Stalin and "Stalinism"

[A.J.]

From the Communist Party of Venezuela
World View [Optica Mundial]
Stalin and "Stalinism"
There has never been, before or now, anywhere, a personality more
hated and slandered by the world bourgeoisie and its mercenary
spokespersons, than the Georgian Joseph V. Dzhugashvili (December 21,
1879 to March 5, 1953). He himself discarded his baptismal name to
take the name Stalin, by which he will always be remembered in the
history of the humanity.
Imperialist propaganda has made a myth of that name, that of an
individual who personifies crime, evil in all its numerous
manifestations. In a century in which the bourgeoisies of the
countries fighting for the domination of markets unleashed two world
wars and caused millions of people to die, as in the 20th century, now
it only remains to place all faults, some real and some imaginary, on
the man called Stalin. Nobody names, of course, such a person as Harry
Truman, who had atomic bombs dropped on the very populous Japanese
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus causing hundreds of thousands
of civilian deaths. Or the cruel bombardment that Winston Churchill
ordered carried out against the defenseless German city of Dresden
despite its being inhabited then only by elderly people, children and
disabled people.
There was a time, as many may remember, when for Yankee propaganda the
personification of evil was represented by a German named Adolf
Hitler, and in recent times that role has been assigned to political
leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia and Saddam Hussein of
Iraq. At present, little by little, although on a smaller scale they
are trying to do the same with our president Hugo Chavez. This is a
technique that can be characterized as that of "St. George and the
Dragon," in which the role of St. George corresponds to Yankee
imperialism. It is the Anglo-Saxon mentality that needs to see in
every adversary a bandit.
In reality the purpose of this permanent campaign against Stalin,
which many people on the left echo blinded by a habitual
anti-communism, is to discredit in the eyes of the peoples the very
idea of socialism.
In present-day circumstances, when the world crisis of capitalism can
no longer be concealed, and the socialist solution is the only
feasible one, this campaign of slanders centered on the figure of
Stalin means in practice to try to lead the world to a dead end.
Therefore Washington's servants try to present false versions of
socialism – some real illusions created by the petty bourgeoisie– and
a distorted historic version of the concrete experiences of socialist
construction.
However, each day it becomes forcefully clearer that socialism is only
possible in which the national peculiarities and the situations of the
epoch in no way contradict the principles of scientific socialism of
The Communist Manifesto stated by Marx and Engels. Just as Lenin and
Stalin interpreted them in the foundation and development of the USSR.
It is helpful to bring to light here these significant words of
Alexander Lukashenko, current president of the Republic of
Byelorussia, speaking last September before the 60th General Assembly
of the UN in New York: "... fifteen years have passed since the end of
my country, the Soviet Union. This event has dramatically changed the
world order. The Soviet Union, in spite of all the errors and
betrayals of its leaders, was the source of hope and support for many
States and peoples. The Soviet Union guaranteed equilibrium in the
world..."
Stalin was without a doubt the main builder of the Soviet State, and
"Stalinism" was the master plan which, in accordance with that epoch,
made possible such a successful construction.
Jerónimo Carrera
(Published in the weekly Reason [La Razon] No. 571, Caracas, Sunday
December 18, 2005.)
Translated by George Gruenthal

[chimx]

this has nothing to do with history.

[Springmeester]

Good article, but why would de CPV concentrate on this while so many important things are happening in Venezuela? :huh:

[Vargha Poralli]

What is the purpose of this post anyway ? Any person with brain will understand why Stalin did what he did. What is the use for justifying crimes by a person which he has committed for his own pathetic love for power and out of fear of losing it ? WHY DEFEND A COWARD ?

[Tower of Bebel]

Even worse than I thougth. Do they really defend Stalin? There isn't a bit of marxist theory in this peace of text.

[cenv]

Oh, so the CPV is a Stalinist party... bleah.

