Favorite Soviet Dictator and why?

[British Warrior]

So who is your favorite Soviet Dictoator and why? Stalin Lenin Trotsky, Gorbachev etc..?
I gather from the other posts that Stalin is not a liked man here because he killed so many people!
But who do youthink did the most for Russia?

[chamo]

Lenin obviously did the most for Russia by setting up the United Soviet Socialist Republics and leading the October Revolution. Stalin did horrid things (although he did advance CCCP industrially and defended against the Nazi invasion). Gorbachev basically fucked the ride up for everybody and Trotsky had a minor role in that he mobalised the Red Army after setting up of CCCP, but then was exiled so he didn't have much of a chance. Kruschev was a cool guy, but unfortunately did not do that much.

(Edited by happyguy at 11:53 am on May 3, 2003)

[lostsoul]

Stalin and Lenin.

[Kapitan Andrey]

Hrushev!!! He protected Cuba!!!

[El Barbudo]

Trotsky did a lot more than what happyguy says. He was basically a menchevik, but he has been the first leader of a worker soviet. He also was a great orator who has successed in bringing the biggest part of social-democrats movements with Lenin. Also, by resisting to Stalin, he prooved to be courageous. He has not been USSR's leader, but a great charismatic one.

[Sensitive]

Lenin was the best leader.

Trotsky was good at building the Red Army.

Stalin gets credit for industrializing the Soviet Union and defeating the Nazis.

Gorbachev was a traitor and should have been shot.

[the SovieT]

LENIN WAS NOT A DICTATOR!

Gorbachov was funny and........ was funny...

Lenin was da best!

ok now seriously...

Lenin was in my point of view the best leader CCCP ever had... the revolution and the initial soviet state could never be builded without him...

Stalin was a murderer, a red fascist, yet one must reconize first of all his humbleness and efforts in industrializing the soviet union (even tough who started with the NEP was Lenin)..
Trotsky was necessary for the revolution as well since he did a good job in organising the red army.. yet his personal life shal remain as it is or else the stalinists will say he was a bourgeouse from the day he was born to the day he died(more murdered no?)
now Gorbachev was a interessing character...
he was funny and started the destainization process wich i suport... yet his efforts to make colectiv farms were rather pathetic...
his efforts to protect other socialist states were pathetic as well... one must reconize he kissed the yankees arse in the cuban missiles crisis... he was still quite a liar...
one must see that before his rose to power he was one of the bigest suporters of Stalin and the personality cult when he more than anyone incentivated the cult of the personaity...
he was still a man of the people... it was "our peasent chairman"... our potatos leader.... yet it was far from being a good leader....
oh and "gorbachovist" is actually a insult for Maoists...

(Edited by the SovieT at 12:45 am on May 5, 2003)

[pastradamus]

If Lenin Was'nt a dictator then he wasn't a leftist.As a leftist government means that you admit you have a dictatorship over the prolitarient.

Nikita Khruschev was my favourite,as he sorted out the Stalin cult,and also I love those hilarious quotes of his.

[synthesis]

If Lenin Was'nt a dictator then he wasn't a leftist.

That's something I'd expect to hear from Stormin Normin or Capitalist Imperial - not one of us.

[Kapitan Andrey]

Stupid brainwashed idiots!!!

lenin killed a lot of innocent people, trotskiy too!
I hate them!
I hate every communist leader, except Hrushev!!!

[Kez]

fuck me, so much fuckin bullshit, christ almighty...

Well, im gonna ignore Kapitan as he actually knows fuck all...

Pastra, you really need to read some shit before you make bullshit like that up... no dictator can be a communist as it brings about another class. Dictatorship of the proles means the proles take control with no-one in front of them, one would have thought you would know this...

Soviet, Gorbachov was a product of Stalinism, Trotsky said that the Soviet Union would collapse if it wasnt rid of stalinism and a counter-revolution would take place, this is what Gorbachov provided, looking to stalinesque opportuunism rather than socialism to solve problems, especially with peretroika.

Stalin was not a communist, and if it wasnt for him the red army wouldnt have been so weak, as Stalin killed all the generals. Also, had we followed Trotskys argument of having an armed population and not a standing army, the nazios wouldnt have been able to stand one foot onto the soil of the USSR! so much for protecting USSR stalin, you piece of shite.

Althou trotsky was a menshevik during the 1905 revolution, he came out of it and admitted he was wrong to lenin before the 1917 revolution, so it makes no sense in accusing him of being a menshevik, if all his best works were while he was a bolshevik. Let us not foret Stalin and his anti-semetic portrayal of Trotsky as a Jew in front of the soviet people.

comrade kamo

[ComradeJunichi]

Lots of people seem to be like Kruschev and his revisionism, and his "fixing of the Stalin cult".

I would say Lenin for the establishment of the RSFSR, and having the strong leadership and charisma. Or Stalin for his years in power advancing the Soviet Union and keeping the Soviet Union existant.

[Cassius Clay]

TavareeshKamo. Gorbachev a 'Stalinist'? LOL. Such is the narrow minded Trotskyist view of the world.

