Was Stalin Good For Communism - Did his dictator ways help t

[t29dmoney]

After Lenin died, his successor Mr. Stalin took over. Stalin had this idea about improving the Russian economy by putting the hardworking people of Russia in communes or large farms where the people had no freedom, no privacy. These people died of starvation, diseases, and who knows wat else. Now people of the community, tell me, do u think this asshole was good for the people of Russia,for communism. Hell No!!1

[ComradeJunichi]

That idea of communes and collectivization is an idea many communists share.

He was surely an asshole for the people of Russia. He only changed the lives of many people, comparing peasants under the Tsar and peasants under socialism.

For communism? Do you support any communist country? I'm just wondering.

[t29dmoney]

Communism is supposed to benefit the worker,the peasant,not the mother fucking government. The idea of communes was meant to stablize the countries economy by producing more crops. These communes didn't help the people. And for me supporting any communist countries. i dont. because it looks like they dont know wat the fuck they're doin

(Edited by t29dmoney at 1:41 am on May 3, 2003)

[ComradeJunichi]

Stalin made all benefits go to the "mother fucking government"? So the workers and peasants didn't benefit from anything in the Soviet Union?

What is the root word in communism? Ah yes, commune. Landlords were destroyed and communes were set up, and what's wrong with producing more crops?

About the communist governments, maybe you should at least give a statement like that with a backing. Not just saying "they don't look like they know what the fuck they're doing".

[t29dmoney]

this is why they dont know what they're doing.
1) N.Korea civilians starve everyday.
2) The only people that have a decent meal in N.Korea are in the army.
3)The only way not to starve is to join the army.
So much for helping the peasant survive. Some much for giving to the poor.

(Edited by t29dmoney at 2:01 am on May 3, 2003)

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from t29dmoney on 2:00 am on May 3, 2003
this is why they dont know what they're doing.
1) N.Korea civilians starve everyday.
2) The only people that have a decent meal in N.Korea are in the army.
3)The only way not to starve is to join the army.
So much for helping the peasant survive. Some much for giving to the poor.
(Edited by t29dmoney at 2:01 am on May 3, 2003)


Give me your sources to back up each one of your claims. So much for facts and sources.

1) N.Korea civilians starve everyday.

American civilians starve everyday, too. So do Germans, Brits, Russians, French.

2) The only people that have a decent meal in N.Korea are in the army.

I'm wondering, how do you know this?

3)The only way not to starve is to join the army.

And you know this...how? This is false, if the only way not to starve was to join the army then the rest of the people in North Korea would be dead, or soon be.

[t29dmoney]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 2:22 am on May 3, 2003

Quote: from t29dmoney on 2:00 am on May 3, 2003
this is why they dont know what they're doing.
1) N.Korea civilians starve everyday.
2) The only people that have a decent meal in N.Korea are in the army.
3)The only way not to starve is to join the army.
So much for helping the peasant survive. Some much for giving to the poor.
(Edited by t29dmoney at 2:01 am on May 3, 2003)


Give me your sources to back up each one of your claims. So much for facts and sources.

1) N.Korea civilians starve everyday.

American civilians starve everyday, too. So do Germans, Brits, Russians, French.

2) The only people that have a decent meal in N.Korea are in the army.

I'm wondering, how do you know this?

3)The only way not to starve is to join the army.

And you know this...how? This is false, if the only way not to starve was to join the army then the rest of the people in North Korea would be dead, or soon be.

1) I dont know what American children you're talking about. And if they starve it's because their parents are a bunch of lazy people.
2) Maybe you haven't heard that all the money N.Korea makes goes straight to the army. If N.Korea is communist, which they are, you'd know that in communism the money is controlled by the government. You'd also know that since the government distributes the money to the people, therefore the people depend on the government to get their money. Since the government concentrates on the army, 70% of the money goes to the army. Meaning that the people in the army have a hell of a good breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So then the working class is left with 30% of the economy, which is already depleated, to distribute among millions of people.
3) Since 70% of the economy goes to the military, more and more people would want to join, not for love of their country, but to survive. Maybe you haven't heard, but N.Korea has a million man army, the largest in the world. And if you think these people are patriotic you're dead wrong, they're just looking for a way to survive.

[Comrade Gorley]

1) I dont know what American children you're talking about. And if they starve it's because their parents are a bunch of lazy people.