Personally, I'd rather have no revolution than a Stalinist revolution. Stalinism quickly degenerates into a nationalistic, bureaucratic nightmare. Having a Stalinist revolution would actually help out the bourgeoisie, as it would apparently confirm many people's beliefs that Marxism is inherently flawed.

It's possible that the anti-Stalin propaganda is somewhat of an exaggeration, but that doesn't change the fact that Stalin was a power-hungry, counterrevolutionary bastard. Hell, anarchists and even other communists like Trotsky admitted that Stalin was detrimental to the fight for socialism.

The USSR wasn't socialist. Marx would've spat upon it. It was state-capitalist, and while I think the USSR's degeneration was probably inevitable anyway, a lot of it's bad qualities were thanks to Stalin's lead.

Stalinism's thoeretical value isn't much more than its practical value was in the USSR. "Socialism in one country"? Give me a break! Stalinists fail to let go of bourgeois concepts and customs as well as irrelevant historical battles.

As far as the article you posted, I don't quite see the point of it. It seems to be several weak points arguing various things with absolutely no reasoning or evidence. If you want to convince anyone to join the Stalin-praising, you're going to need a strong logical argument, or at the very least, a logical argument at all!

You talk about anti-communism, but if you want to refute the anti-communist propaganda, you're going to get a lot farther if you don't try to convince people of Stalin's worth. There's no point in defending dead people, especially dead people like Stalin.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This forum has gone to the shitters.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:13 pm
This forum has gone to the shitters.
Haha, you like to hang around the shitters.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:55 pm
Personally, I'd rather have no revolution than a Stalinist revolution.
That would say a lot about you, if only I knew what the hell a "Stalinist revolution" is. :lol:

[RNK]

We should all learn to take the example of every Communsit before us and use the knowledge their existence created in our future activities. Stalin did terrible things, but apparently he did some pretty OK things, too. Writing him off completely is infantile; we should rationally study his strengths and weaknesses, his successes and his faults, in order to weed out the good he did from the bad. We shouldn't try to twist fact and make him out to be a martyr like this article has done; but we shouldn't close the book on him completely, either.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:36 pm
What is the purpose of this post anyway ? Any person with brain will understand why Stalin did what he did. What is the use for justifying crimes by a person which he has committed for his own pathetic love for power and out of fear of losing it ? WHY DEFEND A COWARD ?
What crimes?

[chimx]

there is a 10 page thread on Stalin's crimes in the history forum.

[Whitten]

I meant real crimes.

[A.J.]

It's possible that the anti-Stalin propaganda is somewhat of an exaggeration, but that doesn't change the fact that Stalin was a power-hungry, counterrevolutionary bastard.

If Stalin was "counter-revolutionary" then how on earth could there ever be a...



Stalinist revolution

cuckoo! cuckoo!!!!

Remind me again. How many trotskyite revolutions have there been to date?



Having a Stalinist revolution would actually help out the bourgeoisie, as it would apparently confirm many people's beliefs that Marxism is inherently flawed.


Does anyone have the slightest idea what this gibberish supposed to mean?



Hell, anarchists and even other communists like Trotsky admitted that Stalin was detrimental to the fight for socialism.

what's "detrimental to the fight for socialism" is the menshivik postulate, adhered to by trotskyites, that there can only be socialism until there is first simulataneous spontaneous revolutions in 'advanced' capitalist countries(i.e. north america/western europe). Therefore saying that the proletariat outwith the metroplises of imperialism have to wait indefinately before any revolutionary action can commence. Now that is counter-revolutionary.


The USSR wasn't socialist. Marx would've spat upon it.

This blusterous statement exposes you as being ignorant of Marx's writings.

Marx, famousley, left no blueprint for how to construct socialism . Due to the fact there had been no preceding conscious experiments of socialism being constructed during his lifetime. Therefore how could Marx say "socialism will be like this". That would be utopianism.


It was state-capitalist,

You, of course, provide a shitload of primary data about the relations of production in Stalin-era Soviet Union to support your assertion it was "state-capitalist" *sarcasm*


a lot of it's bad qualities were thanks to Stalin's lead.