My favorite/s would be Lenin and Stalin, although neither were 'Dictators'.

Let's look at the others. Khrushcev a man who releases Nazi war criminalls, gains power through a military coup and destroys the socialist based economy and begins replacing it with a Capitalist economy. Breznheve who allows over 15,000 millionaries to officially live the life of luxury in the country (well atleast he got rid of Khruschev and for that history will remember him favorably) and imposes Imperialism on Eastern Europe and the other republics through Russification. Then there's Gorbachev, the biggest traitor of them all. Oh yeah and Trotsky who wanted to impose 'Military Discipline' in factories and throw workers into concentration camps for turning up late.

[Kez]

*sighs*

Cass, first i thought you couldnt read the truth, now i see you cant read full stop.
i said he was a product of stalinism.

Stalin hindered the progress of industrialisation through his incompetent program. There was no democracy in the factories, as said there should be by trotsky, if this was the case then the workers would have been able to work much better and be much more motivated to do so, rather than having a stalinist dog watchin them over the whole day.

and him saving the USSR, fux sake, "and if it wasnt for him the red army wouldnt have been so weak, as Stalin killed all the generals. Also, had we followed Trotskys argument of having an armed population and not a standing army, the nazios wouldnt have been able to stand one foot onto the soil of the USSR! so much for protecting USSR stalin, you [stalin] piece of shite."

"Oh yeah and Trotsky who wanted to impose 'Military Discipline' in factories and throw workers into concentration camps for turning up late."
no wait, he was CLEARLY beaten to it by Stalin, and as he was the great leader, he also threw in the poets, writers, techers and any other member of the intelligensia who could have forwarded the Soviet Union

[Cassius Clay]

''Cass, first i thought you couldnt read the truth, now i see you cant read full stop.
i said he was a product of stalinism.''

Sorry my mistake. Still your argument is totally wrong. Gorbachev was a 'product' of years of revisionism.


''Stalin hindered the progress of industrialisation through his incompetent program. There was no democracy in the factories, as said there should be by trotsky,''

'No democracy' is this why workers could fire their managers if they abused their power? Is this why in elections in 1937 over 47% of officials were replaced? Oh and Trotsky suggested no such thing, he wanted workers thrown into camps. Have you not heard of 'Labor Armies'? Lenin described Trotsky's ideas as 'Bonapartism', he was right.


''and him saving the USSR, fux sake, "and if it wasnt for him the red army wouldnt have been so weak, as Stalin killed all the generals.''

Erm he didn't kill 'all the generals' the number of officers actually doubled in the 30's. If those generals hadn't been arrested and found out then the Soviet Union would of likely lost.

''no wait, he was CLEARLY beaten to it by Stalin, and as he was the great leader, he also threw in the poets, writers, techers and any other member of the intelligensia who could have forwarded the Soviet Union''

Rhectoric and little else here. Trotsky actually suggested doing all that, oh but Adolf Hitler said Stalin did all that so that must mean it's true.

Anyway this has gone off topic. Got something against Stalin, start a new thread.

[the SovieT]

Stupid brainwashed idiots!!!

lenin killed a lot of innocent people, trotskiy too!
I hate them!
I hate every communist leader, except Hrushev!!!
ROFL

you are a ignorant litle moron..you call Lenin and Trotsky murderes yet you say Kruschev was a good leader...
when it was due to him taht the soviet economy crumbled..
when he had the most agressive and miitaristic position towards poland...
when he failed to help many other socialist states in theyr struggles for independence and self determination...


you may think he was a "funny guy" yet under his mask was a motherfucking liar and ignorant beast...

[Aleksander Nordby]

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 6:10 am on May 5, 2003

Stupid brainwashed idiots!!!

lenin killed a lot of innocent people, trotskiy too!
I hate them!
I hate every communist leader, except Hrushev!!!


So you think Lenin killed innocent people, but why do you like Che. If Lenin killed innocent people Che did to.

They wasent innocent people, they was
counter-revolutioneries

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Aleksander Nordby on 10:26 am on May 7, 2003

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 6:10 am on May 5, 2003

Stupid brainwashed idiots!!!

lenin killed a lot of innocent people, trotskiy too!
I hate them!
I hate every communist leader, except Hrushev!!!


So you think Lenin killed innocent people, but why do you like Che. If Lenin killed innocent people Che did to.

They wasent innocent people, they was
counter-revolutioneries



i agree with what your saying. But i am wondering how come when this agruement is used to defend stalin, people automatically ignore it. Wouldn't this work for Stalin also? he said he purged counter-revonuntaries.

i know what your thinking right,(probally "this guy is a moron..$%$%$# etc..etc.." and just tell me why this doesn't apply to stalin?

[Aleksander Nordby]

You have a good point there, but Stalin killed people who was true to communism. Lenin other side had just killed the real enemys of USSR.

[Fever]

"So you think Lenin killed innocent people, but why do you like Che. If Lenin killed innocent people Che did to.