This is a load of crap. If it were true there would be no such thing as welfare. In large urban (and diverse) areas such as New York it is often near (if not completely) impossible to find a job, or because there is prejudice against them (capitalism is responsible in both cases). Besides there are still orphans in hostile areas, such as the drug belt of Texas, or those who are simply too proud to enter an orphanage, or..

(BTW, This was my 50th post. Finally, I'm a Guerrillo! Goodbye, single star! ;))

(Edited by Comrade Gorley at 4:30 am on May 3, 2003)

[synthesis]

I dont know what American children you're talking about. And if they starve it's because their parents are a bunch of lazy people.

What I see, in clear view, is someone who DESPERATELY needs to be caged in OI.

Did you know that about 70% of the people living in "abject poverty" - i.e., making a daily choice between food and housing - work two jobs each day, every day?

[t29dmoney]

How does the poverty in the U.S. compare to the poverty in N.Korea. If you didn't know, most of our parents had the chance to go to college, and those who didn't, didn't take advantage of this oppurtunity. As for the children of illegal aliens, these immigrants are hard workers, wether they do cheap labor or self employed. There are many oppurtunites in this country. Not like in North Korea. So when i say poverty i'm talking about kids in N.Korea,Africa,South America, and every other poverty struck nation.

[immortal211]

COMMUNISM is the only line of defense for the poor people .......... i.e. marx lenin engels 4 life they knew about the evil nobles and corrupt governments !

[t29dmoney]

Where is communism in N.Korea. In Communism the main priority is the well being of the people. How is the N.Korean government going to give most of its money to the military when they have starving families out there. To me N.Korea isn't a Communist state. It looks more like a stinking minni Nigeria. N. Korea acts like a fucking POLICE STATE.

[chamo]

Since the government concentrates on the army, 70% of the money goes to the army. Meaning that the people in the army have a hell of a good breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So then the working class is left with 30% of the economy, which is already depleated, to distribute among millions of people.

I'm sorry but that sounds much more like Fascism than Communism to me.


American civilians starve everyday, too. So do Germans, Brits, Russians, French.

South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Romania, Serbia, Botswana, Chad, Niger, Iraq, India, Nepal, Iran. There are lots more...

North Korea is pretty much a Stalinist state. The truth is that they have gulangs and most money is spent on military technology and such. That is far from benefitting the workers and peasents and is thus far from Communism. They build big bronze statues of the leaders while the peasents starve in the famine.

Stalin did do much good for the USSR, and he also did much bad. His industrial revolution and Five Year Plans (six of them and also a Three Year Plan) sped up the country's production and industrialised heavily, leaving the nation able to defend against the Nazi invasion in the eastern part of the country, with victories such as Stalingrad and Leningrad. If the industrialisation had not happened, the country would have not been able to pull itself back from the First World War, (where they suffered huge casualties and many factories were destroyed) and would have been unable to fight the Great Patriotic War very well. The case may be that Hitler took over Russia and he could very well be your Nazi oppressor today. The collectivised farms and communes were probably needed because the land was very infertile, and there was needed more organisation to produce a larger yield, though this was Stalin's least successful economic achievement.
However, there was a price to pay for Stalin's keeness to get the country moving was the penal colonies, exile, secret police, arrests and accusations against suspects and critics, people vanishing and executions created a very frightened atmosphere in the Soviet Union, which I feel was largley unnecessary.


(Edited by happyguy at 11:59 pm on May 3, 2003)

[lostsoul]

Say there's 100 dollars and 100 people to have it. In a communist country everyone gets 1 dollar. In America everyone has more, but the reason the poverity isn't very big in america is because their taking their money from other people. America is a wealthy nation at the expensise of other nations. I'm sure if america had to only depend on itself and couldn't steal from others, they would be in a simlair situation as the nations in the world.

On the question of Stalin, Mao once said(or wrote), "Stalin was 3 parts bad, and 7 parts good". And i doubt he was a victim of stalin progranda, since Stalin fucked him over many times. Yet he still respected Stalin until his death. I can't say i think Stalin is the greatest for communism, but there are so many contridications on his life its hard to say anything without in-depth reasearch of him. I suggest you do the same, anyone you ask regarding stalin will give you different answers.

[ComradeJunichi]

1) I dont know what American children you're talking about. And if they starve it's because their parents are a bunch of lazy people.
2) Maybe you haven't heard that all the money N.Korea makes goes straight to the army. If N.Korea is communist, which they are, you'd know that in communism the money is controlled by the government. You'd also know that since the government distributes the money to the people, therefore the people depend on the government to get their money. Since the government concentrates on the army, 70% of the money goes to the army. Meaning that the people in the army have a hell of a good breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So then the working class is left with 30% of the economy, which is already depleated, to distribute among millions of people.
3) Since 70% of the economy goes to the military, more and more people would want to join, not for love of their country, but to survive. Maybe you haven't heard, but N.Korea has a million man army, the largest in the world. And if you think these people are patriotic you're dead wrong, they're just looking for a way to survive.