Now this is what I call idealism.



Stalinism's thoeretical value isn't much more than its practical value was in the USSR. "Socialism in one country"? Give me a break! Stalinists fail to let go of bourgeois concepts and customs as well as irrelevant historical battles.


The postulate that socialism could be built in one or several countries taken singly was made by Lenin. Are you calling Lenin a "stalinist"?

What the hell is a "stalinist", anyway? Just anyone who disagrees with the vulgar dogmatism that is trotskyism?


As far as the article you posted, I don't quite see the point of it. It seems to be several weak points arguing various things with absolutely no reasoning or evidence.

er, the article is a polemic not a history. It dosen't require "evidence".


If you want to convince anyone to join the Stalin-praising, you're going to need a strong logical argument, or at the very least, a logical argument at all!


The article contained more logical arguements than your confused incomprehensible rantings.


You are a prat of the highest order!

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:15 pm
there is a 10 page thread on Stalin's crimes in the history forum.
Yeah, fervent anti-Stalinists should really give it a read, if only to learn how not to argue their case. :)

[Rawthentic]

Does anyone have the slightest idea what this gibberish supposed to mean?
Sure...anyone with a basic understanding of Marxist thought. ;)
Stalin murdered millions of people, was a power-hungry bastard, advocated his reactionary 'socialism in one country' instead of proletarian internationalism.

All of his crimes, which would take up far too many pages to write, gave the bourgeoisie the power to slander Stalin as the incarnation of Marxist writing, which is of course not true. It gave them the power to make communism as an oppressive, totalitarian, and bureaucratic state, which it was under Stalin. Stalin and 'Stalinism' are the greatest threats to the international communist movement.

Your nostalgia with Stalin is quite sad. Get over it. Let the dead bury the dead.

[Whitten]

Stalin murdered millions of people, was a power-hungry bastard, advocated his reactionary 'socialism in one country' instead of proletarian internationalism.

Stalin and Lenin were responsible for the deaths of many enemy combatants during the civil war. Stalin was responsbile for the imprisonment and often execution of many traitors, criminals, and peasents who refused to surrender their land.

I dont know what you mean by being a power-hungry bastard, and its hardly a statement that can be backed up by facts.

Socialism in one country was a common sense policy for an under developed nation facing hostilities from many imperialist powers, infact without it its quite likly WW2 would have had a very different result... (funny that I've never heard a Russian say "you would be speaking German if it wasnt for us") Socialism in one country did not abandom revolutionary internationalism, it just applied t to a realistic situation, Marxism is nothing about idealism, the simple fact of teh matter is things would never have worked if it had not been for "socialism in one country".

[Rawthentic]

Stalin murdered those who disagreed with him, and his 'revolutionary' policies :huh: .


I dont know what you mean by being a power-hungry bastard, and its hardly a statement that can be backed up by facts.

Oh, really? Then why did he purge the Party of his opponents to be replaced by his sympathizers? Why did he exercise terror over the people of Russia? KGB ;)

[A.J.]

Oh, really? Then why did he purge the Party of his opponents to be replaced by his sympathizers? Why did he exercise terror over the people of Russia? KGB ;)


:lol:

er, the KGB was only formed in 1954. A year after Stalin's death.

I think it's quite clear you know jack shit about Soviet history.


Sure...anyone with a basic understanding of Marxist thought.

Well that's obviously not you, is it now. As displayed by this piece of ignorance....


advocated his reactionary 'socialism in one country' instead of proletarian internationalism.


:lol:

please, please stop with your verbal diahorrea. It's pretty obvious you don't know what your talking about.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Whitten+January 08, 2007 01:12 am--> (Whitten @ January 08, 2007 01:12 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 05:36 pm
What is the purpose of this post anyway ? Any person with brain will understand why Stalin did what he did. What is the use for justifying crimes by a person which he has committed for his own pathetic love for power and out of fear of losing it ? WHY DEFEND A COWARD ?
What crimes? [/b]
Just follow the events in History. And come to your own conclusion.