They wasent innocent people, they was
counter-revolutioneries "

Now this is a load of CRAP. You cant justify the killing of both stalin and lenin by saying those killed where "counter-revolutionary." This is possibly one of the most sutpid things i have heard in along time, i mean your arguing for communism, yet your using the same arguments as that of a facsist would. Thats like saying the jews were only killed in gass chambers because they were hindering the success of the ayran race and therefore deserved to die. Quotes like this from a communist really piss me off

[t29dmoney]

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 6:10 am on May 5, 2003

Stupid brainwashed idiots!!!

lenin killed a lot of innocent people, trotskiy too!
I hate them!
I hate every communist leader, except Hrushev!!!

Listen Kapitan Andrey. I think the only reason why you hate every communist leader is because your not a communist. You only like Nikita Khrushev because he helped Cuba. Yet Nikita was more of a trader than Gorbachev. Nikita gave in to President Kennedy and removed the missles from Cuba.

[t29dmoney]

My favorite Soviet leaders were Lenin and Gorbachev. Lenin because he helped the people escape the harsh ways that the monarchy was putting on them. Gorbachev for finally allowing free elections and letting the people have a say in how the country should be runned.

[CubanFox]

Gorbachev for turning the USSR into a totally free nation.

[the SovieT]

ROFL!!!

if you are talking about the Glasnot then i can understand...

now if holding bourgeouse elections, ending the dictatorship of the proletariat and allowing the free market then shove it dude...

consumism and western model democracy isnt freedom...´

its bourgeouse heaven...

[Dynatos II]

Quote: from lostsoul on 7:39 pm on May 7, 2003


i agree with what your saying. But i am wondering how come when this agruement is used to defend stalin, people automatically ignore it. Wouldn't this work for Stalin also? he said he purged counter-revonuntaries.

i know what your thinking right,(probally "this guy is a moron..$%$%$# etc..etc.." and just tell me why this doesn't apply to stalin?


Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and he was killing the revolutionaries. Lenin was a revolutionary and he was killing the counter-revolutionaries.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Dynatos II on 5:23 pm on May 10, 2003

Quote: from lostsoul on 7:39 pm on May 7, 2003


i agree with what your saying. But i am wondering how come when this agruement is used to defend stalin, people automatically ignore it. Wouldn't this work for Stalin also? he said he purged counter-revonuntaries.

i know what your thinking right,(probally "this guy is a moron..$%$%$# etc..etc.." and just tell me why this doesn't apply to stalin?


Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and he was killing the revolutionaries. Lenin was a revolutionary and he was killing the counter-revolutionaries.

Wasn't stalin in the party before the revoluation, didn't he work hard to make the country communist? doesn't that make him a revolutionary?

What makes someone a counter-revolutionary? It is not someone who is trying to destory the revolution? How can we know for certain that Stalin wasn't just protecting the soviets revolution, by his tactics?

Do you not notice that even today many people unconditionaly believe their goverments? Do you not remember that it was the Russian goverment that denouced him..not the masses of people..not other countries? Have you meet anyone who liked Stalin?(i spoken to many Russians on this topic and from my obersvations i feel its about 50/50 of people who are for and against him). Did you notice the Krushuve, said good things about stalin in the 30's(or maybe 40's), then in the 50's denouced him? Do you relize that Krushuve went threw great lenghts to blame stalin for everything, and destory him in history? Yet, why do people in the world still like him(both then and now)?

All i'm saying is if you ask yourself questions like this, you'll find contridictions. In my country we have a little rule, "your innocent until proven guility", yet Stalin is guility, no questions.

all i am saying is study Stalin, too many people just denounce him without learning about him. They just want to blame someone for communisms failure. (i am sure if commuism was succesful worldwide, and capitialism gone, then Stalin would be one of the hero's)

[immortal211]

Lenin was the man who set up the USSR of which gorbachef later fucked up

[Dynatos II]

''Wasn't stalin in the party before the revoluation, didn't he work hard to make the country communist? doesn't that make him a revolutionary?''

Stalin was not a revolutionary, he was an opportunist. His motivation was nothing more than personal ambition. Thats why he introduced 'socialism in one country' only after Lenin died and after he used the Rabkrin to fill leading posts in the state and party with yes-men and his alies. He knew Lenin would be opposed to it.

''What makes someone a counter-revolutionary? It is not someone who is trying to destory the revolution? How can we know for certain that Stalin wasn't just protecting the soviets revolution, by his tactics?''

Stalin did destroy the International revolution. He distroyed the German revolution. In 1923 when the leaders of the German CP asked Stalin and Zinoviev for advice on the revolution they told them to do nothing and ''Let the fascists try first''. Then later Stalin split the working class in Germany with his ''social-fascism'' policy. The Social-Democratic party and the Communist party, witch were both workers parties, had enough support to win the fight against the Nazis. Later Stalin erg the communist party to fight the social-democrats and at the same time fight the Nazis. In 1936 when the Spanish working class had the chance of taking power, it was Stalin's popular front policy that encouraged all the workers parties to join the bourgeois paties and form a popular front government. These are just a few examples of Stalin's counter-revolutionary policies outside the USSR. You may think that Stalin was trying to help these revolutions and just ended up making huge mistakes but then you would be ignoring the fact that Stalin was not an idiot.