1) I dont know what American children you're talking about. And if they starve it's because their parents are a bunch of lazy people.

You said civilians, not children. My point were civilians starve in every country. Just because some one lives in poverty or has a lack of food doesn't mean they're lazy.

2) Maybe you haven't heard that all the money N.Korea makes goes straight to the army.

Maybe you haven't heard or read what I asked you. State your sources. If all the money went straight to the army millions would starve. And nothing would function Your claims are ridiculous.

If N.Korea is communist, which they are, you'd know that in communism the money is controlled by the government. You'd also know that since the government distributes the money to the people, therefore the people depend on the government to get their money. Since the government concentrates on the army, 70% of the money goes to the army. Meaning that the people in the army have a hell of a good breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So then the working class is left with 30% of the economy, which is already depleated, to distribute among millions of people.

Again, state your sources. Where did you get the number 70%?

3) Since 70% of the economy goes to the military, more and more people would want to join, not for love of their country, but to survive. Maybe you haven't heard, but N.Korea has a million man army, the largest in the world. And if you think these people are patriotic you're dead wrong, they're just looking for a way to survive.

Actually, I have heard and I've lived 30-40 minutes away from them more than half of my life. They have more than a million man army including reserves. Actually, you are dead wrong. The North Korean army is very patriotic and it's one of the most well trained armies in the world. Probably one of the most patriotic armies, and they are willing to more than die for their country. The North Korean army is well known for that.

[Saint-Just]

'70% of the money goes to the army.'

It is around 31% of GDP. It used to be less when the DPRK had a higher GDP, since their GDP has fallen the percentage they spend on the military has risen. This is necessary for the threat the DPRK is under. The U.S. has been trying to break down the DPRK economically for decades in order to create a society weak enough that it can fall to an imperialist attack. Currently the DPRK has an army strong enough to make the U.S. wisely consider an invasion of the DPRK.

Comrade Junichi is precisely correct on the mentality of their army. The fact is that the WPK has given the people of Korea only the absolute socialist truth of history and the world we now live in, as a result the populace of the DPRK knows it must defend against an imperialist invasion to the last man.

The American army kills for enjoyment, the KPA fights for justice and their lives, no one is afraid of death since the alternative, in their minds, of imperialist success is worse.

The WPK stipulates its desire for a homogenous society; homogenous in its ideology, its will, its sense of unity. This ideal of a homogenous mass of workers has certainly not been achieved, nor are they near to achieving it, but they have done so more than has ever been before in the history of the world. And therefore you can be assured that the KPA has a sense of unity and will to succeed like no other army, least not that of the U.S.

'Maybe you haven't heard that all the money N.Korea makes goes straight to the army.'

Ever seen the west sea barrage in the DPRK? one of the largest of its kind in the world; built to protect the people of the DPRK from flooding, having taken exhaustive efforts and years to make it is much like the masses of other immense constructions of the DPRK From housing to public places of entertainment and learning. They have certainly spent much more constructing good living standards for the people than they have on their Armed Forces. It is only since the 90's and the intensification of the imperialist threat that the army-centred policy was born. Since what good are such constructions if your country is destroyed by capitalist invaders?

One of the key components towards an effective army is the moral of the working people. If it is low the moral of soldiers is low. The DPRK, as part of its army-first politics concentrates much of its efforts on maintaining the comfort of its people. Recently the situation has become very pressured, the country has been backed into a corner, forced to take drastic measures, but it is not a a rat being pushed into a corner squeaking, it is a tiger, and eventually this tiger will roar and leap back towards its barbaric foes. Those foes who have distorted the Korean economy with its policies as to be now forcing a few of its population into starvation, death and agony.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 8:53 pm on May 3, 2003)

[RedComrade]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 6:26 am on May 3, 2003
I dont know what American children you're talking about. And if they starve it's because their parents are a bunch of lazy people.

What I see, in clear view, is someone who DESPERATELY needs to be caged in OI.

Did you know that about 70% of the people living in "abject poverty" - i.e., making a daily choice between food and housing - work two jobs each day, every day?


70% of Americans? Im sorry but this is complete and utter bullshit.