I meant real crimes.

Murdering Trotsky,Zinonev,Kamenev,Bhukarin,Tomsky,Rykov and many members of the Old Bolsheviks just for sake of safeguarding his own position.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials)


Socialism in one country was a common sense policy for an under developed nation facing hostilities from many imperialist powers, infact without it its quite likly WW2 would have had a very different result... (funny that I've never heard a Russian say "you would be speaking German if it wasnt for us") Socialism in one country did not abandom revolutionary internationalism, it just applied t to a realistic situation, Marxism is nothing about idealism, the simple fact of teh matter is things would never have worked if it had not been for "socialism in one country".


Great refutation theoretically speaking but sucks if when analysing its results today.Simply put Socialism in one country really meant opposing socialism in other countries. Just follow the activities of Comintern at those days and come to your own conclusion.

A.J

What the hell is a "stalinist", anyway? Just anyone who disagrees with the vulgar dogmatism that is trotskyism?

Stalinist originally meant any power hungry bastard who betrayed the workers and peasants for gaining power,murdered/discredited their own comrades out of fear of competition to their ambitions thus harmed Communism.

In this board any way it just means any foolish idiots who painstakingly distort history just to justify COWARDICE OF STALIN.


er, the KGB was only formed in 1954. A year after Stalin's death.

It was called NKVD , NKGB and GPU you brainless moron .Check the facts before you posting your idiocy.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+January 07, 2007 10:27 pm--> (hastalavictoria @ January 07, 2007 10:27 pm) Sure...anyone with a basic understanding of Marxist thought. ;) [/b]
So it's "basic Marxism" to think that the bourgeoisie would not have said anything bad about communism if Stalin wasn't in charge? You're so naive.


Originally posted by hasta+--> (hasta)Stalin murdered millions of people, was a power-hungry bastard, advocated his reactionary 'socialism in one country' instead of proletarian internationalism.[/b]
I agree that he advocated socialism in one country, but that it was "reactionary" and designed to "replace" proletarian internationalism is bullshit. It was not a theory on how to spread socialism(or rather: how not to :P), but it was a practice. And it was the right thing to do in the current situation: socialism was defeated everywhere from 1917-1921, except in Russia, Mongolia and Tuva. The mid-20s weren't exactly a time of enormous revolutionary potential, in case you hadn't noticed. :rolleyes:

But yeah, I bet that in your eyes, that practical measure completely negated the proletarian internationalism in the USSR, which was very present, and never abandoned. Nevermind that bit where the USSR sold weapons and equipment to Spain(but discussing the merits of the USSR's actions in that particular war probably belongs in another thread).

Or maybe that small occasion where the fascist puppet regimes of Germany in eastern Europe were all overthrown by the victorious Red Army. If Stalin really only, ever wanted to build up socialism in the USSR, then the troops might as well have stopped at Brest-Litovsk so that the Axis and the western allies could fight each other(but then again, doing that would also be suicidal, as the rest of post-war Europe and Asia would be in the US's hands).


Originally posted by hasta
All of his crimes, which would take up far too many pages to write, gave the bourgeoisie the power to slander Stalin as the incarnation of Marxist writing, which is of course not true. It gave them the power to make communism as an oppressive, totalitarian, and bureaucratic state, which it was under Stalin.
Eh? So you're basically saying that before Stalin, the bourgeoisie was unable to slander communism, or at least unsuccessful at doing so? Funny, I thought that the best anti-communist propaganda is still the image of "tankies sending in armor against the workers" in everyone's minds.

