian", since the goal is the liberation of humanity?

Furthermore, Stalinism is not an ideology. Nobody in their right mind would define themselves as a "Stalinist", because it doesn&#39;t really mean anything.

Finally, I think the amount of people who align themselves with "Juche" outside of the DPRK is negligible, and therefore does not have to be addressed with anything. It&#39;s not even Marxism.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 11:07 pm
"You cannot make an Omelette without breaking eggs" (Joseph Stalin).

How far does this judgement excuse the violence of Stalinist politics?

Obviously, I am a communist. Personally, I do not conform to the &#39;Stalinist&#39; way of thinking and judging by some of the posts i&#39;ve read I am not alone. However I want your opinions (including the Stalinists&#33;)

thanks.
We cannot, simply because Stalin did not carry out the Marxian message and expand on Lenin&#39;s work to its fullest potential. Instead, he took the dictatorship away from the proletariat, and eventually, away from the Communist Party itself with the purges of the 1930&#39;s. Instead of fighting the bourgeoisie of Germany, of France, and of England, he decided to first make a truce with the facist Hitler and then destroy all Germany regardless of the class struggle. Instead of furthering the revolution to the stateless, classless Communist society, he lingered with his Soviet Socialist Republics when then could&#39;ve clearly have made from the transition from socialist state to Communist society.

[norwegian commie]

Stalin made sovjetunion capable of competing with USA.
He industrialised Russia, and has the honor of one of the worlds fastest groeing economies in history.
That made soviet able to represent communism and spread the socialistic thoughts. Soviet has the honor of spreading communism, communism was stronger during soviet than after it collapsed.

Im not praising Stalin, but he was defending sovjet, and he was strengthening it.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by communist_kyle+--> (communist_kyle) "You cannot make an Omelette without breaking eggs" (Joseph Stalin). [/b]

Maximillian Robespierre said that, not Stalin.


Originally posted by communist_kyle+--> (communist_kyle)Can we justify Stalin?[/b]

Why would we want to do that?


norwegian [email protected]
Stalin made sovjetunion capable of competing with USA.
He industrialised Russia, and has the honor of one of the worlds fastest groeing economies in history.

Bismark did the same with Germany. What&#39;s you point?


emokid08
We on the Revolutionary Left have to seek out the ideology that liberates us from all reaches of capitalism.

No, that&#39;s not true. It makes no sense.

No ideology is capable of liberating the human being from anything, becuase every ideology is a fragmentary vision of reality.

Anarchism and communism are not ideas, ideologies or visions. They are real movements of the laboring masses.

[Ol' Dirty]

Stalin and his Authouritarian National "Communist" posse should trip down a well. He made communism look like something terrible, when in reality, the International movement has nothing to do with him.

We should not, will not and can not justify Stalin, because we are on completely different sides of the political spectra. Leave the "justifacation" to his national communist buddies. Anyone who identifies with Stalin is no freind of mine. <_<

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Stalin and his Authouritarian National "Communist" posse should trip down a well. He made communism look like something terrible, when in reality, the International movement has nothing to do with him.

You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about. This is what Socialism in One Country Means (http://leftyhenry.blogspot.com/2006/12/socialism-in-one-country.html)


We should not, will not and can not justify Stalin, because we are on completely different sides of the political spectra. Leave the "justifacation" to his national communist buddies. Anyone who identifies with Stalin is no freind of mine. <_<

What do you mean by "identify". Marxist-Leninists, the largest "sect" of Communists, all "identify" with Stalin, but realize he made very major and critical mistakes that would be damaging to the international communist movement, we just don&#39;t deny the fact that he did some good things for the Soviet Union as well.

[Ol' Dirty]

The ownership of the means of production by the state was very real in the Soviet Union. Of course, that does not make it socialist&#33; Socialism is popular control of the means of production. Indeed, once Stalin came to power, it was Socialist by name only&#33; Why? Because Stalin was the state, not the people&#33;

Because International Communism is democratic in essence, Stalin becoming dictator immediately ruined any chance that the Union had at become Socialist. In fact, at that very moment, it became more Authoritarian in nature than anything&#33;

It was not the communism-socialism you and I espouse, but a deformation of Lenin&#39;s dream; It was Fascism&#33;

And how does this align with what we want? How is this in any way good for the people of the world? And is that your vision of a Socialist society?