[t29dmoney]

As for my sources.GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 30%
industry: 32%
services: 37% (2000 est.) This is from the CIA's homepage. As you can see only 30% goes to the people. 37 % goes to services, meaning military+32% goes to industry which concentrates on producing for the military. As for the !% that is missing I think that goes to the looting government.

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from t29dmoney on 9:49 pm on May 3, 2003
As for my sources.GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 30%
industry: 32%
services: 37% (2000 est.) This is from the CIA's homepage. As you can see only 30% goes to the people. 37 % goes to services, meaning military+32% goes to industry which concentrates on producing for the military. As for the !% that is missing I think that goes to the looting government.

Oh, what happened to the 100percent that you changed back to 70 percent that went to the army? You don't think agriculture and industry indirectly effects the people? Or the military?

[immortal211]

theirs starving all over it dont matter where .......... its all because of the fucking corrupt governments. look at what lenin did he gave the people food and the most important thing hope for the future! stalin was bad gorbachev was worse ............. trotsky would have been better instead of stalin, lenin prefered trotsky because he was at lenins right hand during the october revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!

[t29dmoney]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 10:17 pm on May 3, 2003

Quote: from t29dmoney on 9:49 pm on May 3, 2003
As for my sources.GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 30%
industry: 32%
services: 37% (2000 est.) This is from the CIA's homepage. As you can see only 30% goes to the people. 37 % goes to services, meaning military+32% goes to industry which concentrates on producing for the military. As for the !% that is missing I think that goes to the looting government.

Oh, what happened to the 100percent that you changed back to 70 percent that went to the army? You don't think agriculture and industry indirectly effects the people? Or the military?


First of all I never said 100%. I did not give that number. I said all, but that was not an accurate fact. i did say 70% which now you know is accurate.

[Organic Revolution]

Stalin gave a bad name to communism, socialism. now anyday u say u are a communist, socialist then people automaticly call u a stalinist

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from t29dmoney on 2:00 am on May 3, 2003
2) The only people that have a decent meal in N.Korea are in the army.
3)The only way not to starve is to join the army.



Quote: from t29dmoney on 9:49 pm on May 3, 2003

37 % goes to services, meaning military+32% goes to industry which concentrates on producing for the military.

(Edited by ComradeJunichi at 6:39 am on May 4, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

You are saying, t29dmoney that money marked for services goes to the military?

[rAW DEaL bILL]

why are we going on about north korea here? its not like theyre the only communist country. also like immortal211 said theres starving EVERYWHERE. more in some places but just because theres more in one place doesnt make the lesser places poverty non-existant. back to the stalin subject i think the man was a grade A sure fire dreedy ass son of a ***** ass hole who brings shame to marxists anywhere. his fuck up was much more in government not economics. it was communist but whenever theres a dictator running things theres always the chance of even a leader starting out with good intentions to become a power hungry fuck.i think in order to make any country socialist or not succesfull u need a democracy. dictatorships just fuck EVERYTHING up.

[ComradeJunichi]

Care to elaborate instead of barely giving any points with a few general tangents. Explain your concept of "democracy"....

More later, I'm gonna call my lady.

(Edited by ComradeJunichi at 2:24 am on May 5, 2003)

[pastradamus]

The russain state destroyed & mis-used the word "communism".Proper communism under the definition directed by Marx & Engles is Effectively modern day marxism.Commnism defined by lenin is Marxist-lenninism(as in cuba) & by Stalin,well thats just plain crazy.
Stalin didn't respect the general population enough in my view.He seemed to look on his people as economic human resorces rather than individuals In violation of the marxist guidelines.He was a leftist Adolf Hitler.

[lostsoul]

to me, stalin seemed to have two main problems
1) he cared too much about his people.(and therfore benfiting his country at the expense of others...two things i hate is how he didn't care about the ccp during their fighting and made deals with the kmt to help his country)

2) he cared about his power(and therfore fucked up anyone who he saw and trying to take it).


i think any insult made towards him are usually in 1 or these caterogies. But other then these, he was pretty good. Just like mao set the foundation for modern china, i think Stalin did the same for Russia. I doubt if he didn't do what he did, russia would have been a superpower. they either would have been fucked up by country-revontaries, or imperialists.

a country that before was basically unknown 50 years before stalin took power was near his death a country that many huge nations went to for support.