As for inside the USSR, Stalins did not try to distroy the socialist revolution. He just tryed to mold it into a Stalinist revolution. This is why in the 30s EVERY person that was in the Bolshevik central committee in 1917, anyone who was not an opportunist, and anyone that knew anything about Marxism was opposed to Stalin. But of course Stalin just killed them all in the purges because of this.

(i am sure if commuism was succesful worldwide, and capitialism gone, then Stalin would be one of the hero's)

Sane people don't consider murderers as heroes. Stalin is one of the men who stopped communism from being successful worldwide. I don't think that is heroic.

[lostsoul]

I am very confused, please explain to me how Stalin was not a revolutary but intead was a opportunist. Stalin was kicked out of school in 1894 for studying Marxism and spreading it around. In 1899 he joined the “Social-Democratic party (Marxist revolutionary group)”. If you can remember correctly the Russian revolutions were in 1917. If you do the math you will see he started to get into Marxism at LEAST 23 years before the revolution. I am also using the absolutely latest days, so I strongly suspect this number could be a lot larger, but from my research this is the bare minimum. I am extremely confused on how this can make someone an opportunist, in his teenage years did he somehow know that the country would have a revolution in 1917, and started to study and join the party hoping he could one day control the country? If that is true then he should have maybe just played the lottery instead and with the millions he won, paid the workers(since he can tell the future).

I am also confused on how Stalin is not a revolunary? What is a revolutionary? From my understand its someone who participates in a revolution. So what is a revolution? Its basically replacing the old with the new. Am I correct so far? If I am, then read the above paragraph again and you will see that Stalin was a member of the partys before the revolution and worked to make that change from old to new. Che, Mao, Castro, all did the same and that’s why their consider revolutionaries.

I somewhat agree with you that Stalin didn’t help the international level individually. But you fail to gasp that during these times, his country was under constant attack from other powers in their attempts to destroy communism. China only has become strong since they have had peaceful times to grow. Russia didn’t have such a luxury at that time, but it needed it badly. You can’t blame Stalin for not helping other countries as much as we would like him too, he had his own agenda, which was to make his country grow(which he did successfully). His whole life, I think his main intrest was in his own country, other countries came second, and this can be shown with his treatment of china’s communist party. When a group was stronger, and the communist party looked like it was going to get its ass kicked he ordered ceasefires between the groups and made deals with the other groups. Right now it would be stupid, but back then it was very smart considering if the nationalists had won the war, japan would probally attack Russia next. But in the end, he did play a big part in China becoming communist, since he made nationalists and the ccp have a truce and fight japan. This bought the ccp times and they gained many soliders in their fight against japan, once japan gave up, then they fought the civil war with larger man power then if they had continued fighting after their long march(it was like 8,000 men, I believe..while the nationalists army is multi-million soliders that are americian supplied with a lot better equipment)


Stalin was not an idiot, he knew very very well what he was doing. But it was always in his own countries intrest, he saw other nations as secondary, that’s why he didn’t fight much in the Korean war, he didn’t want to over use his already worn out military. He needed time to recover.

I cannot comment on Stalin’s purges, its not well documented for me. Its only documented by anti-stalinist, I don’t know his true reason behind it. I am sure he had a reason. I just personally feel that if it was to gain power, then these people must have done things to make him feel like his power was in jeopardy. So why would so many people blindly follow stalin for him to gain more power when they can easily join the other side? If linux was gaining more support, I was working for Microsoft, and yet I hated mircosoft, I would probally quite my work and join linux(the side I like). Why did so many people follow him unless they supported him? (this is not like the scarcstic ones I asked you before, this is something I really want to know..why did he have so much support?) Even the Chinese supported him after his death, I doubt fear was 100% of the motivation.

Yes I agree with you, when you say Stalin was a murder. But wasn’t Mao? Che? Ho chi minh? Bush? Blair?
When someone tried to make change in a massive number of people’s livies, then people will die. Even Gandhi caused many deaths(during partition, and by defying the British some of them were killed). So directly and indirectly I think many, if not all, revoultaries are killers. I never said Stalin was my hero, but I suggest you go threw your hero’s list and find a few successful revontaries that are not murders. I think Stalin is far from a hero, but he is a teacher, whose success and failures must be studied un baisly in order to strengthen ourselves.


Take care, and please correct any of my mistaken idea’s.

[Kapitan Andrey]

[size=4] STUPID-FUCKING-MORON-t29dmoney!!!

Hrushev didn't gave in to kEnnedy!!! THEY JUST MADE DEAL TO KEEP A PEACE!!! YES, ROCKETS HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM CUBA, BUT:

1) usa PROMISSED NOT TO ATTACK CUBA!!!
2) nato MOVED THEIR ROCKETS FROM tUrkey!!!


AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANTED!? DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH!? WW3!? ATOMIC WINTER!? ANNIHILATION OF MANKIND!? FUCKING-MORON!!!