Be specific about the "good" he did and how he achieved it. Stalin&#39;s programs killed more people directly than Adolf Hitler&#39;s Nazi Regime. His colectivization programs were a breach of all human rights garunteed by the International Soviet.

And you defend this horseshit&#33;


Stalin and his Authouritarian National "Communist" posse should trip down a well. He made communism look like something terrible, when in reality, the International movement has nothing to do with him.


You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about.
This is what Socialism in One Country Means (http://leftyhenry.blogspot.com/2006/12/socialism-in-one-country.html)

Ha&#33;

Au Contraire&#33; :rolleyes: I think that you are the one that is mistaken as to what I say, you conduluded lepor&#33; I&#39;m not talking of the Socialism In One Country, you dolt. I&#39;m talking about Stalin&#39;s dictatorial control over the State, the means of production and, thusly the people of the Union.


We should not, will not and can not justify Stalin, because we are on completely different sides of the political spectra. Leave the "justifacation" to his national communist buddies. Anyone who identifies with Stalin is no freind of mine. <_<


What do you mean by "identify".

Excactly what I wrote, you laudable fucking asswipe. What did you think I meant?


Marxist-Leninists, the largest "sect" of Communists, all "identify" with Stalin, but realize he made very major and critical mistakes that would be damaging to the international communist movement, we just don&#39;t deny the fact that he did some good things for the Soviet Union as well.

You apparently don&#39;t understand what I&#39;m saying, and that is that he was a opportunist warmongering pig that rode the popular communist wave into power, so that he could live in the laps of luxury. He was no international communist, but an authoritarian&#33;

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:13 pm



The ownership of the means of production by the state was very real in the Soviet Union. Of course, that does not make it socialist&#33; Socialism is popular control of the means of production. Indeed, once Stalin came to power, it was Socialist by name only&#33; Why? Because Stalin was the state, not the people&#33;


No the people were the state. Under Stalin the masses, and the oppressed peasants who had been treated as slaves for centuries by kulaks and tsarists were told to take what is rightfully theirs back, they were told to seize the land and factories and produce collectivly. The result was the most democratic economy seen to that day. Why? Because every institution was democratized, or given completely to even the poorest of people. IE healthcare, education, clothing etc... became rights of the people, thus it was the working class and peasants who benefited once the country was industrialized. Living standards and production had nearly quadruptled after the USSR was officially industrialized from pre-revolution Russia.


Because International Communism is democratic in essence, Stalin becoming dictator immediately ruined any chance that the Union had at become Socialist. In fact, at that very moment, it became more Authoritarian in nature than anything&#33;

Firstly, Stalin was the General Secretariat and acted in unison with other bodies of the party and state. Second, Stalin was very authoritarian and did things in a more beuracratic manner than Lenin which was a major criticiscism Mao Zedong had for Stalin. Mao was faced with a similiar situation in China in the late 60s, where China was threatening to turn into beauracratic state capitalism. Mao, unlike Stalin encouraged mass participation, and a mass movement to create socialism and democracy. Stalin and Mao were faced with class civil war. Either they were to give in to the kulaks, warlords, and aristocrats that occupied their nations and were attempting to turn it into the slave plantation it was before the revolution permanently. The situation was one of class war in its most brutal form and no one denies that mistakes were made but class war and revolution are always authoritarian as it is one class suppressing another which is why there has never been a "libertarian" revolution.


It was not the communism-socialism you and I espouse, but a deformation of Lenin&#39;s dream; It was Fascism&#33;

No fascism is very different. I reccomend you read this: it is a short article on the differences of Nazism and fascism and socialism in the Soviet Union and why they were nothing alike. Article Here (http://rwor.org/a/011/outrageous-equating-nazism-communism.htm)


And how does this align with what we want? How is this in any way good for the people of the world? And is that your vision of a Socialist society?