If you ask me, i think Stalin was GOOD for communism. He was not the best, nor was anyone else. just like other people he made mistakes, but since he was one of the founders of the first communist nation, he showed communists around the world what to do and what not to do.

someone wrote a message saying that when ever you say your a communist people automatically think your a stalinist and he ruined it for everyone. Well, i think people would say that anyways, if not stalin they will find someone else to pick as evidence of communisms "Evils". There have been so many good hearted communists but most people don't even know their communists, they only focus on the bad. if it wasn't stalin they'll pick the next in line.


take care

[immortal211]

stalin was a good war time general commander etc. he did build up soviet economy by producing more fields and factories it all payed off during the nazis invasion. if it wasnt for him in that time the soviets would have not defeated hitler. in my opinion trotsky would have been better overall but i have to mention lenin didnt really enjoy stalins presence during the revololution he stated it in his speechs ..... so if read, i will leave it at that comrades !!!!!

[pastradamus]

Quote: from lostsoul on 3:42 am on May 5, 2003[
1) he cared too much about his people.

Killing a few million of them is caring for them?

[lostsoul]

Quote: from pastradamus on 4:04 am on May 5, 2003

Quote: from lostsoul on 3:42 am on May 5, 2003[
1) he cared too much about his people.

Killing a few million of them is caring for them?

either you didn't read everything i wrote, or you didn't understand it. When i said he cared for his people, i meant that was what shaped his forein policy, which fucked up other countries but benfited russians.

[pastradamus]

Yes,I read & understood what u said.
But you seemed to have ignored the whole issue of the purges.It cannot be forgotton no matter what.Also Stalin's rape of eastern europe is not the best way to improve russia's wealth in my opinion.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from pastradamus on 10:29 pm on May 6, 2003
Yes,I read & understood what u said.
But you seemed to have ignored the whole issue of the purges.It cannot be forgotton no matter what.Also Stalin's rape of eastern europe is not the best way to improve russia's wealth in my opinion.

i am sorry if i may seem to be highly knowledgble on this topic, i have only read a few books that touch on this subject. And if what i read is true, then Stalin's purges were nessary as Mao's were. Russia had nothing to offer its people but hope and a amazing place for workers, yet britian and america and many other countries(spain, and european countries) had alot of wealth to try to munplate them with. It may sound fucked, but it seems he was simply cleaning out the party.

I highly respect chairman mao for this work and his style, and he was the one who actually started the purges (look up "AB tran" or something like that..it was a rightwing group that inflrated the CCP and he fucked them up). Stalin merly did the same.

I find it odd that mao killed more people, and did it first but yet in many places ofthe world they treat him like a hero of the people. Yet stalin did it to a lesser extent and he's considered a monster.

im not pro nor anti stalin, but i feel there is too many contridactions for anyone to unconditionally toss stalin aside as a "Evil" criminal.

[kylie]

. And if what i read is true, then Stalin's purges were nessary as Mao's were.
like for example the killing of Zinoviev? or Kamenev? how were these neccessary? they had both been inactive as opposition to Stalin for years, and publicaly declared their anti-Trotsky views, yet still both were killed at the order of Stalin.

[Aleksander Nordby]

Stalin was so stupid when i tok control of the red army in ww2:

I hate Stalin more then i hate Mao!

[lostsoul]

Quote: from feoric on 8:56 am on May 7, 2003
. And if what i read is true, then Stalin's purges were nessary as Mao's were.
like for example the killing of Zinoviev? or Kamenev? how were these neccessary? they had both been inactive as opposition to Stalin for years, and publicaly declared their anti-Trotsky views, yet still both were killed at the order of Stalin.


i am not a stalin expert, not even close. But one problem with him is he messed alot with the public records. So manybe they did something but it was erased, or maybe he did more cruel stuff, but it got erased.

He erased/destoried records, and his succors worked on suppresing stuff related to him that wasn't bad.

All i am saying is it doesn't make sense. Read two books on him, i promise after reading the second book you will find many differences from the first one and the second one(historical facts are different).

He tried to hide his life, and many many others have gone throught great lengths to discredit him and hide his information too.

i doubt we will ever know the 100% truth



Aleksander Nordby - why do you hate stalin? Do you not know more people died in Mao's china? Mao was the first to use purges(in his soviet state)...

i like mao alot, but i am wondering why do you hate stalin over mao?

[t29dmoney]

I'd like to thank everybody who posted on this topic that i opened. I'd like to thank Comrade Junichi even though we disagreed on much of this topic. Comrade Junichi made me work to prove my point and I'd like to thank him for that.