P.S: I'm temperate-socialist!

[Dynatos II]

I have no idea why Stalin studied Marxism as a teenager. Probably because he really did believe in Marxism and the communist cause until he realized that he had a chance of becoming the leader of the Bolshevik party around 1915 (this date is an educated guess, i cant know for sure when he realized this). One can take part in a revolution and still be an opportunist if the revolution can bring him personal wealth, power or whatever it is he wants. I do know where your coming from. Both claims that Stalin was 100% for the socialist cause and the claim that he was a power hungry control freak don't add up. But I find there is allot more proof that he was a corrupt opportunist than proof that he was a socialist revolutionary. Especially after Lenins death.

It's not that Stalin didn't help the international revolution that i have a problem with, it's that he SABOTAGED the revolution in Germany and in Spain. Even if it would have been a case of not helping, this would be opposed to Leninism. Lenin often said the socialist revolution in an industrialized country was more important than the socialist revolution in Russia: ''...in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism- that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.''- Lenin, LCW, Vol. 31, p.431. I doubt that a socialist revolution in Spain or Germany would have devastating repercussions on socialism in Russia. It probably would have created socialism in Russia. Yes it would have distroyed Stalins career since the Russian working class would have been encouraged by the Spanish or German revolution to overthrow the bonapartist government that Stalin created.

STALINS reason for the purges was that they were 'fascists' or 'Trotsky-fascists'. I pity any person who actually believes that all of Lenins comrades (Rykov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Krenestinsky, and Smilga) were fascist. These people did put Stalin in jeopardy. They were part of the opposition in the 30s because they disagreed with Stalins totalitarian policies and they knew he was not a Leninist but an opportunist. That is the real reason for the purges. Good luck trying to find a justifiable reason for them because they simply don't exist.

''Why did so many people follow him unless they supported him?''
I'm not sure what you if you mean political support or support from the Russian working class.
Stalins political support is mostly due to the Rabkrin in 1919 when Lenin put him in charge of rooting out the careerists and the bureaucrats in the state and party. This put Stalin in the position of expelling anyone from there political position and replacing them with anyone he wanted. Like i said before, he expelled everyone who was opposed to him and replaced them with yes-men and his allies.

Stalins support from the working class was almost non-existent. Most people were 100% motivated by fear, others were motivated by the privileges that Stalin gave them (mostly maneges and politicians). If you look at all the mass rallies and celebrations at that time it was not the workers or the people who organized them and volunteered for them, it was the government who organized them and who forced people to take part in them.

Stalin killed people because they got in his way. Che killed people because they got in the way of the revolution, he killed people who took physical action against the revolution, he didnt kill people because they simply disagreed with him or disagreed with socialism. Stalin killed people who were simply disagreed with him.

[jjack]

I remember reading that Gorbachev ran for president of the Russian Federation and got his ass kicked by a voter.

I don't know how that should influence anyone's opinion, but when I think of him that's the first thing that comes to mind. And you know, I just love to post the first thing that comes to mind without actually thinking about it.

[atlanticche]

Just because Lenin wasn't a true ditator
though killing a lot of people
it doesn't mean he wasn't a leftist

[YKTMX]

Lenin wasn't a dictator, and everyone else to lead Russia after were crazy, backward egomaniacs, so none.

I'd say Castro is the only dictator I'd have any sort of respect for, simply for his stubborness towards the Yanks, they reallly really hate him and that's funny!

[lostsoul]

Excellenet response Dynatos II.

let me just clear up something. You said this:
“I do know where your coming from. Both claims that Stalin was 100% for the socialist cause and the claim that he was a power hungry control freak don't add up.”

That is my only real point. I definalty don’t want to defend him for his actions, but I wanted to point out all the contradictions of his life. I agree with you on 90% of your points, but a question I have been wondering for a long time is, why doesn’t it all add up? How come some people praise him as one of the fathers of communism, and others denounce him as the cause of its downfall? Years after when Bush is not in power anymore, I doubt the americian government will even go threw such lengths to denounce him. The Russian government reversed some of what he did, but spend so much time making him look bad. Yet why did the Russia government do it? While the Chinese government bitterly opposed what they were doing and still til this day hold Stalin as a “Teacher”? (mao once said, Stalin was 3 parts bad..and 7 parts good..and he kept that stance til the day he died, sept, 1976..i think 24 years after Stalin’s death.)

My personal opinion would have to be near Mao’s..Stalin was maybe at worst 50/50. But to me it looked like there was a battle, between pro stalin’s and anti-stalins’ and the anti-stalins won and therefore got to make history about him. Stalin himself was a paranoid guy, he didn’t releave much of his life to anyone, and once he died only accounts of his life were from anti-stalinist. Lenin worked on the revolunation, he destoried the old fucked up government, so of course people would be happy. Stalin was the new government, so perhaps that’s why they hated him. Before elections everyone loves the runners(they say “I will do this and that”), but when they actually do what they said they would do, people don’t like them as much since anything the country gains they will have to give something up in return(free health care = higher tax’s..or less social services..etc..) Mao was loved during 1949, but as soon as he started to change the country he was hated. What I’m trying to say is I understand certain hatred for Stalin, as for any leader, but I can’t understand why people would go threw great lengths for a dead person? I also know history is written by the winners, not losers. And the anti-stalinist were the winners, so that also gives me a bit of understanding why there is so much hatred towards him.