A "policy" that started, of course, when Krushchev opportunistically denounced Stalin for his own gain. In other words, if anyone is "guilty" of making the bourgeoisie hate on us(get a clue: if communism of any stripe is strong, the bourgeoisie will always slander it), it was actually an anti-Stalinist. :lol:


[email protected]
Simply put Socialism in one country really meant opposing socialism in other countries.
So let me get this straight: when you are not sponsoring adventurist attempts to spread socialism, which will definitely fail, while you are still weak(and therefore likely to be overthrown yourself, if you do indeed fail), you are actually opposing socialism forever and ever? :blink: Let's get back to this planet.


g.ram
In this board any way it just means any foolish idiots who painstakingly distort history just to justify COWARDICE OF STALIN.
Fighting your enemies(multiple ones at the same time, at that!) is cowardice?

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7189/incorrectxe2.jpg

[A.J.]

advocated his reactionary 'socialism in one country' instead of proletarian internationalism.

Could you actually try and explain how socialism in one country negates proletarian internationalism?

...The congress held that the working class, in alliance with the labouring peasantry, can deal the finishing blow to the capitalists of our country and build a socialist society, even if there is no victorious revolution in the West to come to its aid. The opposition, on the contrary, held that we cannot deal the finishing blow to our capitalists and build a socialist society until the workers are victorious in the West. Well, as the victory of the revolution in the West is rather late in coming, nothing remains for us to do, apparently, but to loaf around. The congress held, and said so in its resolution on the report of the Central Committee, that these views of the opposition implied disbelief in victory over our capitalists.

That was the point at issue, dear comrades.

This, of course, does not mean that we do not need the help of the West-European workers. Suppose that. the West-European workers did not sympathise with us and did not render us moral support. Suppose that the West-European workers did not prevent their capitalists from launching an attack upon our Republic. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be that the capitalists would march against us and radically disrupt our constructive work, if not destroy us altogether. If the capitalists are not attempting this, it is because they are afraid that if they were to attack our Republic, the workers would strike at them from the rear. That is what we mean when we say that the West-European workers are supporting our revolution.

But from the support of the workers of the West to the victory of the revolution in the West is a long, long way. Without the support of the workers of the West we could scarcely have held out against the enemies surrounding us. If this support should later develop into a victorious revolution in the West, well and good. Then the victory of socialism in our country will be final. But what if this support does not develop into a victory of the revolution in the West? If there is no such victory in the West, can we build a socialist society and complete the building of it? The congress answered that we can. Otherwise, there would have been no point in our taking power in October 1917. If we had not counted on giving the finishing blow to
our capitalists, everyone will say that we had no business to take power in October 1917. The opposition, however, affirms that we cannot finish off our capitalists by our own efforts.

That is the difference between us.

There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable -- without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.

What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital -- for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.



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

[Rawthentic]

Wow, you are so pathetic. Its just amazing, to the point that I feel it useless to respond to such lies and hypocrisy of yours.

You defend Stalin, a murdered, a megalomaniac, and at the same time you hurt the communist movement. Look, make a poll to see how many folks agree with your Stalinism, and then we'll talk. But that might be a while, because everyone knows what Stalin did. He is the greatest threat to the international communist movement. He murdered workers and peasantry alike. His crimes are inexcusable. Those who attempt to be apologists for what he did are like the Holocaust revisionists who attempt to rewrite history to falsely 'prove' that the Holocaust didn't happen and didn't kill 12 million people, or that Stalin didn't kill countless millions more. :angry: You think that, during World War II, in attempt to save Stalingrad, those soldiers sacrificed their lives for 'communism', falsely so-called in Soviet Russia? No, they did it for "mother Russia", and the "motherland", emotion added by Stalin who knew that people would not fight for his sick schemes.

How are we ever to progress with such reactionary thinking?

[Hiero]

Why is this in Events and Propaganda?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:25 am
blahblahblah
In other words, you can't defend your position seriously. gb2/chitchat/. Also, needs moar paragraphs.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:25 am
Wow, you are so pathetic. Its just amazing, to the point that I feel it useless to respond to such lies and hypocrisy of yours.

