Joseph Stalin and Stalinist

[GoRiLLaZ]

Reading info on Joseph Stalin and his followers. i find it hard to understand why lots of left wing hates him? I know he had killed millions of people(maybe thats the reason for hating him). what is his kind of communism teaching like? is there an easier way to understand?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 03:14 pm
what is his kind of communism teaching like? is there an easier way to understand?
To put it simple it is a more authoritarian approach, to an already semi-authoritarian ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left

[Myke]

the extreme use of propaganda, the atrocities stalin himself commited...

[Janus]

I know he had killed millions of people(maybe thats the reason for hating him)
Yep; that's a big reason.

Thread on Stalin (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49516)


what is his kind of communism teaching like?
He never contributed much to Marxism-Leninism except his socialism in one country theory.

[GoRiLLaZ]

hey thx guys for the replies!

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] November 12, 2006, 03:33 p.m.
Yep; that's a big reason.

Thread on Stalin


That thread has links to websites and sources for print material provided by members including myself, showing the "millions" figure to be grossly exaggerated. If one wants to seriously study the history of the USSR, at least take the time to read some of that material before pronouncing "sentence"...


He never contributed much to Marxism-Leninism except his socialism in one country theory.

No. You said the same thing a month ago. And this was my response. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38755&st=50&#entry1292190090)

[Gold Against The Soul]

I still need to read more on this subject but from what I've read so far, it seems the biggest problem was his negative influence on revolutions and potential revolutions in other nations. Spain being the prime example.

The thing that has always interested me, is how much democracy was there under him?. Did workers *really* have any say?. I've heard it stated before that the Soviets had a sort of direct democracy?. Is that right?.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Gold Against The [email protected] 12, 2006 04:19 pm
I've heard it stated before that the Soviets had direct democracy?. Is that right?.
Fuck no!

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "-Joseph Stalin.

[bezdomni]

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "-Joseph Stalin.


He was talking about bourgeois elections you dolt.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:27 pm
He was talking about bourgeois elections you dolt.
Maybe, got any proof?

[Nilats]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:27 pm


"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "-Joseph Stalin.


He was talking about bourgeois elections you dolt.
:lol: This person obviously knows little about the history of the Soviet Union - the world's first ever socialist state.

To the first poster - Comrade Stalin is quite respected and revered by broad masses of the left, especially in the third world where people are suffering the most. A few privileged people with computers in Europe and America, mostly youngsters who are playing revolutionaries for a day, including many anarchists and "anti authoritarians" attack Stalin because they still live in utopian fairy land worlds and dream of "perfect states" "perfect revolutions" and "Perfect harmony" with the bourgeois and the proleteriat.

Serious revolutionaries know this is a lie. There can never be peace and harmony with bourgeois who want to take us back to capitalism or counter-revolutionaries who want to overthrow what the people, the workers have built and have struggled for for so long. Many good comrades died to create the Soviet Union and the world's first truly socialist state, that is why the dictatorship of the proleteriat is absolutely necessary - those that let the bourgeois roam free have their revolutions crushed - look at Chile 73 or Oaxaca 06 for instance.

Those that make the proleteriat the dictators of their own lives and suppress counter-revolutionaries like Stalin and Lenin did and fight against capitalists, give their people a chance of seeing the revolution live another day!

That is what we - Marxist Leninists are fighting for! To create an imperfect revolution of the dictatorship of the proleteriat! Not utopia, not a perfect revolution with daisies and flowers and roses, but one which will last and remain strong and vigilant with its enemies, the enemies of the workers and of socialism.

[Nilats]

Just so you know - Stalinist is really a slur. The correct definition is Marxist-Leninist. For we are the true defenders of Marxism-Leninism and do not fall into the petty-bourgeois revisionist trap or the Trotskyist trap, both of these tendencies try to "make nice with the bourgeois" and try to make the revolution more "acceptable"to them. This can never be, the revolution of socialism will be about one class dictating and repressing another.

[bezdomni]

Stalin never really even said it. It was Boris Brazhanov's memoirs and attributed to Stalin.

Even still, the context is in refernce to bourgeois democracy, not the USSR.

Have fun reading it!

Brazhanov's Memoirs (http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/BAZHANOW/stalin.txt)

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:38 pm
:lol: This person obviously knows little about the history of the Soviet Union - the world's first ever socialist state.


Actually I know a thing or two, and am learning more and more, and I don't see how any of this has to do with you proving to me that stalin was talking about bourgeoisie elections, if proof was provided I would humbly retract my statement, so again I ask for proof, if you can' provide said proof, then keep your mouth shut.

Furthermore I grow sick and tired of every time I question Marxism-Leninism, stalin, or MLS, you have to throw up a defense mechanism and say I don't know anything, so you don't have to respond to what I actually said, if you can't debate properly, then again keep your mouth shut.

[bezdomni]

I did prove it.

If you can't read Russian, that's not my problem. I don't think Brazhanov's memoirs are published in english.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:42 pm
Have fun reading it!

Brazhanov's Memoirs (http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/BAZHANOW/stalin.txt)
Alright, maybe I was wrong; I would read it, however I don't speak russian, so if you could provide an english or german version of it, that would be great.

[Nilats]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+November 12, 2006 08:46 pm--> (Scarlet Hammer @ November 12, 2006 08:46 pm)
[email protected]ember 12, 2006 04:38 pm
:lol: This person obviously knows little about the history of the Soviet Union - the world's first ever socialist state.


Actually I know a thing or two, and am learning more and more, and I don't see how any of this has to do with you proving to me that stalin was talking about bourgeoisie elections, if proof was provided I would humbly retract my statement, so again I ask for proof, if you can' provide said proof, then keep your mouth shut.

Furthermore I grow sick and tired of every time I question Marxism-Leninism, stalin, or MLS, you have to throw up a defense mechanism and say I don't know anything, so you don't have to respond to what I actually said, if you can't debate properly, then again keep your mouth shut. [/b]
SovietPants already told you why you are wrong, I didn't feel the need to restate the obvious. As for "not being able to debate" - I gave the longest post on this thread I believe to answer the original poster's first question. This is in stark contrast to all the one-line posters out there, so why not attack them instead of me? Oh that's right, you have some kind of vendetta against me so you follow wherever I go and pretend you don't understand anything.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:50 pm
I did prove it.

If you can't read Russian, that's not my problem. I don't think Brazhanov's memoirs are published in english.
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Nilats, I already commented on your post.

[The Bitter Hippy]

even if there were direct, fair and un-rigged elections: You could vote for Comrade A, the bolshevik (oops, i mean communist...), Or, uh, you could ask the local KGB branch to try you in a kangaroo court for being counter-revolutionary. It's easier than trying to find an anarchist to vote for.

Elections in a one-party state are worthless, especially when the person you are voting for is being told what to do by party superiors.

Direct democracy is where a delegate is responsible to their constituent electors, not their party superiors.

[Cryotank Screams]

SovietPants already told you why you are wrong, I didn't feel the need to restate the obvious.

He posted his proof after your initial post, therefore, YOU could have provided proof, but you didn't, you sat there and insulted me, yet again.


Oh that's right, you have some kind of vendetta against me so you follow wherever I go

LMAO! Fuck no, you just provide entertaining "debates," hence why I like to pick at what you say; because 9 times out of 10 what you say is idiotic, and sounds like a brainwashed drone.

[Nilats]

You are truly an immature harasser who truly has no life which is why are you attacking and stalking me here.

SovietPants proved it to you before I posted. He owned you and showed you knew little about the Soviet Union, which we all knew.

[bezdomni]

Just to clarify, I only defend Stalin to the extent that I defend historical truth. In this case, I am defending Stalin having qutotes incorrectly attributed to him and taken out of context.

I think there were a lot of problems with the bureaucracy that formed under Stalin's leadership, and that the industrialization of the Soviet Union came at a great human and monetary cost.

Stalin is not immune to criticism. In this specific instance, the criticism just happened to be untrue.

[Cryotank Screams]

You are truly an immature harasser who truly has no life which is why are you attacking and stalking me here.

Actually I do have one, pretty nice one at that, nor do I "harass," I try to debate people not harass them, and I'm not attacking or stalking you; don't flatter yourself, I pick on you when I come by something stupid that you've written, our arguments are purely by chance, cased closed, get over it.


SovietPants proved it to you before I posted. He owned you and showed you knew little about the Soviet Union, which we all knew.

No, he said something that could have been right or wrong, it wasn't till after your initial post did he provide the proof. He didn't "own," me, he simply provide proof, I don't care if I'm wrong about something, that's life, he merely provided proof, and helped me potentially learn something new, far from owning me, nor did he show that I know "little," of the history of the soviet union, and niether did you, ;).