In regards to Stalin and international revolution, I have also noticed he seemed Sabataoged many revoluations. Like when the CCP had advantages over the nationalists, he would call them off, and make then make a truce. But that example was not him Sabatoging the revolutions, it was him putting his own countries interests first. He needed the nationalists to fight Japan, and didn’t think the CCP could win if they did. I agree he fucked up revolutions, but he wasn’t some crackhead that just did it for fun, he did it to basically protect his own country’s intrest. Sorry, I have studied china in some detail so I can comment on china. The ones you mention I have heard about it briefly, I don’t feel I’m in a position to discuss those, but I suspect there was a simlair motivation in messing them up.



I’m not satisfied with Stalin’s purges either. To understand my view on this, I will first go a bit off topic. India had its revoluation in 1947 and china in 1949. India has political parties that argue a lot, china has a dictatorship. At first I disliked the idea of a dictoratorship (and still kind of do.) but if you look at the two countries, china is stronger. Even though India had its revulation first and didn’t have a bloodly war. My explanation for this, is that when the chairman of china says to do something it gets done, when India’s prime minister says something 200 people argue it. That’s why I feel china has progressed so much compared to its neighbor India. Well now back to stalin, he had the chairman power. His country could make changes very quickly, so why would he purge people? Most people in the cabinet wouldn’t be able to ague with him anyways, they would simply have to follow orders. So what was Stalin doing that he needed them dead? He definitely didn’t need them to make decisions, so what were these people doing that was blocking his decisions? If not blocking his decisions, what was them being alive preventing him from doing? On one hand, I understand some people saying that that party was getting divided and if he didn’t strengthen the party, forgieners could destroy a divided soviet government.

I also think the Russian people supported him. Many books, anti and pro stalin, say that he spent most of his time in a small study room just working all day long. Why would someone who didn’t care about his people do that? If I didn’t care, I’d be drunk and high all day with a pack of girls. Yet there is no record of any of that for him. So what did he do all the time while he was in his study? He must have been doing something for the people. How long was he in power for, 31 years? What did he do for all this time? I’m sure figuring out how to stay in power was part of what he did, but 31 years is a long time to just figure how to scam the world, I would think he was actually trying to do real work so people would really think he deserved to be their leader.


My point before on hero’s being murders was just to prove that many of our hero’s have killed. And we know che killed for the revolution, but at the time the media made it look like he killed out of hate. Which is lies. Stalin, no doubt killed people who got in his way, but what was his purpose behind it? I don’t believe the argument he did it for power, because he already had power.


Thank you for your previous response, I just fear you may have misunderstood me, I am not trying to defend Stalin, he wasn’t a saint. I am just trying to figure out if during his time, his actions were needed to protect his country. I am not anti nor pro Stalin. I just enjoy reading your input on my idea’s, and please help me correct my mistaken ones.


Take care.

[Cassius Clay]

Sigh, obviously people are still stuck in the Trotskyite view of history.

While Trots act as Fascist spies during the Spanish Civil War, it is the 'Stalinists' who are accussed of wrecking the revolution? While Trot sits in New York Cafe's and Stalin is risking his life by fighting for Bolshevism it is Stalin who accused of 'Not being a Revolutionary'.

Lenin said that Trotsky decieved the workers, 75 years later and clearly he was proved right.

[Kapitan Andrey]

May be he was a leftist, but he was a bloodlusty-asshole-dictator!!! :angry:

[Aleksander Nordby]

Cant you just shot yourself with a shotgun!!!!

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Aleksander Nordby on 11:11 am on May 19, 2003
Cant you just shot yourself with a shotgun!!!!

hahha, that was pretty funny.

[Pete]

I would like to vote for V.I. Lenin and J. Stalin s'il vous plas.

Whoever said Castro is a dictator needs to go talk to Thursday Night for a bit of 're-education.'

Anyways, I find some of the replies to this thread extremely amusing. Arguing over what consists of a dictatorship. Read Lenin's "State and Revolution."


Futhermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necassary; but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority...

[Dynatos II]

Lostsoul, The same could be said about Hitler. Hitler was also very devoted to the German people and to the Nazi occult. He spent allot of time and risked his life for the ''good''(well... What he thought was good) for the German people. It would be extremely easy for any nazi or fascist to justify Hitlers actions and say he had good intentions. One could say that all the stories about the Gas chambers and the stories that he was insane were all made up by the jewish press. Just go to any Nazi/Fascist website and they all put up good points and are able to prove that they are true (only if you believe the stories are mad up by the jews). Since the Jews and the Allies were the ones that won WW2 the anti-nazies were free to make up stories about him. But we all know that Hitler did comitte horrible crimes (I hope you agree that Hitlers was a murderer). In the same way, Its posible to justify Stalins actions or almost any other mass murderer in history.