Of course its not but you&#39;re not analyzing the Soviet Union and Dialectical and Materialist fashion. The material conditions of the Soviet Union, and most of the so called "third world" or underdeveloped countries that had socialist revolutions were where brutal class oppression had exsisted in its most raw and undefined form. Few think about how many peasants were slaughtered, attacked, napalmed etc in Tsarist Russia or how many starved died of curable dieseases and etc in the shanty town slums of China and Cuba where dinner was once a month and rat soup and water was that dirt puddle accross the street and the doctor was the guy with a used band aid. How has socialism helped the people of the world? It industrialized the countries and was able to give people the basics; food, water, plumbing, shelter, healthcare, education, clothing etc things millions if not billions in capitalist countries today don&#39;t get. Only by critically analyzing the material conditions of these past socialist states can we understand why mistakes were made, what achievements were made, and how we can prevent mistakes from happening in the future.


Be specific about the "good" he did and how he achieved it. Stalin&#39;s programs killed more people directly than Adolf Hitler&#39;s Nazi Regime. His colectivization programs were a breach of all human rights garunteed by the International Soviet.

No, the Nazi regime killed 64 million people through WWII (http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm). Hitler killed because he felt like it.

Stalin on the other hand supposedly "killed" in a famine. We now know several things. First, 1.5 million died as opposed to original estimates traced to the Gustapo of 10 million. Second, 2/3 of those deaths were a result of a diesease "typhoid fevor" which spread and could not be cured. The same disease had spread during China&#39;s famine of 1927 which killed many more. Also, the kulaks and drought combined to devastate the outcome of collevtization. Many capitalist leaders have had famines during their leadership and can&#39;t do shit about it. Stalin was in that exact position but since he was a socialist the world immediately jumped on him. Despite the fact that he expressed immediate concern when he was made aware and sent over 500 tons of grain to Ukraine. He was made aware by a letter, so he responded hw much should he send? Then another letter came with the amount so he sent the amount and scolded the writer for wasting time by not sending a telegram. Eventually collectivization would massively increase production.

Fraud, Fascism, and Famine -- Nazi sources for the famine (http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf)
And Economic Miracle (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node18.html#SECTION00600300000000000000)
Class War (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node17.html#SECTION00600200000000000000)


Ha&#33;

Au Contraire&#33; :rolleyes: I think that you are the one that is mistaken as to what I say, you conduluded lepor&#33; I&#39;m not talking of the Socialism In One Country, you dolt. I&#39;m talking about Stalin&#39;s dictatorial control over the State, the means of production and, thusly the people of the Union.

You said National Communism and National Socialism so you gave impression that you were talking about SIOC


Excactly what I wrote, you laudable fucking asswipe. What did you think I meant?

wtf? Then you&#39;re an idiot. You&#39;ll be friends with capitalists but not Marxist-Leninists?


You apparently don&#39;t understand what I&#39;m saying, and that is that he was a opportunist warmongering pig that rode the popular communist wave into power, so that he could live in the laps of luxury. He was no international communist, but an authoritarian&#33;

That is a bankrupt arguement. Stalin lived in a three bedroom apartment. He was elected into power because the alternative was Capitalism and the return to fuedalism; people who thought the NEP was perfectly fine and should be continued despite the fact it was intended only as an emergency measure. No shit he fucked up but we need to realize why he fucked up and how we can correct it in the future. That is Marxism. Concentrating on the future and learning from the past, something you have proven utterly incapable of even understanding.

[chimx]

There is a pinned thread dealing with Stalin in which I point out scholarly articles of the famine in Russia and Ukraine during Stalin&#39;s reign.


Also, the kulaks and drought combined to devastate the outcome of collevtization.

Leftyhenry: you are essentially an idiot. Read a book. The famine was caused by the drought in part, yes, but Kulaks only "devastated" the outcome because Stalin feverishly worked to suppress the Kulak as a class. He even acknowledged the ramifications of the rapid suppression of the Kulak class and how it would lead to massive famines, thus the famous line of being "dizzy with success".

The Russian collectivization process followed one of two models, the state farm, and the collective farm. The state farm was specifically owned by the Russian government and financed by it. All products created by the state farm were handed over to the state, while the state tried to pay a workers a living wage. The other model was the collective farm, which was forced to fill certain agricultural output quotas handed down from the state. Both models were anything but democratic, as decision making was not handled by the farmers themselves, but by the Russian bureaucracy.