[Aleksander Nordby]

I hate Stalin becuse he killed other commuist. I dont know if Mao did the same, but i hate them equal so much.

How many was killed under Mao dictatorsship?

[t29dmoney]

Thousands were killed in Mao's dictatorship. There was a program that Mao instituted into China which he called the Great Leap Forward. This program would make communes and make the people live on them by force. China went through many droughts and thousands of the people lliving on the communes died.

[pastradamus]

Lostsoul,dont shower yourself arrogance.Your not the only person with a knowledge of Stalin here.

Stalin was the murderer of Top politicians such as kamenev & Zinoviev(who were brain-washed into confessing to be part of the german-polish facists),& the great Trotsky,not to mention most of his commisars,Generals(gave his drinking buddies jobs as commanders in the army),political staff,the Kulaks,the jews.All murdered for voicing their opinions,Or just for simply being.Stalin was nothing but a thug,a spoiled little bully who could run or destroy peoples lives with a shake of his finger.He was a Red Hitler.He ruined Communism.He betrayed Marx & he destroyed peoples freedom of thought with brain-washing propaganda.
Oh...and mao
Mao was a prick too,he was okay for a few years,but then turned paranoid & became a chinese Stalin.

[Cassius Clay]

Wow I thought I entered the Reich's Ministry of Propaganda there for a second.

Was Stalin good for Communsim? Millions of Communists will tell you loudly YES. But ignorance is bliss and you all appear fairly happy so far be it from me to stop this little right-wing fanatasy.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from pastradamus on 8:08 pm on May 8, 2003
Lostsoul,dont shower yourself arrogance.Your not the only person with a knowledge of Stalin here.

Stalin was the murderer of Top politicians such as kamenev & Zinoviev(who were brain-washed into confessing to be part of the german-polish facists),& the great Trotsky,not to mention most of his commisars,Generals(gave his drinking buddies jobs as commanders in the army),political staff,the Kulaks,the jews.All murdered for voicing their opinions,Or just for simply being.Stalin was nothing but a thug,a spoiled little bully who could run or destroy peoples lives with a shake of his finger.He was a Red Hitler.He ruined Communism.He betrayed Marx & he destroyed peoples freedom of thought with brain-washing propaganda.
Oh...and mao
Mao was a prick too,he was okay for a few years,but then turned paranoid & became a chinese Stalin.


first i never said i knew everything about Stalin. but on that subject, nor do you, nor do most people. I just said his life is covered in big mysteries. He deleted most of his records, only real biography we have of him is his offical biography(which he actually made himself..or did the final edit of it..i forgot).

Any bad point you give about stalin, it can either be proven wrong, or contered with a posititive point. Not to say your wrong, just to say there's different sides to every story about him. Read the introduction of "major theortical writtings of Stalin", you will read many good points about him and showing kamenev & Zinoviev as power hungry politicians that would have tried to take out stalin if they could. I don't know if its true. I will not agrue that, but it shows another side to the story.

Stalin was a red hiliter? proof. When did stalin kill out of hate? was it not for a purpose usually(wheather bad or good..i can't say), but it always had a purpose. Many communists tend to think stalin ruined it for communists forever..Thats wrong, do you honestly think if Stalin wasn't born, the capitalist wouldn't have found someone to label just as they labeled "Stalin"? He set up Russia as a superpower, which influeced many countries around the world. If he was weak like many people here wanted him to be, Russia would have probally collasped during its "Baby" stage. IF Russia was not red, i doubt communism would have even gotten big. The reason the west hates him so much, is cause he was one of the few people who could bring it to them, they didn't hate him really..they just feared him and his potietenal.

fuck this is a long post..so i said what i got to say..i am in no way a stalinist, nor a maoist or anything..i just think by everyone denoucing him, they will fail to learn from his lessons.

on a side note, i always tell my freinds to read about Stalin and what he did to kamenev & Zinoviev, because if you read from the beginning of his life in the party you will see as soon as he got power, they were after him..trying to get it from him, but they seemed to only want repesentative roles(like be famous and tour..and be know) and not do any of the work(stalin was the opposite). So Stalin would suggest they could get power if they did tasks, and then these tasks would be doomed to fail from the start and discredit them. I think he set a wonderful example of how to deal with people when they are trying to scam you for power(but i do think killing them was execisive..but perhapes he had his reasons).

hmm..with the above paragraph..i am not sure but i could be mixing up trotsky and kamenev & Zinoviev, i read about Stalin a while back so my mem is not so good..but i defendly know he did that stuff to people.

Take care