[Kapitan Andrey]

Aleksander Nordby...
Can you fuck yourself to death by VIBRATOR!? :biggrin:

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Dynatos II on 6:06 pm on May 21, 2003
Lostsoul, The same could be said about Hitler. Hitler was also very devoted to the German people and to the Nazi occult. He spent allot of time and risked his life for the ''good''(well... What he thought was good) for the German people. It would be extremely easy for any nazi or fascist to justify Hitlers actions and say he had good intentions. One could say that all the stories about the Gas chambers and the stories that he was insane were all made up by the jewish press. Just go to any Nazi/Fascist website and they all put up good points and are able to prove that they are true (only if you believe the stories are mad up by the jews). Since the Jews and the Allies were the ones that won WW2 the anti-nazies were free to make up stories about him. But we all know that Hitler did comitte horrible crimes (I hope you agree that Hitlers was a murderer). In the same way, Its posible to justify Stalins actions or almost any other mass murderer in history.


i understand what your saying, but in my opinion almost every leader has always wanted better for his/her people. From Stalin, to Hilter, to even Bush, its their methods that differ. With Hilter, there is also alot of inconsistanties, but for now i'm not concerned about him so i won't argue it. I'm not saying Stalin was the greatest man in the world, or the worst man. All i'm saying is that, i feel, we don't have enough information to pass a judgment without actually studying him. There's too many inconsistanties to believe everything you hear.

As time goes on, i am starting to think of Stalin like Chairman Mao. I surrounded by many chinese usually, and i would say like 70% of the ones i meet love him(like won't stop talking about him, have his books, etc...), 25% don't hate him or like him(they don't care about history..but still agree he was good), and 5% hate him(these ones seem to hate everything from china, and won't stop talking about america). BUT like 90% of the non-chinese i talk to say he is a murder and a "peice of shit".

An arugment i commonly hear about this, is that these people are brainwashed to love him, but i think its hard to brainwash an entire country(from farmers to the doctors..its hard).

i just apply these concepts on mao to stalin(since i have seen simlair things with Russians..except i don't know as many Russians so i didn't talk to as many Russians as i did chinese).

I just think its stupid to believe others, regarding Stalin many people say 2 + 2 = 5, and others say 2 + 2 = 3, its your job to study him yourself and figure out that 2 + 2 = 4

(sorry stupid example)

Take care

[GCusack]

I think Trotsky wanted to spread Communism to the other European countries and if he had been listened to then spain probably would have had a much better stand against the Facists, Germany would have had a very different hitsory, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Italy etc. All of these places had very influential left wings but because Stalin, along with many others, wanted a period of peace to reorganise Russia then it took Hitler's invasion to spark off the growth of Communism in Europe. the Great Patriotic war probably would have been much more a war on Communism than a war on Facism.

[smoer]

i only answer on this question:who was soviet greatest leader:Lenin

[WUOrevolt]

Kruschev because of what he said at the U.N. "All your children will be communists" And lenin was good as well and Trotsky

[Comrade Ceausescu]

lenin and khruschev!lenin was the originator in russia and he was a genius.khruschev brought a human face and outlook to russian communism!he was truly a great man and leader!it angers me that people are dislikin him here.i suggest all of you read "Khruschchev:the man and his era".its a brand new book and i gurantee that if you hate khruschv you'll at least move yourself to a position where you think hes so so.if think hes ok youll love him!if you love him youll love him more!Long Live Khruschchev and Lenin!

[ernestolynch]

Lenin and Stalin.

Lenin for starting the ball rolling, and Stalin for dealing with the Trots/Fascists.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from ernestolynch on 4:13 pm on July 28, 2003
Lenin and Stalin.
Stalin for dealing with the Trots/Fascists.

Moron.

How did Uncle Joe "deal" with the facists? It was the Russian people who died in their millions to beat Nazism, not Stalin. I doubt he even seen a photo of the front line. Your view of history as "a great leader leading his people to victory" is typical rubbish. If it was up to Stalin, he would never even have had to face Hitler.

Oh yeah, and how did he defeat the Trots? Trostky's theories and followers exist today in their millions. Stalin's followers consists of old men in cloth caps who think that Romania was socialist.

[ernestolynch]

Quote: from YouKnowTheyMurderedX on 5:54 pm on July 28, 2003
Oh yeah, and how did he defeat the Trots? Trostky's theories and followers exist today in their millions. .

I know - I slam the door in their faces when they come trying to flog 'The Watchtower'...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Again these silly boys with their Khruschev thing. Nikita was a capitalist. It is well documented and publically accepted. You kids need a history lesson.

The two best Soviet leaders.

Obviously comrades Lenin and Stalin for not only the reasons mentioned by comrade Lynch but also for turning their backs on revisionist scum like the little boy X here.

You should thank Stalin for wiping put the fascists you silly boy.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from YouKnowTheyMurderedX on 5:54 pm on July 28, 2003

Quote: from ernestolynch on 4:13 pm on July 28, 2003
Lenin and Stalin.
Stalin for dealing with the Trots/Fascists.

Moron.

How did Uncle Joe "deal" with the facists? It was the Russian people who died in their millions to beat Nazism, not Stalin. I doubt he even seen a photo of the front line. Your view of history as "a great leader leading his people to victory" is typical rubbish. If it was up to Stalin, he would never even have had to face Hitler.

Oh yeah, and how did he defeat the Trots? Trostky's theories and followers exist today in their millions. Stalin's followers consists of old men in cloth caps who think that Romania was socialist.


no one is pefect, but you can't hate on stalin so much. Stalin was a great teacher and leader of the socialist movements. His success and failures are equally important for us to study and learn from.

focusing on only his failures or his personal life, without giving his success some credit is not only immature, but if the left continues to do that they won't get the chance to change the world(they'll be too busy fighting with each other).

In my opinion, Stalin was a strong leader...the world feared him. Because of him no one wanted to fuck with Russia. He protected the revolution not destory it. If their was no stalin, it is very likely that the soviet union would have collasped earlier. Trosky was a smart man, but look how everyone scammed him in the USSR. Although i respect his work and life, i don't think he was strong enough to run the USSR(he was too nice).

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Lenin and Trotsky were the best leaders in the USSR. Lenin, for propagandizing and carrying through in the November revolution. Trotsky, for developing the Red Army to protect the revolution.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

comrade raf your a fucking idiot.how was nikita a capitalist?thats the dumbest thing i heard,next to you dickriding stalin.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now that was intelligent.


Please go back to school. Nikita Khruschev's platform policies were capitalist. Al.l of us real communist have known this since the sixtees.

You must subscribe to the "Ronald MacDonald" faction of communism.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

lol thats nonsense.your the one who reps stalin.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Would you like some fries with your happy meal boy?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

stumped for arguments are we?

[Comrade Raz]

Lenin was the greatest of the Soviet 'dictators' although i would not call him a dictator. I have little or no respect for other Soviet leaders. Stalin was a traitor to Leninism, he made Lenin like a God and Stalin his messiah and Lenin didn't even support Stalin. Partially maybe because Stalin was rude to his wife but still Stalins ideas and his methods of performing things would not have been appreciated by Lenin. Therefore Lenin is the only Soviet leader i can defend as he was the only one true to the revolution which he lead.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2003, 04:31 PM
Lenin was the greatest of the Soviet 'dictators' although i would not call him a dictator. I have little or no respect for other Soviet leaders. Stalin was a traitor to Leninism, he made Lenin like a God and Stalin his messiah and Lenin didn't even support Stalin. Partially maybe because Stalin was rude to his wife but still Stalins ideas and his methods of performing things would not have been appreciated by Lenin. Therefore Lenin is the only Soviet leader i can defend as he was the only one true to the revolution which he lead.

You forgot the part about Stalin importing fresh babies from Greece and Italy to go with his pasta entree.

Everyboby knows there's nothing like a nice Greek or Italian child to eat when you are having tortellini.

[elijahcraig]

Although i respect his work and life, i don't think he was strong enough to run the USSR(he was too nice).

Trotsky too nice? The guy was probably one of the most vicious military men to ever fight for socialism.

Krushee was capitalist, as RAF said.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

o yea to anyone who said gorbacheck...he was great!i die hard communist!great guy!only conceded to the downfall of the largest communist empire ever.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Gorbechev had nothing to do with the downfall of communism in the USSR. That was Khruschev's blunder. Gorbechev was only a capitalist squirrel trying not simply to get a nut, but to get a whole cache of them.

The avalanche created by Khruschev was unstoppable, as avalanches by their very nature are. The end only coming when it's energy has been completely expelled.

[TXsocialist]

what EXACTLY did the K-man do to "topple" socialism in the USSR?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now that's an odd question. He re-introduced capitalism into the USSR, as well as forced the USSR to become the USA's ***** in '61.


Review the thread entitled "Nikita Khruschev- your opinions" a few topics down.

[TXsocialist]

LOL, so erm, decensoring SOME books would be...reintroducing capitalism?

and that quote of yours simply shows me how stupid Stalin was:

gun=definite weapon

ideas=possible weapon,

guns=ideas

grenade=definite weapon

fork=possible weapon

grenade=fork


we should ban forks, and introduce the peoples plastic spoon.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 05:26 PM
LOL, so erm, decensoring SOME books would be...reintroducing capitalism?

and that quote of yours simply shows me how stupid Stalin was:

gun=definite weapon

ideas=possible weapon,

guns=ideas

grenade=definite weapon

fork=possible weapon

grenade=fork


we should ban forks, and introduce the peoples plastic spoon.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

I love psuedo-mathematics equations!

[TXsocialist]

...psuedo-mathematics, did you make that up?

LOL

I love people who say I Love and insert something that makes them look smart!

speaking of psuedo mathematics, why not ask Stalin-kid about it, stalin's little guns=ideas shit doesn't make the cut