It is ironic that following the breakup of the USSR, Yeltsin tried to force the breakup of these models, but instead of opting for an overtly capitalist agricultural farming model, the Russian people&#39;s choose primarily to organize the agrarian sector along cooperative and joint-stock companies, giving farmers far more control over their work.

I have a brief paper on the decollectivization process of Russia and China that I wrote while I was in college online here (http://chimx.yardapes.net/writing/russiachina.html) if anyone is interested.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

There is a pinned thread dealing with Stalin in which I point out scholarly articles of the famine in Russia and Ukraine during Stalin&#39;s reign.

Oh ya you mean the thread where you didn&#39;t feel like reading and just posted crap even after intelligetimate had posted a page of sources which covered that?


Leftyhenry: you are essentially an idiot. Read a book. The famine was caused by the drought in part, yes, but Kulaks only "devastated" the outcome because Stalin feverishly worked to suppress the Kulak as a class. He even acknowledged the ramifications of the rapid suppression of the Kulak class and how it would lead to massive famines, thus the famous line of being "dizzy with success".

lol you call me an idiot and then you essentially agree with me. Interesting. The suppression of the kulak class was necessary to give the land to regular oppressed peasants. In suppressing the kulaks, Stalin did what the kulaks and czarists had been doing to the peasants for centuries. Now, was it a mistake to go that fast and almost "force" collectivization on the peasants? Yes it was and it had major consequences; but all I&#39;m saying is that you have to make a material analysis of why the famine happened and it wasn&#39;t just because it was it was a terrible plan, because 10 years later production would be double of what it was pre-collectivization. Also keep in mind what the kulaks were doing, they were withholding grain during drought that was destroying crop.


The Russian collectivization process followed one of two models, the state farm, and the collective farm. The state farm was specifically owned by the Russian government and financed by it. All products created by the state farm were handed over to the state, while the state tried to pay a workers a living wage. The other model was the collective farm, which was forced to fill certain agricultural output quotas handed down from the state. Both models were anything but democratic, as decision making was not handled by the farmers themselves, but by the Russian bureaucracy.

It is ironic that following the breakup of the USSR, Yeltsin tried to force the breakup of these models, but instead of opting for an overtly capitalist agricultural farming model, the Russian people&#39;s choose primarily to organize the agrarian sector along cooperative and joint-stock companies, giving farmers far more control over their work.

there is always going to be a quota to meet in any system except full communism, even in the co-ops that exsist within capitalist countries, workers and farmers now need to worry about the rent, the lease, or the mortgage, buying the right equipment, etc so that if they don&#39;t produce enough, they&#39;re forced to sell the land. Also there are a shitload of little things to take care of like what brand shovel to buy, how many shovels to buy which the farmers really don&#39;t have time for. Most co-ops then often hire managements and elect a board of directors which have the power to fire anyone on the spot; so many co-ops quickly become not so co-operative. Under the collective model, the peasants owned the land and could figure out how they founded to fill out their quota; ie how much land to plow etc and didn&#39;t have to deal with every little thing like how many shovels to buy.

[chimx]

Yes it was and it had major consequences

specifically, the deaths of millions of peasants. life was so bad that hundreds of people turned to cannibalism to survive, particularly in the Ukraine where Stalin&#39;s forced quotas left the area with no food whatsoever. Again, see the other post.

Way to go Stalin...

[The Grey Blur]

To be honest I was just going to skip this thread, considering that &#39;justifying&#39; Stalin is not high on my to do list. But then I saw this gem...


This is what Socialism in One Country Means (http://leftyhenry.blogspot.com/2006/12/socialism-in-one-country.html)
So what I read from this, you agree that there was no deformed semi-poleterian state in Russia but rather &#39;State Capitalism&#39;, an incorrect term and theory in fact concoted by one of those &#39;Trot sects&#39; you despise...?

Really the contradictions in that article were marvellous.


After the Soviet Union had been industrialized, it would aid revolutions and spread socialism as evident in how the Soviet Union provided aid and arms to Chinese Communist Part.
After first telling the CCP to ally with the nationalist, beurgeois, KMT and seeing them slaughtered of course...


Essentially, we don&#39;t take the defeatist approach that supporters of the permanent revolution take; every communist revolution should revert to state-capitalism until worldwide revolution. We think that every communist revolution should both, take a great leap towards socialism as well as try to aid other revolutions
That is fucking hilarious. You have a proponent of the Stalinist/Maoist ideology which calls for regular alliances with the beurgeois and which in fact outlines a theory of &#39;stages&#39; before a Socialist revolution should be carried out calling for a &#39;great leap towards Socialism&#39;.

You can justify Stalin with a kick in the teeth.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 31, 2006 07:37 pm
After first telling the CCP to ally with the nationalist, beurgeois, KMT and seeing them slaughtered of course...

no that was mainly to fight the Japanese fascists. If the KMT and CCP didn&#39;t have a ceasefire to fight the fascists, the Japanese would&#39;ve completely taken over China.


That is fucking hilarious. You have a proponent of the Stalinist/Maoist ideology which calls for regular alliances with the beurgeois and which in fact outlines a theory of &#39;stages&#39; before a Socialist revolution should be carried out calling for a &#39;great leap towards Socialism&#39;.

regular alliances? You are confused, and have a very poor understanding of Maoism.


To be honest I was just going to skip this thread, considering that &#39;justifying&#39; Stalin is not high on my to do list. But then I saw this gem...

It&#39;s not about justifying him, but rather critical analysis of him in a marxist fashion.


So what I read from this, you agree that there was no deformed semi-poleterian state in Russia but rather &#39;State Capitalism&#39;, an incorrect term and theory in fact concoted by one of those &#39;Trot sects&#39; you despise...?

Really the contradictions in that article were marvellous.

umm State Capitalism exsisted before Tony Cliff if that&#39;s what you&#39;re refering too. Also, I don&#39;t despise any faction of communists, I just disagree with it, but I have worked with trots, anarchists, and liberals before. I think this (http://shinethepath.blogspot.com/2006/12/thoughts-on-revolution-state.html#comments) blog entry from the BB blog clarifies what is meant by state-capitalism.

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 10:21 pm
Are you an idiot?

Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader, the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other? The man who defeated Nazism? Who withstood capitalism? The man of Steel who is still to this day adored by the Russian people? The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied. A truly great, historical leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement?? Is this even a serious question??

Not only must we justify him, we must honor him&#33;

Cults of personality and idol-worship are very anti-communist; if there is a part of your psyche that enjoys kneeling before a dead man, I recommend you join the local church.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by SocialistGenius+December 31, 2006 11:43 pm--> (SocialistGenius @ December 31, 2006 11:43 pm)
Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 10:21 pm
Are you an idiot?

Can we justfity arguably the greatest Communist leader, the man who made more of the world under the Red Communist flag under any other? The man who defeated Nazism? Who withstood capitalism? The man of Steel who is still to this day adored by the Russian people? The man whose huge theoretical contributions are still being studied. A truly great, historical leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement?? Is this even a serious question??

Not only must we justify him, we must honor him&#33;

Cults of personality and idol-worship are very anti-communist; if there is a part of your psyche that enjoys kneeling before a dead man, I recommend you join the local church. [/b]
Why did you bother to respond to a post from a banned member that is over a month old?

[Ol' Dirty]

We should not, will not and can not justify Stalin, because we are on completely different sides of the political spectra. Leave the "justifacation" to his national communist buddies. Anyone who identifies with Stalin is no freind of mine. <_<


What do you mean by "identify". Marxist-Leninists, the largest "sect" of Communists, all "identify" with Stalin, but realize he made very major and critical mistakes that would be damaging to the international communist movement, we just don&#39;t deny the fact that he did some good things for the Soviet Union as well.

When I hear you say Stalin did good things for USSR, I&#39;m curious as to what good things you are refering. And what do you mean by your statement that all Marxist-Leninists Identify with Stalin. Do you mean all Marxist-Leninists support Stalin. Are all Marxists Leninists?

[RGacky3]

Whenever I heard the ends justify the means argument about Stalin, I can&#39;t help thinking, what were the ends? And how did the means help him to it? As far as I can tell, the ends were consolidating power for himself, and the means were brutality, murder, oppression and terror.