You defend Stalin, a murdered, a megalomaniac, and at the same time you hurt the communist movement. Look, make a poll to see how many folks agree with your Stalinism, and then we'll talk. But that might be a while, because everyone knows what Stalin did. He is the greatest threat to the international communist movement. He murdered workers and peasantry alike. His crimes are inexcusable. Those who attempt to be apologists for what he did are like the Holocaust revisionists who attempt to rewrite history to falsely 'prove' that the Holocaust didn't happen and didn't kill 12 million people, or that Stalin didn't kill countless millions more. :angry: You think that, during World War II, in attempt to save Stalingrad, those soldiers sacrificed their lives for 'communism', falsely so-called in Soviet Russia? No, they did it for "mother Russia", and the "motherland", emotion added by Stalin who knew that people would not fight for his sick schemes.

How are we ever to progress with such reactionary thinking?
The majority of the Russian people did not support communism in the first place, but they were generally quite loyal to the government out of their traditions. A lot of people were angry because of collectivisation and the atheist state policy.

Not to defend Stalin, but is'nt it symptomatic that most Russians actually does'nt care whether he murdered Kamenev and Zinoviev or not. A lot of Russians actually do support Stalin, and he would get 33% of the votes in the presidential elections, if they were held today.

[Louis Pio]

If Stalin was "counter-revolutionary" then how on earth could there ever be a...


QUOTE

Stalinist revolution



cuckoo! cuckoo!!!!

Remind me again. How many trotskyite revolutions have there been to date?


Considering Stalin's almost zero involvement in the russian revolution, this quote is quite funny. He stood on a concillationist line towards the Kerensky government, of course he shut up when Lenin returned and gave him a theoretical bashing. Whereas one can easily get a first hand account of the revolution by reading John Reed, who to the stalinists horror mentions Stalin only once but Lenin and Trotsky on most pages. Probably why they banned the book even though Lenin in his forword said it should be translated and spread all over the world.
Ohh well at least Stalinisms dead now, except from a few nutters.

[Dimentio]

One stalinist I knew defined true love as following: "True love is when my beloved would shoot me in the head if I would show any sign of doubt of my communist faith".

He was wonderful. What a shame he seems to have disappeared.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:57 am
We should all learn to take the example of every Communsit before us and use the knowledge their existence created in our future activities. Stalin did terrible things, but apparently he did some pretty OK things, too. Writing him off completely is infantile; we should rationally study his strengths and weaknesses, his successes and his faults, in order to weed out the good he did from the bad. We shouldn't try to twist fact and make him out to be a martyr like this article has done; but we shouldn't close the book on him completely, either.
dude thats what ive been saying since day one. Honestly i could not have put it any better

[A.J.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:45 pm

If Stalin was "counter-revolutionary" then how on earth could there ever be a...


QUOTE

Stalinist revolution



cuckoo! cuckoo!!!!

Remind me again. How many trotskyite revolutions have there been to date?


Considering Stalin's almost zero involvement in the russian revolution, this quote is quite funny. He stood on a concillationist line towards the Kerensky government, of course he shut up when Lenin returned and gave him a theoretical bashing. Whereas one can easily get a first hand account of the revolution by reading John Reed, who to the stalinists horror mentions Stalin only once but Lenin and Trotsky on most pages. Probably why they banned the book even though Lenin in his forword said it should be translated and spread all over the world.
Ohh well at least Stalinisms dead now, except from a few nutters.


Ohh well at least Stalinisms dead now, except from a few nutters.[/CODE]

^is this supposed to be some sort of joke?

Organisations you call "Stalinist" are currently leading countless revolutionary struggles across the globe of the proletyariat and oppressed peoples.

Trotskyism, in complete contrast, consists of a sorry-ass collection over-privileged
white-collar petty-bourgeois employees(school teachers, social workers, etc) and degenerate lumpen vagabonds in a few imperialist countries(principley England and France), prattling on about how much they hate "authoratarian stalinism" 24/7.

trotskyism is fucking joke!!!!! :D

:hammer: